voteforenvironment

[Birdy]

i'm plugging my ears and i can't hear you!

[Birdy]

Bradm wasn't running for office.

[Thorgnor]

excuses...

[dancingbear]

great post great dialogue.

i'm gonna vote for yours truly/momack in the next election.

[color:purple][color:brown]

Stephen prosper in his time

Well he may and he may decline

Did it matter? does it now?

Stephen would answer if he only knew how

[Birdy]

excuses...

Ahh, it's not an excuse. I'm not just going to jump on board of any and all policy because any policy is better than none. When in this case 'none' isn't really even 'none', just none to those who propose a carbon tax or a cap and trade. There's other ways as explained by me and as explained by Bradm of reaching out on the side of the environment. I'm no opportunist and just because it's there, doesn't mean it's good. So zing away my friend!

[dancingbear]

bokonon,

i feel for ya. there are definitely cracks/chasms that the working poor fall through. there is no doubt govt. should be helping to fill some of those in.

[Thorgnor]

Where's Canada's plan?

You asked.

And DB, I'm pretty sure that Bokonon was saying that the poor should rot, should not be given help from the government and therefore Bokonon's tax dollars, and should help them-fucking-selves... or maybe I missed her point.

[Birdy]

Zing!

[Birdy]

I think Bokonon was just trying to prove a point against the idea of a 'living age' proposed by the Green Party. It shouldn't be misconstrued(and isn't fair) to assume she just would prefer the poor to rot simply because she doesn't agree with it. And in my opinion, is too often the opinion of lefties out there.... seems a bit like a refusal to consider other alternatives as a way of support. A living wage (and let's be sure to differentiate between that and minimum wage) shows great potential for increased dependancy and to demotivate people from going to school, trying to get ahead, bettering themselves, etc. While I can easily admit that it seems like the be all, end all cure for poverty, it does little to help the human spirit. If we want a nation full of license plate punchers, sure, let's do it. But if we want a Canada full of culturally-rich, educated, intelligent citizens, than no.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Where's Canada's plan?

You asked.

Right, I did. In context of those who propose a carbon tax for Canada. Where is the plan like that being developed for coal-dependant communist countries for Canada who is heavily dependant on oil? THIS is what was missed by the Greens and Libs in their platforms. And this is what still remains unanswered.

[Velvet]

I thought that's what you were referring to, though I was trying hard not to believe it.

It seems to me the idea is they are cooking up a plan so that the poorer countries aren't flung into widespread poverty whilst complying with the greener initiatives. I'm assuming you're looking for a plan whereby Alberta residents can still get their $400 oil cheques?

[Birdy]

Holy f a c k

Why does everyone have to be so mean?

How does a living wage for Canadians help poorer countries from being flung into widespread poverty?

I for one liked the Green Platform, aside from a few things. Living wage being one of them.

[Velvet]

I truly apologise for making you feel like I was being mean - 'twas not my intention. Will respond more after obtaining Phish tickets.

[d_rawk]

While I can easily admit that it seems like the be all, end all cure for poverty, it does little to help the human spirit. If we want a nation full of license plate punchers, sure, let's do it. But if we want a Canada full of culturally-rich, educated, intelligent citizens, than no.

I don't want this to be construed as an endorsement for guaranteed living wages, because I have no informed opinion on the subject, and no horse in that race.

However, it seems to me that the 'human spirit' is such as to always want more than it has, which is why people propel themselves to become culturally-rich, educated, intelligent citizens with high paying jobs. The human propensity to always need 'more' and 'better' (for all the good and bad that it has brought us) would be unlikely to suddenly go dormant because of some policy initiative. IMO.

[Birdy]

Ooo wait. I picked the wrong post you were replying to.

Velvet - I would prefer the plan be cooked before it's implemented. What is the plan? I scoured over both the Green and Lib platforms and saw little, if nothing, that would HELP Canadian industry go green. Instead, these plans rely on a wrist slap and fines. Straight up, without the cutesy 'Birdy is an Albertan' comments, do you think we should be concerned about job loss and further hits to the industrial sector? If so, is this concern heightened knowing the recession we're all heading into? I'm not the only one talking of the potential for great harm done to our industrial sector should a carbon tax be imposed.

Don't post comments like i want to ensure Albertans get their oil cheques. Nothing could be further from the fricking truth. I want to ensure people have a job.

[Velvet]

Here's what I thought we were talking about:

The EU plan seems to aknowledge that the environment issue trumps financial gain and yes, even the status quo. In other words they admit that the immediate future might not be all rainbows and fairy tales, and some people might even have to look for work in other sectors. But they also have compassion for some countries that might be thrown into widespread poverty through compliance. I think for a rich country like Canada to stand up and insist on inclusion on that sort of plan would be crass and insulting on the world stage, to say the least. Yes some people in Canada would potentially be making less, and in some cases dramatically less than now under the EU plan, but this initiative isn't about saving bank accounts, it's about saving the planet. And remember, in the end breathable air and drinkable water will do wonders for the economy of the future.

In a sentance, the EU plan as I understand it is to prevent populations from starving to death in the streets. Canada is not in that sort of danger just yet.

[Birdy]

Okay.

I admit the future isn't all rainbows and fairy tales either. With or without a carbon tax, the future isn't all rainbows and fairy tales. Perhaps my position is heightened because I live in an area where job loss is so great that my friends find themselves consistently on EI, or consider moving away or in the least, constantly have to think about losing their jobs. It sucks, and that's being polite.

My position is that there are other ways to support the environment. Governments have it in their power to help our industry instead of penalize them through taxes. I want to see favourable positions instead of the unfavourable. I want to see my taxes go towards helping the auto industry develop eco-friendly lines and helping big polluters reduce their pollutants and giving provinces and municipalities more power to work towards these things as well. If we were all to work together, the change could be so much more positive. We wouldn't have to worry about a 55 year old man who loses his job as his company moves to southern Asia, and feels defeated in that he's too old to go back to school or get re-trained to do something else. We wouldn't have to see call-centre economies popping up around these now failing industrial areas. We could meet Kyoto targets and keep a little sunshine shining.

So while I admit, the Conservative plan fails in that it doesn't adhere to the prescription of the day, I like it because it projects the opinion that we should help our industry. And while I admit, the other plans laid forth do meet the prescription of the day, I don't like them because they subscribe to the notion that we can't all work together to promote change, and that they fail to address what we should do with all of these people who lose their jobs because of it and who won't be able to afford things like school or re-training because they don't have a job.

The environment issue absolutely trumps financial gain and the status quo. But why the opposition to working with industry instead of against them?

[Birdy]

However, it seems to me that the 'human spirit' is such as to always want more than it has, which is why people propel themselves to become culturally-rich, educated, intelligent citizens with high paying jobs. The human propensity to always need 'more' and 'better' (for all the good and bad that it has brought us) would be unlikely to suddenly go dormant because of some policy initiative. IMO.

I think you might possibly underestimate the certain level of content people have with the way things are. I don't think the human spirit is going to go dormant, I just think a number of more people are going to succumb to this content.

[Velvet]

The environment issue absolutely trumps financial gain and the status quo. But why the opposition to working with industry instead of against them?

That's what the Green Shift proposed to do, and that's perhaps why 240 economists signed an open letter supporting it.

[Velvet]

How did the Green Shift propose to work with industry? By fostering the alternative energy industry and making Canada a world leader in what the planet's largest polluters will be clamoring for in the years to come.

[Thorgnor]

If you believe that people are fundamentally good, then why would more money make them bad? Is money bad, or dangerous, or cursed or something? Does it have the clap all the time like Bouche? If you're getting by you turn down a raise?

The Conservative plan is the same as was released a couple of years ago now by Baird... it won't change because of an election, so you've voted to not make a new plan at all, instead of for any alternatives, including something other than the Carbon-tax.

This get a job stuff ain't gonna work either.

You don't like the idea of call-centres, or manufacturing job losses... I'm with you, a carbon tax would rip the shit out of many industries including world wide logistics companies, infrasctructure construction, technological development and research, but to maintain cuts to massive corporations in the process of trying to re-formulate the economy will only lead us to padding pockets. Huge (as in monied) corporations barely exist on the ground, they do most work through branding, as I'm sure you know. They keep little shops where taxes are high to maintain profile, like downtown office space. If these big corporations slide through on tax cuts by appearing small in labor and high in returns, and these big corporations collude in the electronic shift in business, retail and banking through investment, then they diversify their corporate holdings elsewhere in the world and maintain low-tax status on their earnings here in Canada. Our government demands that some jobs are brought back here through weakly coercive means such as tax breaks and in order to maintain a reasonable foothold many of these corporations keep small offices with large profits for the few who they still employ. These companies convince us that the technologies that they sell aren't products, but services, and the shift over-seas continues because we cannot compete with wages in India on basic service. A tax-break for these few rich heads of the corporations doesn't lead to garage projects, it leads to retirement investing that fuels the large corporations. Investment in Nike does nothing for sweatshops, or environmental causes for that matter because profits will continue to roll in. It feeds itself.

It sounds crazy but Layton knows what he's talking about to some degree, but being on the left he's assumed to be trying to nationalize the banks or some other unheard of thing...

As these big corporations get even bigger they begin to only focus on those who can afford their services and then we've left an entire group behind even in any reason to try and educate them, this isn't about human spirit, it's about money. These people can't pay for the technology, why teach them to use it. And since the government is focused on high returns for investment and profits for those "who employ" in order to stimulate the economy we subsidize the corporations in their moves to grow through more tax cuts, fueling their drive both to "capitialise" on wht they've already invested in tightening budgets, but alos in moving expensive labor to cheaper locations.

Tax-breaks are plane tickets to tax-shelters.

We have trouble in recruiting for the military, and much training is done in the North. Many Northern communities are short on housing and many other essential infrastructure projects that are both too expensive and too difficult for private industry to find as a good investment.

Many who would join the military say that they would prefer Canada to re-assume a peacekeeping role, many who support the military argue for the war in Afghanistan pointing to (re)construction efforts there. Why invest in a GST cut when we could be toughening up soldiers and training engineers in Northern Canada entirely through public investment in bonds? Tax cuts won't build Inuit houses. Neither will investment in corporations who have no stake in Canada. They do not have the stake that the Canadian population has. Good natured or not, we need work. Corporations were originally government formed to organise projects for limited amounts of time, we have abandoned their real uses. A government initiative would have the funding, the access to professionals, the workforce, and most inportantly the support of the taxpayers in knowing where their money was being spent and how wisely.

Rant over. Out of steam.

[Birdy]

That's what the Green Shift proposed to do, and that's perhaps why 240 economists signed an open letter supporting it.

The Green shift didn't propose to work with industry. The Green shift proposed to rob from industry and give their winnings to you and I. If you pledge to work with industry you don't penalize them with a tax. You give them incentive and money to change. You warn them that in the future there may be the possibility of a tax if they don't take you up on your good will. And when you impose that tax, you take your winnings and you give it back to them to show them the way. That is what I would consider working with.

All parties have it in their platforms to foster the alternative energy industry.

Aside:

[color:purple]Yay for economists.

Alan Greenspan was perhaps one of the most celebrated economists during our time. Remember that.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

If you believe that people are fundamentally good, then why would more money make them bad? Is money bad, or dangerous, or cursed or something? Does it have the clap all the time like Bouche? If you're getting by you turn down a raise?

The Conservative plan is the same as was released a couple of years ago now by Baird... it won't change because of an election, so you've voted to not make a new plan at all, instead of for any alternatives, including something other than the Carbon-tax.

This get a job stuff ain't gonna work either.

You don't like the idea of call-centres, or manufacturing job losses... I'm with you, a carbon tax would rip the shit out of many industries including world wide logistics companies, infrasctructure construction, technological development and research, but to maintain cuts to massive corporations in the process of trying to re-formulate the economy will only lead us to padding pockets. Huge (as in monied) corporations barely exist on the ground, they do most work through branding, as I'm sure you know. They keep little shops where taxes are high to maintain profile, like downtown office space. If these big corporations slide through on tax cuts by appearing small in labor and high in returns, and these big corporations collude in the electronic shift in business, retail and banking through investment, then they diversify their corporate holdings elsewhere in the world and maintain low-tax status on their earnings here in Canada. Our government demands that some jobs are brought back here through weakly coercive means such as tax breaks and in order to maintain a reasonable foothold many of these corporations keep small offices with large profits for the few who they still employ. These companies convince us that the technologies that they sell aren't products, but services, and the shift over-seas continues because we cannot compete with wages in India on basic service. A tax-break for these few rich heads of the corporations doesn't lead to garage projects, it leads to retirement investing that fuels the large corporations. Investment in Nike does nothing for sweatshops, or environmental causes for that matter because profits will continue to roll in. It feeds itself.

It sounds crazy but Layton knows what he's talking about to some degree, but being on the left he's assumed to be trying to nationalize the banks or some other unheard of thing...

As these big corporations get even bigger they begin to only focus on those who can afford their services and then we've left an entire group behind even in any reason to try and educate them, this isn't about human spirit, it's about money. These people can't pay for the technology, why teach them to use it. And since the government is focused on high returns for investment and profits for those "who employ" in order to stimulate the economy we subsidize the corporations in their moves to grow through more tax cuts, fueling their drive both to "capitialise" on wht they've already invested in tightening budgets, but alos in moving expensive labor to cheaper locations.

Tax-breaks are plane tickets to tax-shelters.

We have trouble in recruiting for the military, and much training is done in the North. Many Northern communities are short on housing and many other essential infrastructure projects that are both too expensive and too difficult for private industry to find as a good investment.

Many who would join the military say that they would prefer Canada to re-assume a peacekeeping role, many who support the military argue for the war in Afghanistan pointing to (re)construction efforts there. Why invest in a GST cut when we could be toughening up soldiers and training engineers in Northern Canada entirely through public investment in bonds? Tax cuts won't build Inuit houses. Neither will investment in corporations who have no stake in Canada. They do not have the stake that the Canadian population has. Good natured or not, we need work. Corporations were originally government formed to organise projects for limited amounts of time, we have abandoned their real uses. A government initiative would have the funding, the access to professionals, the workforce, and most inportantly the support of the taxpayers in knowing where their money was being spent and how wisely.

Rant over. Out of steam.

Dude, i'm with you behind the logic of the NDP. Problem is they promise too much. Universal daycare, near billion dollar job creation programs, useless commission officer positions, investments galore into industry, billion dollar investments in infrastructure, funding for organic farmers, funding for fisheries, funding for forestry, grants and debt relief to students, funding for child benefits, funding for housing, funding for healthcare, and the list goes on.

Sounds glorious, if it weren't for that whole holy shit, we're in huge debt thing. Jack Layton might promise up and down that he'll keep us from the red, but nothing in his platform shows me that he may do just that. Everything in his platform tells me that we're headed down the road of financial ruin. Imagine an NDP government elected and then faced with the kind of bail-out that the US was required to do (per capita basis)? F'ing scary. Where's that money coming from? You read the article d_jango posted over in the politics forum. The federal budget is narrowly balanced and may slip if real GDP declines, which it undoubtedly will, regardless of who was elected. If this happens and Jack Layton were our PM, he'd have to break a whole shit load of election time promises. Unless of course, he breaks his ultimate promise, and goes into deficit.

[Thorgnor]

I think I might prefer deficit to a lack of health care.

[Velvet]

[color:purple]Yay for economists.

With an argument like that I know when to stop.