News Why do countries nationalize their resources?

[Homer Simpson]

Hey Canadians, who are you going to vote for in 2006?? Why?? To be honest I don't get wrapped up in politics much, but I do want to get a good vote in.

Thanks!

 

[Smurf]

I won't be voting. Why?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=101700

 

[ek]

I am a leftist, but I will not be voting for the NDP or the Greens this year. My riding's 13-year MP (former president of United Nations Environment Program) is retiring, and the new guy needs as many votes as he can get. He is facing stiff competition from the NDP candidate. And as much as I like the Greens/NDP, I must vote strategically against the Tories. The Liberals need my riding, so I'm going to do my part.

Stephen Harper's campaign slogan is "Stand up for Canada". I say stand up for Canadians and don't vote for a guy/party who doesn't stand up for all Canadians.

Stephen Harper says he will the put the gay marriage issue to a free vote in the House. What he doesn't understand is that it doesn't matter how many people have a particular opinion if that opinion is fundamentally prejudiced and fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Martin believes a man who does not believe and stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should not be even attempting to run the country. I agree with Mr. Martin.

Stephen Harper is the only one out of the five major party leaders who is against equal rights for all Canadians. Mr. Martin, M. Duceppe, Mr. Layton and Mr. Harris all support equal rights for all Canadians.

There are lots of issues in this election, but (to me) the rights of the people of this country trump any other issue.

So, to answer the OP's question, on January 23, 2006 when voting for the Member of Parliament for the riding of Victoria, I will be putting my "X" next to "David Mulroney, Liberal".

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Ek, why not vote for the NDP? The NDP certainly won't be siding with the tories if the liberals and NDP have enough votes to overpower them. A vote for the NDP is simply a vote for the left.

If I could vote, I would vote strategically for the liberals (the NDP have no chance where I live).

Overall, I hope the NDP goes up in seats, the tories go down, the greens get a seat, and the bloc goes up. The liberals should stay where they are or lose a few seats. I don't want a torie government, but I don't want a liberal majority.

 

[moose]

I was about to say whoever Smurf ISNT voting for...but then I saw his post :(

 

[Smurf]

unfortunately that wouldn't work even if I was voting. We don't have a pure dichotomy on our political parties.

 

[fourier jr]

ndp, as always. liberals & conservatives are too corrupt & integrationist. ndp is the only other realistic choice iv'e got.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Hey Canadians, who are you going to vote for in 2006?? Why?? To be honest I don't get wrapped up in politics much, but I do want to get a good vote in.
Thanks!

Canadians vote for a party, not for a person.

they may vote for a party because of the lily person who will be elected by the party, but that is as close as it gets to US style elections.

I found it odd at first when my Canadian friend told me about it, but now I wish we had a more parliamentary kind of system... seems that more accountability is present in the system.

 

[revelator]

To hell with strategic voting. That's what keeps the thieving liberals in power.
There's no reason to be scared of voting NDP/Green. Even if the Conservatives take it, they won't pull anything more than a minority government, they would be powerless against a Liberal/NDP/Bloc opposition.
Although, I do want to see the Conservatives lose, just so we can get that fool Harper out of future federal elections.

 

[scorpa]

It will be my first time voting (just turned legal age) and I'm not sure sure who I want to vote for. I have no respect for the liberals and all anymore, and don't even get me started on what I think about the Bloc! It will be either the Conservatives or NDP for me probably. At the moment I'm not a super huge fan of Harper, but even less of a fan of Martin. Conservatives are probably most popular in my area so I haven't heard much of the NDP but from what I have seen I kind of like Layton...I'm going to have to do some more research on them.

 

[revelator]

Sadly, it seems to me that Gilles Duceppe has some of the best leadership of the bunch (the best of a sorry bunch). Unfortunate that he leads the Bloc.

I remember reading a poll (Toronto Star I believe) where people were asked who they would most like to sit down and have a beer with (another example of our media asking the important questions). As I recall, Duceppe scored pretty high.

 

[scorpa]

The first time I heard Duceppe speak was one of the debates they put on tv, I can't remember which one it was. Anyway, to me he came off as an arrogant jerk, but that could be in part because I don't agree with him or his parties goals.

 

[revelator]

Were you watching/listening in French or English? I find in English he generally comes off much more jerkish. In French, he comes off as wittier, and seems to be more easygoing. I wonder if that's done intentionally.

 

[fourier jr]

Sadly, it seems to me that Gilles Duceppe has some of the best leadership of the bunch (the best of a sorry bunch). Unfortunate that he leads the Bloc.

yeah he'd be pretty cool if he weren't a separatist. or rather, if he were a different kind of separatist, the kind that wants Canada to separate from the United States & have its own industries, etc.

 

[scorpa]

Were you watching/listening in French or English? I find in English he generally comes off much more jerkish. In French, he comes off as wittier, and seems to be more easygoing. I wonder if that's done intentionally.

Ah, that could have something to do with it to, I was watching in English, and everytime I heard him talk I just got more irritated.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm voting conservative this time around because I'm very strongly opposed to gun control. Paul Martin has turned gun control into a major issue in order to get what he thinks is the majority of the country to support him; that's why I think he's serious about actually trying to get this put into action.

That's basically the only issue I'm voting for. I think both the conservatives and liberals are capable of running the country on a balanced budget (the liberals are currently with a balanced budget). I support most ideas the conservative party has, but I'm very satisfied with the way this country is running under liberal control.

I don't exactly understand the NDP mentality. For example, it was proposed that GST be refunded a certain amount for families in certain income brackets. It sounds great in theory for those who really need it, but it takes too much effort. To refund maybe $200 of GST, you need to pay a guy who sort through hundreds of receipts and figure out how much GST you should get back given how much you paid and how much money you make. I can guarantee that the administration cost to refund $200 is well over $200, then you need to raise taxes to cover that cost. Who pays these taxes? That guy you gave the refund to. Is this helping? Not really.
Then there's the foreign aid idea. I have a better idea: change starts at home. Fix Canada, then fix the countries that suck. I would rather give a small portion of my money so my neighbor's kids can go to college rather than give that money to "forgive" the debts of some dictator ******* overseas.

 

[scorpa]

Hell yeah on the gun control! That was the biggest waste of money ever!

 

[revelator]

Gotta agree with you on the gun control. I have trouble believing the criminals would honor a ban on handguns. Even the gun registry sufferered the same problem, criminals don't register their guns. This is a perfect scenario of the Liberals offering band-aid solutions.

I can' bring myself to vote Conservative. One reason being is his willingness to drag us into America's wars.

"Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake. [...] The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position" (Stephen Harper & Stockwell Day, Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2003)

[edit] That he's willing to co-author an article with that fool Stockwell Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day (Canada's most famous creationist) is also troubling to me.

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25, 2002)

"Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." (Stephen Harper, Maclean's, August 25, 2003)

Another is his beating of the dead-horse same-sex marriage, and his praise for Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney both of whom I think left us worse off. I also disagree with his corporate tax cuts (which I should point out, the Liberals have also promised).

For me the only option is Jack Layton's NDP, while they are far from perfect. I consider them the best of a sorry bunch.

 

[ShawnD]

[edit] That he's willing to co-author an article with that fool Stockwell Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day (Canada's most famous creationist) is also troubling to me.

Oh that name takes me back a couple years. I remember Stockwell Day looking so awesome because of his political record (good with finances), but he turned out to be a complete moron. Thank god he lost the election.

One thing that really bugs me about Harper is how he reminds me of George Bush. Harper was born and raised in Toronto, but he tries to put on this show of being a westerner. Bush was born in Connecticut but tries to act like a Texas cowboy.


Here is some interesting information about the party leaders. It's good to know the back story...
Stephen Harper (conservative)
Paul Martin (liberal)
Jack Layton (NDP)
Gilles Duceppe (bloc, quebec only, suspiciously evil smile)
Jim Harris (green party)

 

[pi-r8]

Is there any criteria for who you call "the honorable" and who you call "the right honorable?" I notice that Stephen Harper and Jack Layton are called the honorable, Paul Martin is called the right honorable, and Gilles Duceppe and Jim Harris aren't called honorable at all.

 

[Zlex]

From what I understand, we're ****ed no matter what.

I think the most important thing is that a message is sent to Liberal party, by the people, that they can't get away with everything. The problem is that involves voting for someone else, and it just so happens that everyone else is a jackass too.

Go figure.

 

[ShawnD]

From what I understand, we're ****ed no matter what.
I think the most important thing is that a message is sent to Liberal party, by the people, that they can't get away with everything. The problem is that involves voting for someone else, and it just so happens that everyone else is a jackass too.
Go figure.

That's exactly it. It's the "lesser of the evils" situation.

 

[Smurf]

I thought you said you were satisfied, Shawn? You're satisfied with evil?

 

[ShawnD]

I can understand why you are confused. Our economy is doing good, unemployment is low, the budget is under control. All of these things are OK, but they're OK while a corrupt government is in place. Does that make sense? The current leaders seem to be doing ok, despite the fact they are corrupt.

 

[rocketboy]

I'm 17, but if I could vote, and when I can, it will be a no-brainer. I have been involved in politics for quite awhile, even worked for an MP two summers ago full time.

Conservatives are the only choice. Nobody here understands or can begin to imagine how much I hate the Liberals. NDP: let me just say that if they were to form a government I would move out of Canada - no hesitation.

I always get worked up about politics, I have extremely strong views and opinions on how I think things should be, and if I let myself this post would be pages long expressing them. But the thread is about who I would vote for, and I have given my answer.

 

[rocketboy]

That he's willing to co-author an article with that fool Stockwell Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day (Canada's most famous creationist) is also troubling to me.

NEVER call Stockwell Day a fool in that degrading context. I met him in person at a conservative party MP gathering after the last election (I was working for MP Dale Johnston so I was invited). Let me tell you a story, which will hopefully depict why I get heated when people degrade him.

At this gathering, I met multiple MP's, I would go around introducing myself (15, almost 16 at the time) and talking to them. I went up to Belinda Stronach and introduced myself to her. She basically muttered hi, turned away and ignored me, as if I was some kid of unimportance not worthy of talking to her. I was shocked at her rudeness, and now that she's a Liberal it all becomes clear that her spot was never as an MP of the Conservative party...Liberals suit her much better.

So after that, I went up to Stockwell day to introduce myself. He greeted and shook hands with me, asked about what I did, conversed for about 5 before excusing himself to go talk to some other members. He didn't let the fact that I'm a kid prevent him from treating me as an adult, not only an adult, but with equal respect as he gave to other MP's. I respect him for that. He is a great man, and you cannot deny that he has the charisma everyone claims the Conservatives are lacking.

So I would be very interested in hearing why you see him as a fool...your comment was not supported, and from what you have said I see no reasoning behind your insult.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Move out of Canada over an NDP government? What propaganda has caused you to believe an NDP government would be so horrid?

I would urge those thinking of voting for the conservatives to think twice. The entire liberal party is hardly corrupt, and the liberals have better policies overall. If you are voting to not vote liberal, at least vote for a party that has decent values. The liberals may be corrupt, but, at the very least, they have decent (not great) values - socially and economically.

Are conservative economic values what you believe in? Profit before people? Big businesses trampling over minority rights? Individuality being rewarded instead of corruption? Those are capitalist realities. Maybe you support capitalism, and, if that's the case, vote liberal. At lease they favor a mixed economy.

 

[ShawnD]

Move out of Canada over an NDP government? What propaganda has caused you to believe an NDP government would be so horrid?

He's probably basing it on historical evidence. Saskatchewan at one time had a conservative government, and some oil companies had arranged contracts for drilling and extracting oil and natural gas. An NDP government came to power after that, and suddenly all the rules changed; taxes taxes taxes. The companies picked up and left Saskatchewan; they never returned.
This same thing happened to Edmonton. We had conservative and liberal governments, and things were going fine. NDP government came in, and big companies left Edmonton and setup shop in Calgary which is just 300km down the road.

I should clarify that the success of a government is heavily based on tax rates, and NDP have historically supported higher taxes.http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html is a list of provincial equalization payments in Canada (look at the graph). Alberta has the most money, the lowest taxes, and a conservative government. Ontario has lots of money, still fairly low taxes, and has had a recent conservative government followed by liberal government. Saskatchewan is doing ok, has lowish taxes, and has had NDP government for quite a long time. Look on the other side of the spectrum. PEI is flat broke, they have insanely high taxes, but they have a conservative government. A similar tale of no money and extremely high taxes goes for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick each have 22% sales tax; that's 3x as much sales tax as Alberta (7%).

As long as we get a government that supports low taxes, we should be in the clear (financially I mean).

 

[kleinjahr]

I'll probably be voting for an independant, at least then he/she will be representing me rather than "The Party".

In any case better a minority government than a majority. It tends to reduce the damage they can cause.

 

[scorpa]

Just thought some of you may find this funny, I just got it in my email.

Question:
>
> How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives, and
> Alberta Conservatives.
>
> The answer can be found by posing the following question.
>
> You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
> children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around
> the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah,
> raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock 40, and
> you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and
> your family.
>
> What do you do?
>
> Liberal's Answer:
>
> Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the
> man look poor or oppressed?
> Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
> What does my wife think? What about the kids?
> Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
> his hand?
> What does the law say about this situation?
> Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
> Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does
> this send to society and to my children?
> Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? or does he definitely
> want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
>
> If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
> he was stabbing me?
> Should I call 9-1-1?
> Why is this street so deserted?
> We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a
> happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. his is
> all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days
> and try to come to a consensus.
>
> Conservative's Answer:
>
> BANG!
>
> Alberta Conservative's Answer:
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG! BANG! click...(sounds of reloading).
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG! BANG! click
>
> Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips
> or Hollow Points

 

[rocketboy]

Move out of Canada over an NDP government? What propaganda has caused you to believe an NDP government would be so horrid?

ShawnD had it partially correct. A social government like the NDP and its effects scare me.

Here is a "brief" explanation of why I could not live with an NDP government. Below are pieces of the NDP's stance on certain issues, taken directly from their website. With the quotes are my concerns.

Canadians want quality, reliable health care for everyone — not just those who can afford to buy it. That's why the NDP created public medicare in this country.

Well, they started off correct. We do want quality, reliable health care. The rest went downhill. No, sorry but public health care does NOT work. It has been believed for a long time that it would, all it needs is money. Face it, public health care is a disaster and will continue to be. People are just afraid of the alternative, private health care.

The trush is, there is a solution if people would just see it. Two-tier. If one wishes to wait in line for hours on end to find out their tumor cannot be treated for another 8 months, then they can feel free to do so. But people should not dismiss private health for those who CHOOSE it. If one can pay to have that tumor removed that day, why should they wait? Just because some people can not afford it doesn't mean those who can should not have the opportunity. Another thing, people would be putting money into health care themselves if chosen to take a private health care route, one of the biggest problems with health care (or so they say) is lack of money, this way, the money could be recirculated into teh program to keep it prime.

Why are so many people going to the USA to get "taken care of"? Because they have a private health care system...a system that people can count on. I'm not saying obliterate public health care, it is true not everyone can afford private. But not everyone can afford a Porsche, does this mean taht those who can should not have one? Give me a break.

(I would comment on education except that their site avoids the topic by blaming the liberals (which is undeniably rightfully done) but the NDP don't say what they will do...)

Every Canadian has the right to safe and decent housing. That’s why New Democrats in the 1970s created a world-recognized affordable housing program.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they criticized Conservatives for neglecting housing. But when they had a majority government, the Liberals abolished Canada’s housing program altogether.

As many as two million families now live in substandard housing. A quarter of a million have no home at all.

Last election, the Liberals said they’d build housing. But once elected, they tabled a budget with billions for corporate tax cuts they hadn’t promised — and nothing for affordable housing construction.

Ooooh this really "grinds my gears" (haha family guy). No jack, "safe and decent housing" is not a right. It's a privaledge for those who work hard enough to afford it. This may seem like a selfish, cold-hearted statement, and it probably is. But that's life, deal with it. It is not my responsibility to provide for those who do not provide for themselves. I should not pay, through my taxes or any other means, for the welfare of some crack-addict who can't support himself. Obviously there are those who do need social welfare, such as the mentally/physically disabled - people who can't help the way they are.

But I have ZERO respect for people who sit on the streat begging for money, or drug/alcohol addicts who have messed up their own lives and aren't willing to do something about it. There is nothing stopping them from getting an education, public schools ensure that. There is nothing stopping them from getting a job, except their own laziness/addiction or whatever it is. Why do we support these people who aren't willing to support themselves? They think they can just coast through life on other people's hard earned money. That is hardly just, it is criminal. Person X works his @$$ off to make money to provide for his family and the governmetn takes it to give to some addict so that he/she can buy their crack and live in govt housing. I can't stand it. In my opinion, these type of people are only hurting society, and for all I care they can live on the street, I will walk right by them as they beg for money. They can get a job and do something about it, nobody is forcing them to be poor.

Canada has the resources and expertise to help developing nations provide people with education, clean water, sustainable power and life-saving drugs.

Let's try getting Canada put together first ok?

Canada is stronger thanks to the skills and diversity new Canadians bring. With birth rates falling, immigration can help us build our 21st Century economy and keep our social programs strong.

By "keep our social programs strong" they mean "with new immagrants we will have more people to spend YOUR (the taxpayers) money on!" (joke)

Seriously, maybe we'd be stronger if the skills Canadians have didn't all go to the USA. I read somewhere that 2/3 doctor's educated in Canada go work in the USA. And they wonder why we have a shortage of doctors here...it doesn't take a genius to figure out. No, more immigrants will not build our 21st Century economy. Lower taxes and more privitization will build our 21st Century econdom. Lower taxes = more money that people have to spend = more money going back into our economy. Privatization = more money going into the programs people want adn are paying for = stronger economy. I think a pre-requisite for becoming a member of the NDP is "lack of economics 101".

Canada can invest to build the country we want — and balance the books every year doing it. We said we supported balanced budgets, and in the spring we wrote one that shows the NDP means it.

The next line should read "in order to balance the budget we're going to steal your money and give it to other countries and drug addicts."

Canada can create jobs by expanding trade and by investing in ourselves. But after 12 years of Liberal government, we’re losing high-quality manufacturing jobs — while new jobs offer less pay, less security and weaker pensions.

I covered most of this elsewhere...but I want to say that stronger pensions are just encouragement to retire early...sorry, I don't see how this helps the economy. Oh yea, I forgot to say above in the social section. If we're giving poor people money, WHAT is influencing them to support themselves? Obviously they are just going to keep on collecting their welfare because not having a job means free money. STUPID STUPID STUPID!

I'm starting to hate their website...they keep saying that things are bad with the liberals and that they need changed, but they don't say what they are going to do! Take this page for example: http://www.ndp.ca/page/2463

I have posted the link so that you can see the entire page and can't tell me I left somethign out on purpose. NOWHERE on that page do they say what they are going to do to make the situation better.

At teh top of the page they say "Canadians are proud of our peacekeeping role in the world. And when crises hit home — from forest fires to hurricanes — our military’s there when we need it."

No, we Canadians are NOT proud of our peacekeeping role in the world. Our military is a disgrace, and this is coming from somebody who plans on becoming a Canadian fighter pilot prior to going to NASA. I can't criticize the NDP here unfortunately because they refrain from saying anything.

Canadians support fair taxes when government invests responsibly in people’s priorities — such as training for young people, care for our seniors and health care for everyone.

Sorry NDP, but tax raises are not under my definition of fair taxes...in fact, I think it falls under the category of CRIMINAL.

The NDP believe (as most socialists do) that people should give the government their money for the govt to take care of them. Look, it is exactly what they are saying here! "when govt invests in responsibilities for people's priorities" YOU SEE? I believe in the opposite, small govt. The NDP is proposing "BIG" govt. The less govt the better, I want to be free.

So there you have a "brief" intro to my thoughts. I did warn you above

I always get worked up about politics, I have extremely strong views and opinions on how I think things should be, and if I let myself this post would be pages long expressing them. But the thread is about who I would vote for, and I have given my answer.

Can I say...I told you so? lol. Happy posting, I'd be very interested to hear other people's views on what I have said above. "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." (John Locke if I remember correctly).

 

[scorpa]

I'm personally kind of disappointed with the stances all of the major parties seem to take on education...or should I say that none of them seem to make an issue of it. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places but it didn't seem to me that any of them really appeared to address the issues of rising tuition, class sizes and all of that stuff.

 

[ek]

Paul Martin has addressed education a bit. See this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/nb/story/nb_students20050106.html

 

[rocketboy]

Come on, we all know that the liberals will not do anything about education once in power...they'll find some way to skirt around the topic, or make it appear as if they're doing something about it when they aren't. It's the Liberal way, it's in their blood, they can't help it. But we can - by making sure they lose the election.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The liberals will do a lot more for education than the capitalist pigs of the conservative party.

 

[rocketboy]

Conservatives understand that education is necessary in order to produce individuals who will amount to something and become an integral part of the business world in one way or another. Education is a must for a strong economy, without future generations to take the place of other successful people in society the economy will fall.

Liberals understand issues from a different perspective. They don't see how they can make the country better, they only see how they can lie and decieve in order to maintain power. They aren't looking out for the citizens of Canada, they are only looking out for themselves. They are the pigs.

You say "the liberals will do a lot for education". Where did you get this notion? In the past, what is it, 15ish years, have the Liberals done anything to help education? The education system is in shambles, at my local high school (which I do not attend thank god) they call the gr 12 class "potential grads" because it's likely that most will fail. This isn't a special case...the Liberals have destroyed public education...along with public health care, the justice system, national defense, international relations, the economy, gun control...must I go on?

 

[scorpa]

Liberals may address it on their website, but the way I see it they have had plenty of time in power to actually do something about it and never have. Maybe instead of wasting an insane amount of money on having people register their guns among other things, that money could have been put into something that will actually see results such as education. There are way to many poor schools out there that are barely functioning for governments to not take notice. My high school actually ran out of paper halfway through the year, and its happened more than one, I don't think it will be open much longer. When I graduated it offered the bare minimum courses, I was lucky I was even able to take physics as they wanted to cancel it. Kids come out of that school, not knowing about any of the opportunities availible to them. I just don't see why none of the parties are more concerned about the state of education, you would think they would want a more educated, knowledgeable public, but I guess not.

 

[rocketboy]

Liberals may address it on their website, but the way I see it they have had plenty of time in power to actually do something about it and never have. Maybe instead of wasting an insane amount of money on having people register their guns among other things, that money could have been put into something that will actually see results such as education.

EXACTLY! They are hopeless.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Conservatives understand that education is necessary in order to produce individuals who will amount to something and become an integral part of the business world in one way or another. Education is a must for a strong economy, without future generations to take the place of other successful people in society the economy will fall.

Liberals understand issues from a different perspective. They don't see how they can make the country better, they only see how they can lie and decieve in order to maintain power. They aren't looking out for the citizens of Canada, they are only looking out for themselves. They are the pigs.

You say "the liberals will do a lot for education". Where did you get this notion? In the past, what is it, 15ish years, have the Liberals done anything to help education? The education system is in shambles, at my local high school (which I do not attend thank god) they call the gr 12 class "potential grads" because it's likely that most will fail. This isn't a special case...the Liberals have destroyed public education...along with public health care, the justice system, national defense, international relations, the economy, gun control...must I go on?

I didn't say the liberals would do a lot for education. I said they would do a lot more than the conseratives. A lot more than nothing isn't very much.

The conserative solution is to privatize everything. Sure, they might let health care stay public, but it would degenerate due to conservative tax cuts. Education would be better in wealthy communities under a conservative government. The poor would have little chance of success. I am not saying the liberals do much better, but, with the NDP, they are are accomplishing things.

 

[scorpa]

You say it as though all the liberals need is a chance and they will do something for education. What's been stopping them the past few years that they have been in power from supporting education? They may say that they will do something, but I think that they have proved they will do nothing. As has been said before, we are stuck picking the best of a bad bunch, no party is even close to being good in my opinion, but I do think that we need to see change from what we have now. The liberals have had their chance to prove themselves and failed dismally, I just don't think they deserve to stay in power.

 

[Treadstone 71]

NDP. Liberals are too corrupt and a counter-example to Fermat's Last Theorem will be found before I vote for CPC.

 

[rocketboy]

Here's what I don't understand. Most people agree that change is needed, and that a Liberal govt. is out of the question due to the corruption and the lack of government when it's needed. So why do people still vote for them? Are they that afraid of a conservative govt.?

NDP. Liberals are too corrupt and a counter-example to Fermat's Last Theorem will be found before I vote for CPC.

CPC as in the communist party? A vote for the NDP is pretty close as far as Canada goes IMO.

 

[scorpa]

I was watching the news last night and apparently right now if a vote was taken conservatives would win but a minority government would be formed. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that traditionally, the conservatives biggest problems were gaining votes in the eastern areas which tend to be more supportive of the liberals. I think this time they are gaining more support in the east and might actually be able to pull it off. It's to bad that it will end up being a minority government though.

 

[rocketboy]

I was watching the news last night and apparently right now if a vote was taken conservatives would win but a minority government would be formed. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that traditionally, the conservatives biggest problems were gaining votes in the eastern areas which tend to be more supportive of the liberals. I think this time they are gaining more support in the east and might actually be able to pull it off. It's to bad that it will end up being a minority government though.

Yes it is too bad, but it is a start! Perhaps if a conservative government is given the chance people will lose their fear of "the right wing" and they will see how much better Canada is, and in the following election we will have a majority!

I agree, the biggest difficulty is in the east, and Quebec. Also in the big cities I think the Liberals tend to traditionally win more seats.

 

[scorpa]

It's true it is a start. But with a minority government won't it be much harder to implement change? The leader of the minority government will constantly have to comprimise with the opposition, which if their views are different enough could lead to a political deadlock. Hopefully this would not happen, and the conservatives will be given a full chance at making their government work.

 

[ShawnD]

The trush is, there is a solution if people would just see it. Two-tier. If one wishes to wait in line for hours on end to find out their tumor cannot be treated for another 8 months, then they can feel free to do so. But people should not dismiss private health for those who CHOOSE it. If one can pay to have that tumor removed that day, why should they wait?

My feelings exactly. A few years ago, my mom needed surgery to remove a small piece of bone on her foot which was causing her a lot of pain when she wore shoes. She was on a waiting list for 5 months to have the surgery to remove that piece of bone. Both of my parents have excellent health insurance, so it would be more than reasonable to have this problem fixed by private health care, but there just aren't any private hospitals.

Having 2-tier health doesn't just benefit those who can afford it, it benefits those who choose to stay with the public health system. Suppose you're #10 in line for surgery. 5 people ahead of you decide they want to get the problem fixed immediately, so they go to private health care. Suddenly you're #5 in line, but you're still in the public line. Everybody wins. Who loses?

I'm personally kind of disappointed with the stances all of the major parties seem to take on education...or should I say that none of them seem to make an issue of it. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong places but it didn't seem to me that any of them really appeared to address the issues of rising tuition, class sizes and all of that stuff.

How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

 

[ComputerGeek]

My feelings exactly. A few years ago, my mom needed surgery to remove a small piece of bone on her foot which was causing her a lot of pain when she wore shoes. She was on a waiting list for 5 months to have the surgery to remove that piece of bone. Both of my parents have excellent health insurance, so it would be more than reasonable to have this problem fixed by private health care, but there just aren't any private hospitals.
Having 2-tier health doesn't just benefit those who can afford it, it benefits those who choose to stay with the public health system. Suppose you're #10 in line for surgery. 5 people ahead of you decide they want to get the problem fixed immediately, so they go to private health care. Suddenly you're #6 in line, but you're still in the public line. Everybody wins. Who loses?
How is it an issue exactly? Canada has some of the most educated people in the world, one of the highest literacy rates, and incredibly low tuition rates. Do you know what a year of university costs in Alberta? NAIT's tuition is $3200, and the equipment there is top notch. Hundreds of computers, a few dozen gas chromatographs, a few liquid chromatographs, several mass spectrometers, and even a few atomic absorption/emission spectrometers (those cost more than $150,000 each). Class sizes are about 20 students per theory class and 10 students per lab class. I've also gone to University of Alberta with a friend and the story is about the same - 10 people per lab, 20 per theory class.

I think the best solution is single payer health. Private Point of care but the government pays (and regulates the prices)

then hospitals can get donations and such to maintain good and up to date facilities, and the people can get well baby visits, prescription coverage, and many other things.

if you want more care options (such as bariatric surgery, or no co-pays, etc) then buy some supplemental insurance.

it is similar to two-teir, but everyone gets the same speed of care (moderately fast care) like in the US now.

 

[ShawnD]

I think the best solution is single payer health. Private Point of care but the government pays (and regulates the prices)

What you suggested is how Alberta's telephone system works. The one phone company is Telus, it's privately owned, but it's government regulated. It actually works quite well.
I completely support your proposed healthcare system.

 

[ComputerGeek]

What you suggested is how Alberta's telephone system works. The one phone company is Telus, it's privately owned, but it's government regulated. It actually works quite well.
I completely support your proposed healthcare system.

That is how the phone system worked(and still works) after the ma Bell break-up in the 80's here in the US too.

now however, I fear that with SBC in control of 2/3 of the US market again, we might be seeing a return to the bad old days.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Two tier health care is unacceptable. Every individual should have the best possible access to medical care. It's a fundamental human right. To give the rich better access to medical care is hiearchical and inhumane. If one person gets the best, everyone should get the best. Conservatism comprimises the poor for the benefit of the elite. The NDP wants everyone to be the elite. Though many leftist policies seem difficult to implement, they are possible to implement; therefore, we should be supporting leftist policies. If private health care becomes popular, the proletariat should burni down bourgousie property around the country.

Thankfully, I don't see private health care becoming popular in this country. If the conservatives win the election, the other parties will support very few conservative policies. Remember, the bloc aligned for political reasons - not policy reasons. They are social democrats.