• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government Falls! The 2006 election thread

Mike_R23A said:
This is what drives me nuts, the sense of entitlement some have towards a post-secondary degree. No you are not entitled, you must earn it. Both academical and fiscally. College or University is not simply "what happens the year after grade 12", and the less effort that goes into obtaining something, the less value it has. 

So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations? What about the rich kids who get Mommy and Daddy to pay for everything? How is it going to affect THEM whether or not education is paid for? They won't earn it either way!

Oh well, guess we have now moved on to a Caste system in Canada. Awesome.
 
Frederik G said:
So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations? What about the rich kids who get Mommy and Daddy to pay for everything? How is it going to affect THEM whether or not education is paid for? They won't earn it either way!

Everyone knows that educating the masses is the first step to revolt. Afterall, why do we need University, there are plenty of Call Centre jobs out there.  ::)
 
Frederik G said:
So what you're basically saying is, poor kids should work like beasts and really earn their college educations?

No I didn't say that at all. I said no one should expect someone else to pay it for them. They are not entitled to it, it is not a right.
 
Frederik G said:
Oh well, guess we have now moved on to a Caste system in Canada. Awesome.
I would say that is a false statement.  We have not 'now moved into a Caste System in Canada"; we have always been in one.  It isn't as formalized as in other cultures, but it is still there under the surface.  You have Blue Collar workers, White Collar worker, etc.  It is there, but we allow Canadians to work hard to move to a higher Caste more than in other Nations where more stringent rules are enforced.  The Paul Martins, KC Irvings, Brian Mulruneys, Trudeaus, Desmaurais, Strongs, etc., are not in the same caste as John Q Public.  There will always be caste systems, even if they are hidden, as in Canadian society.

There will always be 'Elitists' in any society.  In Canada, there are numerous instances of Political Elitism, Educational Elitism, Economic Elitism, and the list goes on.  In the Military we, of course have the Rank system.  You will also find that in Police Departments, Fire Departments, Para Medics, Coast Guard, Civil Services, etc.  The higher you make it on the 'scale', the easier it is to provide your children with an education to have them enter the 'caste system' at a higher level than you did.

In the end: "Life isn't Fair".
 
I agree, George, but I meant "caste" as it is often conceived: an Indian-style system where you absolutely cannot move from one caste to the other, and especially cannot be helped to move up.

Seems to me that the people who say "people should pay their own way" and whatnot, are following exactly the same school of thought. If you were born as white trash, you'll die as white trash. If you were born to a "good family" who can send you to school, then you'll go to a good school, get a degree, and rule over the white trash.

You said we "allow" people to move into higher castes, but it is near-impossible for someone who was born in a trailer park to get good grades and somehow get enough money to go to College, unless they get some government help. (I'm not saying the entire cost should be granted, just enough that people can afford it without ruining their health.) The problem is, people are saying that government help shouldn't be given.

What that means is, basically, that if your family can help you out, you'll go to College and if they can't, well, you better suck it up and find something else to do, and that's the sticking point for me.
 
Mike_R23A said:
This is what drives me nuts, the sense of entitlement some have towards a post-secondary degree. No you are not entitled, you must earn it. Both academical and fiscally. College or University is not simply "what happens the year after grade 12", and the less effort that goes into obtaining something, the less value it has. 

There is nothing wrong with working for a while after high school before pursuing a post-secondary education. In fact these people were by far the most motivated group of student on campus from what I saw. They had enough life experience to know what they wanted to do in life, and they treated school seriously.

+1

While the eariler "'Boomer" comment feels justified to me as well, since most major policy decisions are made by the generation who has grown up having everything their way, I can't help but agree with Mike_R23A when he says there's nothing wrong with working for your education.

I did, and I feel that I'm a better developed person for it.

HOWEVER... even working nights and going to school during the day didn't provide me with enough cash to survive on my own, and as such, I couldn't afford to eat all the time, I couldn't afford to buy every text that I wanted to, and I couldn't always afford to pay my rent on the 1st of the month. I'd spent time (2yrs) working before I went to school, and managed to scrounge barely enough to pay for my first year... after that I ate a lot of Mr. Noodles, rice, and fell asleep in class more times than I care to admit. I couldn't afford to ride the bus, so I was riding my bike to school in ice-rain, and snow.... or I was hopping on the bus' back door... hoping I wouldn't get caught because I needed my 2.25 to buy supper for that night.

I had to stop going to the gym, because it made me too hungry, so I ended up losing weight, and strength (which I've not quite been able to recover from). I had to go into a social coma because I couldn't afford to go anywhere or do anything, no friends, no girls. My health deteriorated, and I caught a record number of colds... it was bloody depressing. I ended up getting a student loan just so that I could eat, take the bus, and pay my rent and other monthly bills, and now I'm saddled with thousands of dollars of debt, that, from where I stand, seems insurmountable.

There's nothing wrong with 'working like a beast' for your education, but there IS something wrong when working still isn't enough to cut it.... I feel I've developed some pretty strong coping skills, and are a stronger person for having to undergo that sort of experience, but if I had missed a single paycheque, I would have totally lost it, and been unable to recover.... thoughts of Bankruptcy have floated through my head a few times.... and when I was at university back in 2001, someone in the same sort of situation as me, took a dive out of a window because the pressure was too much for him. Those years are not years I look back upon fondly...

I'm no liberal supporter, and I'm not saying their plan is any good. I'm not a financier. But the system is a harsh one for students who are willing to work and really want an education.... it shouldn't be out of reach for those who are capable and willing, and who don't have mommy and daddy to fall back on.
 
In most cases, what you have been talking about is the fact that some are not as 'able' to get the education.  That is true, but hard work to achieve a goal is more rewarding, than a handout.  Handouts are not a reliable source of funding for any endeavour.  Who is to say that there will be an equally charitable handout next year or the year following?  The people who have worked hard to achieve a higher position in life, can in turn provide better opportunities for their children.  

If we work for what we want in life, we have a better appreciation of what we achieve.  Giving people money from EI, Student Loans, or any other 'Plan' only perpetuates the "Welfare Philosophy" that is spreading across the land in many 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation "Welfare Families".  As their Base grows, the number of people who pay the Taxes to support them shrinks.  Some of these people are milking the system, not getting Degrees or Jobs, not paying back Student Loans, not contributing to the betterment of the country.  Paying half a students tuition is only encouraging them to continue to live off the hard work of others.

As I jokingly said earlier, if they bring this into effect, do I have the opportunity to also claim for half of my tuition, that I paid years ago?  I have worked hard ever since to pay off my Student Loan and to pay Taxes.  Do I have any chance of recouping any of those funds?  Can you imagine the amount of money the Gov't would have to shell out to do that, let alone the whole creation of a new Dept to administer it?
 
Lance Wiebe said:
I must be thick.  I simply cannot figure out why the taxpayer should pay any tuition, for any students.  Tax free loans, sure.  How does the taxpayer benefit from a new batch of BA's, or Poli-Sci students graduating? 

Would you like the people running the country to be educated or to walk into government and politics with about as much subject matter knowledge as I have of physics? The fact of the matter is that for alot of jobs, they don't care which degree you have, just as long as you have a degree. Whether it's physics, bio-chemistry, or art-history doesn't matter - it's simply the fact that you have a degree. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. That's what the employers want. Some jobs are different. Try getting a policy position in government without (at LEAST) a BA in poli-sci or related field. Nowadays you're more likely to need a Master's in Public Policy and Public Administration [MPPPA] or similar graduate degree (read: poli sci).

Actually, upon reflection, helping some disadvantaged may be of some assistance down the road, but only if they learn trades, maybe.  In my opinion, we don't need more "professional students", with little incentive to earn their own way.....

42% of our population is university/college educated. What level of education is necessary to qualify one as a "professional student"? Master's degree? PhD? What fraction of that 42% do you think is quarternarily (beyond undergrad) educated if only 42% has an undergrad degree? I'd wager not a whole lot and nowhere near enough to be concerned about "professional students".

As for trades, I agree we need more. I wouldn't say we need to fund them to the exclusion of university degrees, though. I don't understand the disdain people seem to have for a degree - I'm sure they don't mind their doctors having degrees when they're being operated on, or their lawyers having degrees when they're defending them, or psychiatrists having degrees when they're counselling a severely depressed/drug addicted family member.
 
The sense of entitlement of students towards a University degree is one thing, however, very few posters have supported that notion.  The majority of persons, however, are concerned with the fact that the cost of a University education, is rapidly moving away from the realm of a student being able to finance his or her education.  This translates to fewer post-secondary students, and also translates to university students being selected on who can pay, vice who can achieve.  One also has to realise that in many fields, take Biotechnology for example (according to the Government of Canada, produces $2 billion in revenue annually), it takes 7-10 years of education to produce a researcher(BSc, MSc, and PhD), and in a technology driven market it is research and innovation that drive profit.  Increased studet debt loads, will in translate into higher wages, or those professionals seeking greener pastures abroad.

To be sure, we need more tradespeople.  That is a matter that needs to be addressed in the secondary education system, and the advantages of an apprenticeship versus university need to be articulated.

But as Ape said below, there's only one way to train Physicians, there's only one way to train Lawyers, and there's only one way to train Scientists, and if current trends continue, your going to have to accept that there's going to be less of them, and the fact that Mommie and Daddie's bank balance isn't a very good predictor of professional ability.
'
 
Liberals attack on eve of debate
Tories would run up $12.4B deficit: Martin

Mark Kennedy and Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, January 09, 2006

The two major contenders in the Jan. 23 election traded blows Sunday, with Paul Martin's Liberals attacking Stephen Harper's fiscal credibility, while the Tory party demanded the ethics commissioner investigate allegations of a leak prior to Ralph Goodale's income trust announcement.

Martin's campaign said the Conservative leader would run up a deficit of at least $12.4 billion over five years if elected in two weeks.

That figure came from what the Grits said was a detailed analysis of the Conservatives' campaign spending promises. According to the projections, the effects of Harper's platform -- in both tax cuts and new expenditures -- would cumulatively outstrip government revenues by $12.4 billion by 2010-11. The Liberals also said the cumulative deficit could be much higher -- as high as $23.4 billion to $52.4 billion over five years.

The Conservatives countered that Martin's criticism of Tory spending plans is nothing more than a blatant attempt to divert public attention from his scandal-plagued government.

Tory finance critic Monte Solberg also launched a counteroffensive, calling for a third investigation into the income trust affair, this time from the much-maligned federal ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro.

"Paul Martin can try and attack us to divert away from the income trust scandal and the sponsorship scandal and the Options Canada scandal," Solberg said.

The Conservatives released a letter, dated Dec. 22, from Paul Darby, the deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, in which he said the Conservative platform "is affordable" from now to 2011, and would allow for $3 billion a year in debt to be paid down.

On the eve of the potentially defining leaders' debates, the latest opinion poll puts the Conservatives in front of the Liberals 34-32, with 17 per cent of Canadians indicating they are undecided about who to support.

The CPAC-SES nightly tracking poll of 1,200 Canadians, done Jan. 5 to 7, gives the NDP 17 per cent support, the Bloc 11 and the Green party six.

It has a margin of error of 2.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The poll also confirms other surveys that show Tory support in Quebec on the rise at 17 per cent, although still trailing the Liberals (22) and far behind the Bloc Quebecois (48).

In the rest of Canada, the Conservatives hold a three percentage point lead over the Liberals (39-36). The NDP are at 19 per cent and the Green party at six per cent.

In the question of who would make the best prime minister, Harper held a two percentage point lead over Martin (27-25). The Tory leader's number was up six points, while Martin's support had fallen four points.

On the campaign trail, Martin targeted Harper as someone who would put the country's fiscal health and economic progress in jeopardy.

"I can tell you that a government which would willingly go back into deficit is a government willing to sacrifice, essentially, the tremendous growth that we have seen in our economy," Martin told reporters.

"As somebody who was the minister of finance for a long time, and somebody who became the minister of finance when we were deep in deficit, and somebody who essentially watched the evolution of us out of deficit and watched the strengthening of the Canadian economy, that there is a very clear relationship between the two."

The Liberals said the Tories' plan -- even without any action on addressing the federal-provincial fiscal imbalance -- would lead to a deficit in each of the next five years. They said the deficits would be as follows: 2006-07 - $1.9 billion; 2007-08 - $800 million; 2008-09 - $2.5 billion; 2009-10 - $2.1 billion and 2010-11 - $5.1 billion.

The Liberal offensive comes at a critical point in the campaign. With two weeks left in the race, the four party leaders are in Montreal for nationally televised debates tonight and Tuesday night.

While the Liberals and Tories were hammering each other, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe was voicing concerns about the activities of Option Canada, the organization that received $4.8 million in federal money on the eve of the 1995 referendum.

Reading to Bloc supporters from the letters patent, creating Option Canada on Sept. 11, 1995, Duceppe noted its mission was to promote Canadian unity "through all means legal, political and other."

He said that seemed to suggest "other than legal or political."

Duceppe hopes to get some answers today with the publication of Les Secrets d'Option Canada, a book said to be based on missing Option Canada documents.

Duceppe, who made no mention of Harper, plans to read parts of it before the televised leaders' debate in English tonight so he can use it as ammunition against Martin.

Martin suggested Sunday that if the Tories take power, they would actually force taxpayers to give back any income tax cuts they got from the Liberals in the recent mini-budget.

"It defies common sense that not only would a government cancel a tax cut to working-class families, to working-income families, but that a government would say to those families that 'We want you to cut a cheque to us, we want you to write a cheque to the government of Canada to pay us back for the tax cuts that you have got, that you have already received.' I've got to say something -- that goes beyond any breach of common sense."

Solberg dismissed the Liberal attack as scare tactics, predicting voters would not be fooled again the way they were in the final days of the 2004 election when the Liberals were able to vilify Harper.

"This is a blatant attempt to scare people again. I saw their numbers, they're ridiculous," Solberg said. "They should be ashamed for trying to scare people again like they did last time. This time it's not going to work."

Solberg predicted that once Canadians saw the fiscal plan of the Conservatives they would be reassured, but he would not release it Sunday, and said Harper would not have it before the public prior to tonight's debate.

"If we release the entire report, we'll be releasing the entire platform. So give us a chance to release our various planks of the platform," he said. "People will have a chance to look at the entire costing."

Instead, Solberg went on a renewed attack over the ongoing RCMP and the Ontario Securities Commission investigations into the timing of the Nov. 23 income trust announcement by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's office and whether it was leaked, sparking a spike in trading.

When asked how the Conservatives could call for an investigation by Shapiro -- whose office has been vilified by the opposition as a toothless lapdog of the Prime Minister's Office -- Solberg said the Conservatives wanted parliamentary conduct to be investigated, not just criminal activity.

Ottawa Citizen with file from the Montreal Gazette
 
Remember the tune in to the leaders debate or visit www.decisioncanada.ca to watch it live online today.
 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Looks like the media didnt want to report the poll showing a Tory double digit lead.

Tories head for majority
Poll shows `breakthrough' for party
`Significant growth' in Ontario, Quebec
Jan. 10, 2006. 06:28 AM
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Conservatives are charting a course toward a majority on Jan. 23, according to a new national poll completed yesterday.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Toronto Star and La Presse, shows Stephen Harper's Conservatives have sailed into majority government territory after a stunning week of rising popularity, largely at the expense of the Liberal party.

The EKOS survey of 1,240 Canadians through the weekend and yesterday found 39.1 per cent support for the Conservatives. The Liberals had 26.8 per cent support; the NDP 16.2 per cent; the Bloc Québécois 12.6 per cent; and Green party 4.6 per cent.

"This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for," EKOS president Frank Graves said.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have widened the gap to a 10-percentage-point lead over the Liberals. Of the 518 Ontarians surveyed, 43.8 per cent supported the Tories, 33.5 per cent the Liberals, 16.2 per cent the NDP, and 5.4 per cent the Greens.

Even in Quebec, the Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals. A total of 330 people were surveyed in that province and 19.1 per cent threw their support behind the Tories, compared with 17.4 per cent for the Liberals.

The Bloc, however, remains miles ahead with 52.4 per cent.

"The Conservatives' gains are nationwide, but their most significant growth is in Ontario, where they have surpassed the Liberals in their traditional heartland, and in Quebec, where they are now the leading federalist alternative to the Bloc Québécois," Graves said.

The national poll numbers are considered accurate within 2.8 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The margin of error in Ontario was 4.3 percentage points.

EKOS's Paul Adams said Harper's popularity is driving the surge. When those surveyed were asked who had the most positive vision for the future, the Conservative leader received 32 per cent support. Prime Minister Paul Martin had 20 per cent, the NDP's Jack Layton 16 per cent, and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe 10 per cent. "None of the above" registered 10 per cent and 12 per cent said they didn't know.

But premature talk of winning a majority of Parliament's 308 seats spooks the Conservatives. A party would have to win 155 seats to win a majority.

At dissolution, there were 133 Liberals in the House of Commons. The Tories held 98 seats, the Bloc Québécois 53 and the NDP 18. There were four Independents and two vacancies.

`This is the breakthrough Harper has been waiting for.'

EKOS President Frank Graves

The Tories are well aware that after Harper predicted a majority win in June 2004, their political fortunes started a downward spiral in the last election.

"I'm certainly not going to be drawn into any questions that can be used to have me making predictions," Harper said during last night's English-language leaders' debate.

"My role here is not to be a political analyst. My role here is to explain to Canadians why we need a new government."

Following stories Sunday in the Star and the Toronto Sun about Harper hinting at a majority, right-wing blogs were abuzz with dark ? and unsubstantiated ? suggestions of a mainstream media conspiracy to stall the Tories' momentum.

Ironically, hours after refusing to rule out a Tory majority win, Harper criticized EKOS by name while chatting with reporters aboard his campaign plane in Hamilton on Saturday.

"They are, in my view, the least believable," he said. "Our people feel the momentum, but it is a statistical dead heat. ... There is over two weeks to go and a lot of things can happen. ... There is no certainty."

Graves said the "wild card" in the campaign now is how Canadians react to the potential of a Harper government ? minority or majority.

"What happens when Canadians fully realize the Conservatives' current potential?" Graves asked.

"Will there be a bandwagon effect, as there was for Brian Mulroney in the 1984 campaign after he surged into the lead? Or will Harper succumb to a whiplash as he did in 2004 with many voters recoiling from the prospect of a Tory victory after a serious Liberal onslaught in the last weeks of the campaign."

On June 16, 2004 in Niagara Falls, Harper boasted there were "no safe Liberal seats for the Liberals any more," and said the Tories could win a majority. Less than two weeks later, the Liberals won a minority government.

The Liberals received 36.7 per cent of the popular vote in the June 28, 2004 election. The Conservatives garnered 29.6 per cent of the vote, the NDP 15.7 per cent, the Bloc 12.4 per cent and the Greens 4.3 per cent.

Graves said the apparent Conservative breakthrough in Quebec is "especially astonishing," heralding the possible return of the Tories as a truly national party.

But he warned that because the Harper Conservatives are poised to win some seats in Quebec, the media spotlight will be on the aloof Harper more than ever before. Graves stressed that the party's growth in Quebec is inherently fragile.

With files from Robert Benzie
 
tomahawk6 said:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1136847012085&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Looks like the media didnt want to report the poll showing a Tory double digit lead.

Wait a second... didn't you just cite a liberal newspaper reporting the Tory lead?  ???
 
The earlier poll had the Tories at 43 and the Liberals at 29. 

Apparently that needed to be confirmed before it could be released to the public as their other polls had.
 
Could I get some info as to what the two main parties stand for regarding our military. I've looked and so far it's been off the issues. Must be blind or looking into the wrong places. Anyway so far I've seen what they used to offer or what they did in the past. Oh yeah, heard something about moving the JTF but that's about it.
Can you guys enlighten me a bit? I just don't have a stand as of yet for Liberals or PC and I do not like politics :-\.
Thanks
RR
 
RoadRunner said:
Can you guys enlighten me a bit? I just don't have a stand as of yet for Liberals or PC and I do not like politics :-\.
Thanks
RR

Get "Who killed the Canadian Military" now availble in paperback so it is cheap. All the info in there minus the politics.
 
This obscene Liberal attack ad has me fuming!  I can't even type anything coherently, I'm so POed!

:rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat:  :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage: :threat: :rage:
:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

http://tinyurl.com/csech

The Libranos figured it was so bad, that they pulled it!  Attack!  Retreat!
 
Interesting.  The Liberals apparently believe that the thought of Canadian soldiers with guns in our cities should create a negative impression.

The LPC and its membership have, until such time as an unreserved public and official apology is extended on behalf of all LPC members and supporters to all past, present, and future Canadian service personnel, earned my everlasting contempt.
 
Back
Top