Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Some Reasons Why I Reject "Liberalism"

Some have asked over recent months why I react so strongly when talking about "liberals" or "lefties" as I sometimes refer to them. (sorry to those who have taken offence) I thought it best to try and define what it is that I am rejecting, and why I use those terms as I do. It is, for the most part, a rejection of ideology, not individuals. (though there are some individuals who are so narrow minded that I do sometimes refer to an individual, in which case, I usually name them)

I reject "liberalism" as being the best political solution to our problems as a nation, or in this world. Of that, I'm sure you're already quite aware. However, you might not have realized why, so I thought it best to define a few things.

Why I reject "liberalism"

1) I reject "statism"
Most, not all, liberals tend to support a reliance on government programs to solve various problems. Though I support strong government programs to support the truly needy, I have seen ample evidence that such programs only encourage waste, bad citizenship, drug and alcohol abuse, and laziness.

My mother worked for years for the Ontario WSIB, and saw first hand how people try to milk the system for all it's worth. She encountered one family who literally "took turns" making WSIB claims.

Working in the healthcare industry, I've seen a number of people "on the system" who do nothing all day, and spend large portions of their monthly cheques on drugs and cigarettes, instead of the medicines they need, while complaining that they can't afford them because the government won't pay for the medication prescribed to them!

The "left", in general, from what I have seen, supports expanding existing programs, while at the same time rejects any efforts to reform the system to cut off funding from abusers. (ie - "Workfare" in the 1990's) If we're going to have programs, then let's ensure they are actually supporting the people they are supposed to.

As for more "programs", I think we're spending way to much money on overhead for the programs we have, and not enough of those funds reach the target people. THAT's one of the many reasons I support the $1200 a year per child program of the Harper government… it gets the money direct to those who need it, with a much lower overhead. It's not perfect, but it's a good start. An institutional daycare system would cost way to much to administer, and would invariably end up under control of the various unions out there, thus costing us even more. (and when they go on strike? Then what?) Some will say that "$1200 a year won't fund a space for a single mother who has to work!" True, but there are OTHER PROGRAMS out there to assist with spaces and funding for many of those who need it, so that, to me, is a poor argument.

Our various programs, Federal and Provincial, need a little shake-up, and some trimming of the "dead weight". We need to streamline our existing systems, put the people on the front line where they are needed, and get rid of the people who are sitting around waiting for their pensions to kick in. (don't get me started on some of those stories...)


2) I really dislike most unions and their methods
My mother, while at the WSIB, was told a story by her colleague about the local General Motors plant. Every summer, they would hire a student, who, for the entire summer, their job was to locate the beds that workers had built so they could sleep instead of working! When such a worker is caught, they get "a warning". Company can't fire them until their file is thick enough, and these workers know it. In cases like that, UNIONS SUCK. If the unions stopped protecting lazy and worthless employees, then I wouldn't bash them so much. (NOTE: I am NOT talking about cases where employees are fired without cause… I support unions doing that. I'm talking about Unions protecting worthless workers who know how to milk the system)

Unions have also caused problems for my family, and was one of the reasons my folks chose to move from Britian... my dad was offered his dream job in England, and then the Union stepped in... "Sorry, he's not part of the right union… he can't have the job." Wasn't his first run in with the unions... we moved to Canada TO GET AWAY FROM THAT KIND OF GARBAGE. Here in Canada, my dad still had problems with them… lazy workers, guys who wouldn't lift a finger because of "that's not part of my contract" attitudes, etc. All of the "draconian" cuts made in the Harris years didn't affect me one little bit... only the protests of various unions during those years did!

3) Pierre Elliot Trudeau - nuff said!
Back to "statism" - he supported it, I don't. He bloated our Federal government, overspent, didn't have an understanding of how the economy really works, NEP, etc. (just finished reading "Grits" by Christina McCall-Newman… enlightening)

4) The "Culture of Entitlement"
Many members of the Liberal Party of Canada truly believe that they, and only they, have a right to run this country. Pure arrogance. (again, read "Grits") I accept that there are differing views, and changing the government every few years is healthy. But I've been shouted down many a time when I try to show them there can indeed be a different and legitimate point of view. I love this story given me by a former Tory staffer to a senator, of his conversation in Ottawa with a Liberal staffer...
"The discussion, up to that point, had gone well. I was making progress. But I could not shut my mouth. The final point I made was that there is no more ideologically fragmented party in Canada, and arguably, in North America, than the Liberal Party of Canada. Scott Brison, the fiscally conservative East Coaster, sits near Ujjal Dosanjh, the former socialist Premier of British Columbia. And also in the mix is Paul Martin’s chief lieutenant in Quebec, Jean Lapierre, one of the founder’s of the Bloc Quebecois. Once a separatist, always a separatist.

But I offended my good Liberal friend. The fact that I, as a Conservative, and therefore someone who is obviously un-Canadian, dared to challenge the Liberals on their own internal divisions, seemed sacrilegious. She quickly admonished me that I was wrong. Her party was the Party of Canada, in tune with Canadians. I was supposed to accept it, and not question it. After all, this party has most often been in power throughout the history of the country, and my claims were silly. As for the divisions in the party – they were not divisions. They were the "lifeblood of the party" and resulted in consensus around common goals. But my Liberal friend could not answer what those goals were.

The goals, of course, are winning. Seeking power, attaining power, and maintaining power at all costs. It is easy to see why Liberals have fewer arguments over policy, since after all, never let ideas get in the way of holding power.

Hearing this tirade only reinforced my faith in Canadian Conservatism. A principled, united, and effective alternative to a Party that believes governing is the birthright of silver-spooned Liberals."
Original here.

5) Moral Issues
Liberals, in general, are pro-murder and pro-SSM. I reject both of these views.

I love the accusation that keeps coming up… "Conservatives want to control and dictate what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation". OH COME ON. That's SOOO not true. Truth be told, I feel that what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation IS BETWEEN THEM AND GOD, as it should be. I have no plans to legislate morality. But I want is NOT to be forced to accept what goes on in the bedrooms of our nation! I don't think that homosexuality is right... SO WHAT!?!?!? I don't force my opinion on anyone, they can choose to live how they please... it's not my business. When it comes to the issue of marriage, WHY AREN'T CIVIL UNIONS GOOD ENOUGH? Because the motivation is to change how people view their relationship, and force a level of acceptance upon society. Not going to happen. Sure, grant them the legal rights and privileges, as is required in a secular nation, but a civil union could just as easily do that.

My problem is that people are trying to tell me what is acceptable or not. That, trying to enforce your views on me, is in and of itself, immoral.

For the record, I have an issue with HETEROSEXUAL SEX being discussed or displayed in public, so don't try and accuse me of being a homophobe or something! Sex is a private matter, and should be relegated to the bedrooms of our nation, not displayed for all to see!

(NOTE: I do expect some debate on that last point... but do so in a reasoned fashion. Jumping up and down screaming "bloody murder" or "YOU'RE INTOLERANT" or "BIGOT!" will only prove and re-enforce my point that I believe there is little or no room for reasoned debate with most liberals...)


6) Economic Issues
For the most part, the Liberals (as a party) are getting better at this, so I don't actually have to many complaints here. Paul Martin was a fairly good Minister of Finance, and did get the books balanced, but it was at the expense of the Provinces. (which damaged Health Care across this country, but that's another story) I don't like their standard response to problems, however, which is typically to throw more money at it. I support lower taxes, and reduction in spending on programs that have not produced the intended results. (ie - Gun Registry)

7) Crime and Punishment Issues
Liberals (the ideology, not party) say that taking away guns will prevent gun crime. That kind of thinking, to quote Mr. Layton, "is just wrongheaded". I once heard "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". True indeed. Most gun owners are responsible, and use them as tools, not weapons. Deal with the offenders, and stiffen the penalties… don't attack law abiding citizens.

I DO NOT support decriminalizing marijuana. But, for the record, I support changing how we deal with marijuana… I just don't support decriminalizing it. I support it's use for medial purposes, but ensuring it is strictly controlled through the medical industry. However, since I know it's going to happen, I support STRONG ENFORCEMENT against doctors who abuse the privilege of prescribing it, such as revoking their medical license. Treat it like any other regulated drug.

I support strong enforcement of existing laws, and the judicial system DOING THEIR JOB of punishing offenders. I also support trying to deal with the roots of crime, though I don't support throwing millions of dollars into more wasteful programs. (again, I have issues with the statist overhead of most programs) Let's develop some trim, solid programs that get the money where it's needed, to address immediate needs (ie - food and shelter) and long term needs (employment to break the cycle of poverty).


That's it for now. Maybe I'll write more, if I get time between working, sleeping, and replying to the dozens of flaming comments I'm sure to get. ;-)

17 Comments:

  • At Fri Jul 14, 02:18:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Guelph First said…

    Dude, when do you have time to write???
    I grab a minute here or there, maybe twenty minutes in the middle of the night!! You must be unionized!!

    AP very well written, i disagree on a couple of points, but your points are well thought out.

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 02:33:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Lunch... though I took a longer one today... gulp...

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 10:28:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1) Statism is a way to ensure that the money is spent in an appropriate manner. People are, in general, only capable of making very BAD decisions about their own finances. Hence the increased cost of administration is easily offset by the savings from avoiding personal waste (I've written this before, but if you see a homeless person in downtown Toronto, is it better to give them $10 Cash, or buy them dinner? They may 'WANT' the Cash, but buying them food is likely better for them!)

    2) Well I don't really like unions either, but in some situations they do serve a purpose. Hence, the government should take a generally 'nutural' position between Business and Union (ie. the Liberal Party)... If you choose Labour over Exectuive's, vote NDP. If you choose Executive's over Labour, vote Conservative. If you support a balance of the two... Vote Liberal!

    3) Trudeau - You shouldn't judge a party based on a dislike of a previous leader from over 20 years ago. There are very large differences between Paul Martin and Trudeau (not to mention the current leadership candidates). But, if I took them same type of position as you, then I would never vote Conservative because I didn't like Brian Mulroney... Perhaps's we should all just vote NDP then!

    4) Culture of Entitlement - This is a fiction of the Conservative Party (and NDP for that matter). The fact is, the Liberal Party has ruled Canada for over 80 of the past 106 years and this fact make's Tories and Dippers very angry. There's no real 'Culture of Entitlement', it's simply that the Liberal Parties view's are generally accepted more by the Canadian Public than the others.

    5) Moral Issue's - You focus too much on two generally non-issue's. What about helping the poor? What about loving your neighbour as yourself? What about making sacrifices to help the needy? Do you ignore these issue's, simply because you don't like Gays? With respect to calling Abortion murder (and you may be correct in doing this), how many civilian's have been 'murdered' in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past couple years? You're so quick to condemn one, but turn a blind eye to the other....

    6) Economic's - You're right that Liberal Party Economic's have improved over the past couple years (refer to my previous comments on Trudeau)... In the previous election Paul Martin was calling for Income Tax cuts, while Harper has calling for a GST cut, which one do you think has the better Economic effect? Having the strongest Economic situation in the G8 is definitely thanks to good Liberal Economic's in the past 13 years... This should be posted as a reason you SUPPORT the Liberal Party.

    7) Crime and Punishment - What's wrong with getting a Licence before you buy a gun? You get a Licence before you can drive a car, is that treating you as a criminal?

    I don't support smoking marijuana, but should a bright University student have a criminal record and hence difficulty finding a job because they had a puff once? I've read that over 50% of current University Student's have smoked marijuana... that's an aweful lot of people to charge. Should the police be focusing on handing out $70 fine's to them, or are we better served if they focus on finding real criminals?

    The best way to fight crime is a strong economy, as has been proven over the past couple of years (not necessarially more police). Thank's, in part, to the strong economy over the past 13 years, the crime rate has fallen. Please refer to my comments on the Economy and why this should drive you to support the Liberal Party.

    The Liberal Party is a big tent and you're welcome to join... :)

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 10:41:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You're blog makes me giggle. THe Liberals are pro-murder. HA HA HA HA.Do you think HArper is going to make abortion a criminal code offence? HA HA HA. You've been had. HArper won't tell us where he stands on abortion. Apparaently it is too complicated. Really he thinks we are too stupid or he is just being dodgy so losers like you keep drinking his cool aid.

    If you are dreaming if you think Harper is going to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan so the Army does not kill people.

    You are dreaming if you think Harper will reduce the number of guns in Canada. Stockwell Day wants to arm more government workers.

    You need to use your brain and not be such a blind partisan.

    BTW, which "statism" programs do you think Harper will cancel? NONE you dope because Harper is a politician first.

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 11:25:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Thanks for coming out GritPatriot and adding nothing to the debate... and proving some of my points... some of you Liberals are kool-aid drinkers too, just a different colour and flavour.

    Anonymous, thanks for your post... I disagree with some of your points, but I respect them, and you have food for thought. (by the way, I did support your party once upon a time, when I lived in Dan McTeauge's riding... I'm not a blind kool-aid drinker)

    Some thoughts...

    1) I can support that in some cases, but I don't like the automatic assumption that I often see that "another program" is needed to fix the current issue of the day

    2) Unions can have positives, but most of them, like Buzz's CAW, are overbloated and cause more trouble than they do good. (like Ontario CUPE's recent anti-Israel stand) I don't agree with your view about where parties stand with the unions... for the most part, I agree about the NDP and labour, but you'd be surprised how many union members are supporting the CPC these days... they just don't talk about it with their co-workers!

    3) True, but he set a lot of the tone that still exists today

    4) Read Grits, it talks a lot about how the Liberals control a lot of Ottawa, whether in power or not. (mostly talking about the past, but you can see some parallels to it today)

    5) I mention those because I don't think they're non-issues, they're in front of us all the time. As for the other issues, I don't ignore them, to me, they're a non-issue, because all parties seek to assist the poor and needy in different ways.

    I don't "ignore" the murder of civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan... more have died at the hands of terrorists than military forces, and any that have died due to military action are indeed regretable, and I hope steps are being taken to minimize any more casulties. Having said that, I still support the war efforts, and look forward to pulling out.

    6) I support cutting both the GST and Income taxes. So there. ;-)

    7) I think all gun owners should have a license, it's the bloated and useless registry that I oppose.

    8) So 50% of current university students are morons... so what? ;-) Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean that we should condone it. If they're dumb enough to turn to drugs, then I don't want to employ them... nor would I want to employ someone who had a drinking problem. So?

    9) I agree with the link between crime reduction and a strong economy... how can we strengthen it further? I think the Liberals have brought us so far, and now the Tories are the better party to take us further.

    And thanks for the invite... but your Constitution expressly forbids me from joining, since I carry a CPC membership. ;-)

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 11:31:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Dirk, I view the party of Trudeau as being left, JC as more centrist, and Martin actually started moving more left again... I look at both economics and social issues in this determination.

    JC left such moral issues as SSM alone, while Martin forced them upon us. In terms of economics, the JC and Martin govs. were basically the same, since Martin was in charge of the finances in both regimes.

    At least, that's how I view it. Different opinions are welcome.

     
  • At Fri Jul 14, 11:35:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Sorry, point 4 should read "Read the book "Grits" by Christine McCall-Newman, about Liberals running Ottawa"

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 04:26:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, I guess I should start out by saying that I don't think that I will ever agree with anything that CC says. But I will keep on coming back because this forum is better than most at having civil disagreements.

    Next I will say that I consider myself far more of a Green then a Liberal/leftist. So for instance I opposed the Conservative, Liberal and NDP day care plans as ridiculous wastes of money.

    1) Statism - I support government programs to push for cleaner cars, less wasteful packaging etc. And regulation to enforce much tougher polution laws. I highly doubt those will lead to laziness, more likely is the exact opposite.
    I believe other programs like health care and education should be public and that public health care is more efficient and better for Canadians. Do some programs need to reworked? Yes. WSIB is probably one of them, although, admittedly I have little knowledge of WSIB except hearing others complain about it. I take people's stories of rampant abuse with a grain of salt. Do we need new programs like day care? In my opinion no. I think that if people want to have kids the least they can do is pay for the first 6 years. After that I will be contributing to their education. Their whole childhood I will be contributing to their health care. I think a society benefits from making sure that its youth will be healthy and educated when they become adults. I have yet to see solid evidence of the benefit of providing free daycare, or paying parents $100 a month. That money could have and should have been spent elsewhere.

    2) There is a wide range of unions. There is not much to compare what Caesar Chavez was fighting for in regards to desperately poor migrant farm workers and say what the NHL players association was fighting for. Has the CAW's successes screwed itself and its members for the future? There is a good chance. To much of a good thing can become a bad thing.

    3) I was 6 when PET retired, so anything I could comment on would be influenced by the bias of others.

    4) The Liberals are diverse. Certainly Brison and Dosanjh is a good example. But how about Joe Clark and Stockwell Day in the Conservative party? Could they have been any more different? Can't really think of too many Federal NDPers at the moment, but provincially a couple years back in Ontario Bob Rae and Peter Kormos were definately from different planets. For the Green Party former leader Jim Harris and leadership contender Elizabeth May are as different as night and day.

    As for whether or not the Liberals deserve to be the natural governing party - I sure hope not. Mind you, I only support proportional representation which would lead to true collalition governments.

    5) I find your use of the term "pro-murder" troubling. It is the right in the US that supports the death penalty. (I suspect that it is the same in Canada). It also seems to be more likely that the push for military spending increases and military involvement in places like Iraq (ala Harper) are coming from Conservatives.

    I oppose both, I am also a vegetarian as I oppose the killing the animals. As a male I can not get an abortion so on a personal level it is irrelevant. Now because I think women should have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies that makes me "pro-murder?" Oh well.
    On the subject of SSM marriage I am sure that I have posted my support of it here on many occassions, so I will not go into a long winded argument other than to say: Same-sex marriage is not being forced upon you. Let me know when the government orders you to marry a man and I will be right their to defend your right not be forced to marry someone. As to SSM marriage being against your religion. It doesn't matter. Your religion specifically prescribed stoning as a method of execution for certain crimes. I don't hear nearly as many christians complaining that their religious beliefs are being infringed on because people who commit blasphemy, apostasy and adultery are not being stoned to death.

    6) Economic Issues: George Bush has run up the national debt more than any other US president. On economic issues he has been a complete disaster. Mulroney was no bed of roses either. I have seen little proof that Conservatives are any better on economic issues.

    7) People have to register a car, I see no reason why they should not have to register a gun. The program was needlessly expensive and I oppose the confiscation of guns except in the cases of criminals etc. I think certain types of guns/weapons have no place in society and should be banned, I haven't paid much attention to this issue, but I assume that the types of guns/weapons I am talking about are already banned.

    I support not just the decriminalizing of marijuana, but the full legalization of marijuana. I say that as person who has only ever tried pot once and even then took only one puff (which was pretty ineffectual because I am a none smoker). Pot is much safer from a health perspective than alcohol or cigarettes. The idea of pot being illegal while alcohol is legal is completely ridiculous (and I am a consumer of alcohol).

    Peace

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 10:05:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Trevor, thanks for your kind words. As others have mentioned, I go over the top sometimes, but it's nice to have the chance to discuss and clarify things in a reasoned fashion.

    Now, to reply...

    1) I think issues like the ones you mention, cleaner cars, less wasteful packaging, tougher pollution laws, I think these are indeed the perveiw of the Federal government. And I actually agree with you on them! As for the childcare, my view is that parents who choose to stay at home and raise their kids are unfairly penalized by the tax system, so the $100 helps to counter that.

    2) LOL, going points on unions.

    3) Too true on Trudeau, I was 6 too... but I've read a bit on him, most of it being from Liberals sources, and I still don't agree with most of his views

    4) Very true about the party spectrums, but using Joe "Who" is a bad example... he stopped supporting the Conservatives when the merger was announced.

    5) As for my term, I do view abortion as murder. As for capital punishment, I only support it when the evidence is clear, thus, it is not murder, but just punishment. (ie - "you take away someone's life... by what rights should you be allowed to keep that which you have taken away from someone else?")

    As for abortion, to me, the argument about a woman's "right over her own body" is wrong, we're not talking about some parasite or something, we're talking about a HUMAN LIFE. I believe that life begins at conception, so that is why I refer to it as "pro-murder".

    As saying I support for stoning and SSM, well, I think that's going just a little over the top, don't you? ;-)

    6) I was just thinking to myself the other day, "What is GWB thinking running up the debt like that?" I think we're on the same page there. (but I support the spending to liberate Iraq... go figured) And many say that Mulroney (and his Minister of Finanace, Michael Wilson) was the one to lay the foundation that Paul Martin simply followed to balance the books.

    7) It's having the database available for easy future confiscation that troubles me.

    8) A friend of mine, an 8 year daily user of pot, would disagree with you. He said there was an 8 year hole in his life... completely wasted. It's an easy slope to slip down once you start. Of course, granted, the same can be true with alcohol.

    Thanks for your input on these.


    It's weird, but I think I've consistantly seen more common ground with the Greens than any other party! Actually, during the 2003 Ontario election, the Green candidate here was fantastic! He had the best showing during the main debate, and several guys I went to the debate with said that if it wasn't for their stand on moral issues (pro-"choice and SSM) we might seriously consider supporting them! The candidate here had a really good understanding of business and economics, and thoughts on how to slowly and appropriately introduce a "Green Economy". We were impressed. (and at the time, one of my friends was currently employed as a staffer for a Tory Cabinet Minister!)

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 10:06:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Don't have a clue what happened there on point 2 - should read "LOL Good points on unions"

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 11:11:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'd just like to jump in with a few comments on the economy and government finances...

    - To say that Mulroney and Wilson lay the foundation for Paul Martin eventually balancing the books is an attempt by Conservatives to take credit for Martin's difficult, but successful work. If you read up on the truly radical decisions that were made during the 1994 budget (the first of the Liberal Government), you'll see that it wasn't simply a continuation of Mulroney's policies. Give Credit where credit is due, and don't try to steal someone elses thunder, when it is rightly earned!

    Also, earlier you implied that Harper and the Cons were best to take the economy to the next level, I'm afraid I have to disagree there. With respect to the Economy (and I'm only looking at the government under a very narrow scope here), Mulroney's policies were better than Trudeau's, JC's were better than Mulroney's and Martin's were better than JC's. Unfrortunately, rather than continuing this trend, Harper is taking us back to the Economic policies of Mulroney. Which, while still better than your hated Trudeau, is two steps back of Martin.

    There is a fallacy here, that many people have a tendancy to make. That is, people believe that policies that are good for business are good for the economy. This is sometime's true, but unfrotunately it isn't always true. Harper's policies (like Mulroney's) are designed to be good for Business (ie. GST cuts that will drive consumer spending and increase business activity). This should succeed in continuing Economic growth, however it will also usher in an era of higher interest rate's and higher inflation, both of which are reactions to pro-business economic policies. These reaction's have a tendancy of helping the rich (who, with money to invest, will benefit from the high interest rate's), however, it will hurt the poor (who tend to get burried by the higher cost of consumer goods and their increased mortgage/debt payments).

    To Mr. Harper's credit, he has shown restraint with respect to his more Pro-business economic tendancies and has burried (at least for now), some of his more radical idea's, such as a flat-tax... A wonderful Pro-business idea, but a terrible Pro-Economic one! (Perhaps this restraint is a result of a Minority government... any thoughts?).

    If you want to witness the result of these type's of policies, without restraint, you need to look no further than what's happening in the USA. Since Bush has taken office, we have seen a continuation of the Clinton-era economic growth, but we have also seen the FED recently raise interest rate's for the 17th time in a row, inflation is well above the target of 3% (although this is partly due to the raise in Oil and Gas price's which have nothing to do with Bush's economic policies... although may have something to do with his foreign policies... differnet topic!). Not to mention the record high federal deficit and U.S. national double deficit's (trade and current account).

    There's also the point of 'Increaded Polorization', but I've likely managed to bore everyone by now and if you're still reading this post, I'm impressed with your stamina. Hence, I'm going to shut-up now before you hurt your head (by falling asleep and hitting your head on your computer)!

    Cheers, Mike

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 11:30:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    No Mike, continue on! (if not here, feel free to send me your 'Increaded Polorization' thoughts, I haven't heard of that before)

    As for Martin vs. Wilson, I never intended to "take away" from any of Martin's accomplishments, credit where credit is due. Some say the Liberals "campaign left and govern right", though I disagree, it did indeed hold true (economicly) when JC was in power! It is important to note, however, that the "Fiscal Imbalance", specifically regarding Health Care, is directly related to Martin's policies in the 1990's. (interesting, he created the problem by cuting health funding under JC, then promised to "Fix Healthcare of a generation" as PM...)

    As for Bush's style, I commented earlier, "George, what are you thinking?"

    As for my view that the Cons (specifically Harper) are better to run the economy, I still stand by that statement. Take a look at "Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada", it gives a good overview of Harper's stand on the nation's finances.

    I also agree with Garth Turner, MP, who said that the previous NDP Budget was what had a direct effect on interest rate hikes of late, ($4.6 billion of sudden spending tends to have that kind of effect) and now that the Tories are in, the trend to raise rates has slowed.

    As for my comments on Wilson, they also came from Mr. Turner... he was there at that time, working with Mr. Wilson, so I assume he had an idea of what he was talking about)

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 12:15:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sorry about that 'Increaded Polorization' comment... I seem to have managed to actually bore myself while typing and made such an obvious error... Thanks for showing restraint there!

    Could you do me the favour of explaining the 'Fiscal Imbalance' thing to me? (this is an honest request... I have a general idea of it's meaning based on the context in which it's used, but I'm not sure I entirely understand it...)

    Mike

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 12:34:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    No restraint needed by me... like I said, I haven't heard of the 'Increaded Polorization' concept, so I didn't notice any error!

    As for the "Fiscal Imbalance", it has to do with how revenues are "redistributed" by the Federal government after being collected. Most Premiers say that they feel there is an imbalance between what Ottawa collects, and what it then gives back to the Provinces via "equalization payments". (the transfer of tax dollars back to the Province for them to spend)

    The loudest Premiers on this file are Jean Charest (Quebec) and Dalton McGuinty (Ontario). Dalton says that Ottawa collects $23 billion more from Ontario than it receives... naturally, you would expect a difference as Ontario is a "have" province, and that gap helps to fund programs in "have not" provinces. The Equalization concept is to "equal" the standard of living between all the provinces... one of us is well off, the wealth is shared to the betterment of all.

    I do agree with the principle, but I do think that Ottawa could be giving more to the provinces, after all that Martin cut from their funding (ie - Healthcare) during the 1990's as JC's Finance Minister. It was indeed temporarily necessary, but some of those funds could be redirected back to the provinces now that our Federal books are in order.

    This is one of Harper's key platforms, and one that I look forward to movement on.

    It's also a major rally cry of the BQ, and Duceppe said he thinks Harper will deal with this issue better than the Liberals did when in power.

    Ironically, many are saying that if Harper deals well with this issue, and does some of what the BQ has been demanding that the government do for years, it may cost the BQ several seats in the next Federal election! (the Tories are running neck and neck with the BQ in Quebec... a thought that was UNHEARD of even a year ago)

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 01:06:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So, is it that McGuinty and Charest want the Federal government to stop giving equalization payments to the poorer provinces? (I think Quebec still qualifies as a Have-Not Province, so this doesn't really make sense to me). The $23 billion Ontario sends to the Federal government must be going to the have-not provinces, if McGuinty wants that money back, it will need to be cut from the other Province's... Is this what he's asking for?

    Do they simply want their fair share returned to them? (again Quebec and Ontario being allied here doesn't make a whole lot of sense).

    Do they want the Feds to give every province more money? Then, where do the Feds get the money from? (I'm asking this on behalf of the federal government here, whether it's Liberal or Conservative).

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only way the feds can solve this problem is to raise taxes and pass the increased revenue onto the provinces (effectively, they would be raising the provincial taxes, without the Premiers taking the political heat for doing it themselves).

    While this issue does get a lot of attention by the Premier's and the BQ (who never have to worry about being in power) and is talked about in the media from time-to-time, I still don't really get it... What is the federal government supposed to do?

    Again, I'm asking on behalf of Libs and Cons here. And since it was one of Harper's key platforms, what does he propose we do about it?

    Mike

     
  • At Sat Jul 15, 05:40:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    Andrew:

    You seem to be mistaken what Equalization Payments are. They are not transfers to all provinces: they are additional transfer payments to the poorest provinces from the federal government to assist in the administration of programs. The point of contention is, that the richer provinces like Ontario don't like forking over so much money in taxes to the federal government and seeing what they believe to be an unfair return.

     
  • At Sun Jul 16, 02:50:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    --As saying I support for stoning and SSM, well, I think that's going just a little over the top, don't you? ;-)

    I don't think that I said that you support stoning. I simply said that in the bible you can find passages that say that the punishment for certain crimes such as blasphemy, apostasy and adultery should be death by stoning. (In the case of Iran where they still sometimes use stoning as a form of execution it is apparently the old testament that they are using not the Quran)

    All I am saying is that because the bible says things like death by stoning it should not be allowed to influence (or used as a reference for) the political or legal systems of this country. Through mainly secular and democratic methods we have come up with a better system of laws and government than exists in the bible.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home