Who else enjoys the opposition making an ass of themselves?

[Spokes]

I dont want one penny of my money going to either the Liberal or the NDP.

That's the beauty of funding political parties by proportion of votes received. Your money, in effect, goes with your vote.

Better yet, since half the population didn't vote, but their money gets used anyway.... you aren't even out the full 2 bucks...


Of course if you would rather have your government bought by the Corporations, or by the Labour Unions or by similar vested interests, well.... I guess you get the government you deserve.


...

You are assuming that everyone who votes say NDP pays as much tax as I do. I make a decent living, so as a result pay alot of tax. Some welfare living hippie NDP supporter who pays no tax still sees 2 bucks for his vote go to them. Who pays for that?

[Icebound]

You are assuming that everyone who votes say NDP pays as much tax as I do. I make a decent living, so as a result pay alot of tax. Some welfare living hippie NDP supporter who pays no tax still sees 2 bucks for his vote go to them. Who pays for that?

No. I am assuming that everyone who votes, say, Conservative, such as these guys:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... art-i.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... rt-ii.aspx

... would pay at least as much tax as some welfare-living-hippie-NDP supporter.

But I would be wrong.... They pay even less.


...


.

[Spokes]

All very interesting, but nothing to do with my point. You cannot tell me that under the cash per vote system, none of my money- even a single red penny- goes to political parties that I do not support. I really do not want this to happen.

[Guido]

All very interesting, but nothing to do with my point. You cannot tell me that under the cash per vote system, none of my money- even a single red penny- goes to political parties that I do not support. I really do not want this to happen.

Yup, and if you can assure me that not a single penny of my taxes goes to supporting unjust wars, corrupt politicians, and bailouts for corporations who are too stupid to handle their money, then we'll all assure you of your money not going to parties you don't support.

[Icebound]

All very interesting, but nothing to do with my point. You cannot tell me that under the cash per vote system, none of my money- even a single red penny- goes to political parties that I do not support. I really do not want this to happen.

Yup, and if you can assure me that not a single penny of my taxes goes to supporting unjust wars, corrupt politicians, and bailouts for corporations who are too stupid to handle their money, then we'll all assure you of your money not going to parties you don't support.

...

[Spokes]

All very interesting, but nothing to do with my point. You cannot tell me that under the cash per vote system, none of my money- even a single red penny- goes to political parties that I do not support. I really do not want this to happen.

Yup, and if you can assure me that not a single penny of my taxes goes to supporting unjust wars, corrupt politicians, and bailouts for corporations who are too stupid to handle their money, then we'll all assure you of your money not going to parties you don't support.

Again you seem intent on deflection with straw men, rather than addressing the statement given. Without getting too drawn into it, I'll just say that I am sure you can figure out the differences here.

Having said all that, there is a debate point that can be made, to refute my statement. I did not think of it until later, but I'll leave you to figure it out.

Oh, and your assertions that the 2 buck a vote thing is better than massive donations from industry is not it. That is simply a false dichotomy. Thats your hint.

[Guido]

All very interesting, but nothing to do with my point. You cannot tell me that under the cash per vote system, none of my money- even a single red penny- goes to political parties that I do not support. I really do not want this to happen.

Yup, and if you can assure me that not a single penny of my taxes goes to supporting unjust wars, corrupt politicians, and bailouts for corporations who are too stupid to handle their money, then we'll all assure you of your money not going to parties you don't support.

Again you seem intent on deflection with straw men, rather than addressing the statement given. Without getting too drawn into it, I'll just say that I am sure you can figure out the differences here.

Having said all that, there is a debate point that can be made, to refute my statement. I did not think of it until later, but I'll leave you to figure it out.

Oh, and your assertions that the 2 buck a vote thing is better than massive donations from industry is not it. That is simply a false dichotomy. Thats your hint.

If you don't like it, Spokes - try to get it changed.

My point is that tax dollars will always be paying for something that you don't necessarily want them to. That's just how the system works. My tax dollars pay for wars that I don't support, politicians' salaries, donations to corporations.

Do you like the idea of government being run by whomever has the highest bid from corporations? That's what you get when you have campaigns based solely on "donations" (read: bribes). All that donated money has strings attached. When it comes from the taxpayers, that means that the parties are responsible to ALL of us instead of a bunch of CEOs. Granted that means that politicians might think they have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves (see current situation), but I think it's preferable than the country being run by whomever Exxon approves of.

[Spokes]

If you don't like it, Spokes - try to get it changed.

There are many things that I do not like that I know Ihave no hope in changing. My initial point was that I do not like a system where my money is used in support of someone becoming prime minister whom I do not want to.

My point is that tax dollars will always be paying for something that you don't necessarily want them to. That's just how the system works. My tax dollars pay for wars that I don't support, politicians' salaries, donations to corporations.

Well, duh. I amnot a complete moron. I know that alot of tax money goes to thngs that I do not want it to. Your pointing this out is not a huge revelation. BTW does anyone really want war? Ultimately government will use tax money to pay for things that it feels it must. I know this. I also know that I will not always agree with all of these causes. The difference as I see it is using my money to decide who forms governemnt, not what a properly elected government does. I guess the difference is subtle, but to me it is real.

Do you like the idea of government being run by whomever has the highest bid from corporations? That's what you get when you have campaigns based solely on "donations" (read: bribes). All that donated money has strings attached. When it comes from the taxpayers, that means that the parties are responsible to ALL of us instead of a bunch of CEOs. Granted that means that politicians might think they have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves (see current situation), but I think it's preferable than the country being run by whomever Exxon approves of.

Again, your assertion that if we do not have the 2$ a vote system then all that is left is corperate donations is a false dichotomy.

[Icebound]

Again, your assertion that if we do not have the 2$ a vote system then all that is left is corperate donations is a false dichotomy.

I might even be able to accept that statement, provided that the rules are carefully written and religiously followed.

Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that certain political ideologies (parties), are more attractive to those who are financially stressed, while others to those who are financially blessed. This means that certain parties will ALWAYS have more difficulty raising money, because their "base" is the less-wealthy population.

In a democracy where every voice is supposed to be heard, this means that certain voices would be perpetually suppressed only because of financial considerations.

THAT is the dichotomy which public funding tries to level by some minimal amount.



...

[Spokes]

I can agree with most of that, but this statement

financially blessed

is something that I have heard often, that really gets my goat. You are what you make of yourself. I am doing alright, but no one "blessed" me and said it was so. Everything I have, and am is a result of my own actions. I did not win some kid of lotteryand get in on the sucessful side. I worked hard in school when I was young, I learned how to work outside of school to earn money. I have never asked for anything from anyone. At times money has been tight, but hard/smart work gets you out

I have seen too many young people do the minimum to get by, not tryin/caring about school. Not trying to better themselves, but more concerned with looking like a 'gangsta' and mayby trying to get past the next level on Saints Row on xbox. These are the people that invariably become 'financially stressed'. I have seen many people that fall in this catagory, and certainly resent my hard work supporting this.

Now I know that this is not universal, and that sometimes bad luck can make a hard worker fall on bad times. But from what I have seen, the virtue of being a hard worker eventually gets them out of it.

I do not like the $2 per vote system, but I suppose many do. The other way parties are financed is only marginally better. Donations from private citizens (capped maximums) with a 75% tax deduction. I can't say that I know what the solution is. But that does not mean I can not like what I consider the problem to be. And I still don't want Layton to get any of my tax money to run his campain!

[GreenStar]

[quote="Spokes"] You are what you make of yourself. I am doing alright, but no one "blessed" me and said it was so. Everything I have, and am is a result of my own actions. I did not win some kid of lotteryand get in on the sucessful side. I worked hard in school when I was young, I learned how to work outside of school to earn money. I have never asked for anything from anyone. At times money has been tight, but hard/smart work gets you out

I have seen too many young people do the minimum to get by, not tryin/caring about school. Not trying to better themselves, but more concerned with looking like a 'gangsta' and mayby trying to get past the next level on Saints Row on xbox. These are the people that invariably become 'financially stressed'. I have seen many people that fall in this catagory, and certainly resent my hard work supporting this.

Now I know that this is not universal, and that sometimes bad luck can make a hard worker fall on bad times. But from what I have seen, the virtue of being a hard worker eventually gets them out of it.

Spokes, you should run for office, you have my support. The socialists might be a tough sell though.

[Spokes]

Can't. Too Honest.

[Driving Rain]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

[Hedley]

When in Rome ...

[Rockie]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

He didn't sell out. The reason there were 18 vacancies to begin with is because he deliberately didn't appoint any Senators while he futilely tried to change the system. An effort that was blocked by the opposition and the majority Liberal Senators already in place. It got to the point where the few Conservative Senators couldn't do the work they were appointed because there simply weren't enough of them. Finally he had to do something. He had appoint Conservatives because if he doesn't do something to try and even the odds then the chance of getting the institution changed are nonexistent. As it is the Liberals still far outnumber the Conservatives.

[Driving Rain]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

He didn't sell out. The reason there were 18 vacancies to begin with is because he deliberately didn't appoint any Senators while he futilely tried to change the system. An effort that was blocked by the opposition and the majority Liberal Senators already in place. It got to the point where the few Conservative Senators couldn't do the work they were appointed because there simply weren't enough of them. Finally he had to do something. He had appoint Conservatives because if he doesn't do something to try and even the odds then the chance of getting the institution changed are nonexistent. As it is the Liberals still far outnumber the Conservatives.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

[C23flyer]

Everything I have, and am is a result of my own actions. I did not win some kid of lottery and get in on the successful side. I worked hard in school when I was young, I learned how to work outside of school to earn money. I have never asked for anything from anyone.

Actually, unless you're a person of colour, or a woman, then you have won the lottery. If hard work is the secret to success then why is there still a significant wage gap between men and women, and why are white men still employed at higher rates than men of colour? Are you suggesting that women and people of colour just have not worked hard enough?

If you're interested in the "Blessed to be born a white male" phenomenon, here is some background reading for you:

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/cons ... sing_e.pdf

There is lots more information available, but I won't waste my time if you can't bring yourself to read one article. Understanding systemic discrimination begins with setting aside the "I've worked hard for everything I have" argument that sustains the popularity of an ultra-conservative approach to social welfare in this country. I'm not saying it's not true in your case, but to dismiss the good fortune inherent in your success is to disregard the realities of so many other people in this country.

Because you've worked hard, I know that you are inherently a good person. Hard workers as a rule are good people. But you may not have the most inclusive lens on when you speak about what makes people successful. That's all. Best of the season.

[Rockie]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/columnis ... story.html

Eighteen appointments to the Senate, three days before Christmas. That sounds about right, in terms of how these things have always been done. Except that the guy doing them, Stephen Harper, is a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of an elected Senate, one of the core principles of the Reform Party movement from which he came.

Say it ain't so Steve
Steve sells out ....again

He didn't sell out. The reason there were 18 vacancies to begin with is because he deliberately didn't appoint any Senators while he futilely tried to change the system. An effort that was blocked by the opposition and the majority Liberal Senators already in place. It got to the point where the few Conservative Senators couldn't do the work they were appointed because there simply weren't enough of them. Finally he had to do something. He had appoint Conservatives because if he doesn't do something to try and even the odds then the chance of getting the institution changed are nonexistent. As it is the Liberals still far outnumber the Conservatives.

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

If Harper did nothing then the opposition would continue to thwart his efforts to reform the Senate until the Liberals gain power again. Then the Liberals stack the Senate with even more Liberals increasing the already gross over representation they have there ensuring reform will never happen.

If he appoints Liberals he is ensuring the same thing without even having to wait for the Liberals to win an election.

At least this way there are a few more Conservatives to fight for reforming the Senate even though the Liberals still outnumber them.

What would you do to dress up this particular pig?

[Flybabe]

Quite frankly, with a minority, anything Steven Harper and the Conservative ( and Alliance.. and Reform parties ) stand for will be struck down by the Liberals...including Senate reform. Why criticize Harper for doing something that he has no control over?

Would you criticize the Liberals for continuing to stack the Senate in their favour?? Kudos to you if you would.

[2R]

Senators should put the interests of Canada above silly paltry party politics.
That said, i think some of the new batch are Great Canadians and will serve this country well .