But you seem to be smart people, and so I get worried when you actually believe your own rherotic.

I don't think the NDP is "evil" or any other such thing, and I do respect the principles of helping those who are less fortunate than us.

I can understand why low-income families, unskilled workers and unemployed or seasonally employed people would vote NDP. These people would like support from the middle class and rich around them to pay for their children's education and day care, build cheap housing for them and to send them welfare cheques.

If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no honor, I would probably vote NDP. So I do understand the logic in this segment of the population.

But when the NDP rhetoric claims that it's good for the "middle class" and the "average worker", I don't really understand the logic anymore.

The fact that the union members in Windsor, for example, still vote NDP, strikes me as odd. These folks are raking in the dough because their union is very strong. An NDP government would let them take home less -- not more.

The suggestion that an NDP government would be good in the "long term" also seems suspicious. As best as I can imagine it, NDP policy would be workable for a few years until the economic impact of extraordinary taxes would start to kick in: job loss, more government dependency, and so on. The only fix would be to move to a more moderate program or begin deficit spending. Either way, I can't imagine how NDP policy is beneficial in the long term. Underlying expenditures on social programs is the supposition of a healthy economy to generate the revenue for said programs.

I'm not really trying to start a flame war so much as I am trying to understand why the NDP believes it can capture the "middle class" vote.

Now I've had this conversation many times before, and people have answered with extremely strange answers founded in economics that I've never heard of before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alphathree:
you may, with a rational argument, convince me that you are not only well educated and smart, but also sane.

---

quote:

---

you won't convince me to vote NDP, you may, with a rational argument, convince me that you are not only well educated and smart, but also sane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
"Trickle down Theory" never seems to go away.

Wouldn't environmental protection, day care, more accessable higher education, affordable housing help the middle class?

---

I didn't mention "trickle down theory," so I don't really know why you brought it up. If I were to make arguments about corporate tax pressures on the economy, I don't make any naive assumptions about "evil" CEOs giving away their money to employees. I look at the decisions that actual businesses make in a global economy: whether they should expand and invest in Canada or elsewhere.

It depends what you mean by environmental "protection." Our environment has been changing since the beginning of time and it will continue to change. If you're referring to that Kyoto and global warming, then no. There is too much rhetoric and not enough science behind these things to justify huge expenditures.

If you're referring to controlling smog and pollution in air and water, then yes, I can see how middle class people would be interested in that (given the costs were reasonable and controlled.)

On Day Care, I do see how families with children would like that in some sense. I don't understand why you believe that individuals or couples without children would want to pay for their neighbour's children's day care.

I also don't understand why the average person would appreciate having their choices limited. In a private system, they can choose the best one to suit their needs. By providing public day care, to take advantage of what their taxes pay for, they have only one choice (and if its run by the gov't, it's definitely not going to be the highest quality one.)

Again, this seems to benefit the poor who wouldn't have day care otherwise, not the middle class who would otherwise have lower taxes and the choice between various high quality private providers.

The concept of affordable housing is a bit nebulous for me. If you're referring to government-subsidized housing, I don't think many in the middle class would lower themselves to that level. Your average office worker is worried about his or her status. I could see low-income families taking advantage of that, though.

And let's not forget that paying for all of these social programs would result in higher taxes and levies for those zillions of middle class families who already own homes.

Access to higher education I can agree with you completely on, and I do think this is important even for families without children. It's an investment in the future, assuming they all don't leave for better jobs in the U.S.

I've heard this argument applied to day care -- "day care is just early education." I'm not sure how I feel about this. Even ignoring my other arguments about better choice with private providers, this still seems too instrusive a role for government in the early development of children. This is debatable and that's not my intent. Let's stick with the NDP/middle class argument.

So in essence I do agree with you on the higher education point, but I'm EXTRAORDINARILY biased on this as I'm a University student right now. I can't quite put myself in the shoes of the middle class on this one, and so you haven't quite sold me.

I also agree on moderate pollution controls and incentives, less global warming rhetoric.

I do understand the concept of an equitable society, but I don't understand why the NDP doesn't realize that most of our planet works on the basis of competition.

As soon as you start offering free rides, you remove some of the incentive for competition. Producitivty declines.

The solution is, of course, to remove the market economy and competition altogether. We've seen how well this worked in Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, the communist bloc, and so on.

So if we want to continue to have a market economy yet make it more fair and equitable, we must be VERY careful not to destroy the core values of such a system.

After all, if the only thing you get for success is that all of your money is given away to those who didn't try, what incentive is there? There's an incentive to leave, that's for sure.

quote:

---

If we don't want to answer a thread, how about we don't answer a thread?

---

If obvious trolls get banned, then why not ban them right away?

If an obvious troll poster were banned right away then no one (ok, fewer) would bother replying.

I can understand why you don't want to ban every obvious troll on their first post, I can also understand why people answer a rhetorical trolling post with sarcasm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Then say so and back it up or just ignore the thread. We don't needy snotty pile-ons.

---

The poster, who wasn't--at all--trolling asked a legitimate question--basically 'How would a NDP government benefit the middle class?'

The answer he or she got...

Basically he or she was dismissed as unworthy and--the topper--was called stupid!

No one answered the question. Well, no one answered the question without resorting to tired rhetoric, that is. It makes me think that no one actually knew the answer.

If you check out this site, they could give you a more "educated, smart, and sane" opinion than I could.
the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Another problem I see with this discussion is defining "middle class." That does not only include affluent people like Auto Workers who often in Oshawa vote Tory. That includes millions of people who would benefit from a more co-operative society.

Also you have certain right-wing assumptions which cloud your opinion. One is that we do not have adequate evidence of global warming. Another is that for-profit day care is better than government day care. That is certainly not the case in Toronto. I suppose behind that lies the assumption that for-profit anything is better.

quote:

---

If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no honor...

---

Calling a public figure a whore (Jack Layton, as done by 'sillygoil') is within bounds, whether I like it or not.

Calling anyone who has ever needed public assistance absolutely without honour is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

The poster, who wasn't--at all--trolling asked a legitimate question--basically 'How would a NDP government benefit the middle class?'

---

Really?

Did you bother to read the part:

quote:

---

If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no honor, I would probably vote NDP. So I do understand the logic in this segment of the population

---

quote:

---

I can understand why low-income families, unskilled workers and unemployed or seasonally employed people would vote NDP. These people would like support from the middle class and rich around them to pay for their children's education and day care, build cheap housing for them and to send them welfare cheques.

If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no honor, I would probably vote NDP. So I do understand the logic in this segment of the population.

---

Poor-bashing is ok on babble?

A fucking $44 billion tax break for the rich who already don't pay their fair share of taxes. Yeah, great "honour" in that kind of logic.

Oh, BTW twit fuck ... this is Canada ,"honor" is not a word here. That's a word that only a confused semi-literate asshole Republican war mongering immigrant hating (unless they're working for them for slave wages) piece of shit Bush loving red state American, would use.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

The poster, who wasn't--at all--trolling asked a legitimate question--basically 'How would a NDP government benefit the middle class?'

---

There is a reason why the middle class in the US is being stretched more every year between the extremes, and it has happened in Canada to the same extent.

I guess what I'm reacting to is the knee-jerk, self-congratulatory tone that follows any time anyone dares to challenge the conventional thinking of the board.

There is a tendency to scream TROLL every time someone posts something they disagree with. And that is unfortunate.

"You all suck and Layton smells" is trolling. "I think Layton is wrong to prop up the Liberals when it is clear they don't deserve to be" is not.

I realize that the majority of posters on here get that, but I don't know if all do...

And lastly...the spelling flame (honor/honour)...give me a break. Don't be so damn petty, it makes you look like a child.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: dgrollins ]

How obvious does it have to be before it is acceptable to expose them for what they are?

If I posted on the Free Republic board complaining that I didn't understand how anyone of honour could vote Republican in the Blue provinces, I'd expect to be called out as a lying troll.

P.S.

It's not a "spelling flame" ... the American troll spelled it correctly ... if they were complaing about American "honor" on an American board that is.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

An interesting choice of words. Honour is a strange thing, is it not? Some people had some interesting things to say about honour:

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Notice how they choose to include both reputation AND honour? Odd that.

I hate to tell you guys, but my views are rather moderate compared to others in the CPC.

There was one time when I had hoped that a CPC government would finally undo the damage the Liberals have done.

But seeing the state of this horribly fractured country, I now simply hope that the CPC lowers taxes to a livable level and keeps them that low long enough for me to run away -- to the United States.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winterpegger:
If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no honor

An interesting choice of words. Honour is a strange thing, is it not? Some people had some interesting things to say about honour:

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Notice how they choose to include both reputation AND honour? Odd that.

In the future, I'd simply ask that you remember that you do not have the right to question another's honour based on mere speculation.

---

I don't recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I do find it amusing when socialists quote such things with the same absolutism that a Christian would quote the Bible.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]

quote:

---

But seeing the state of this horribly fractured country, I now simply hope that the CPC lowers taxes to a livable level and keeps them that low long enough for me to run away -- to the United States.

---

Case closed.

You might think that I would be clamering for a reduction in taxes when i get back to Canada. I wont because i have honour and a sense of responsability (something we need more of in our country).

I believe strongly in the good of resonable taxes.

Why because the only reason that i live well is because of the social services of this country.
I have gone to business school, I have a university degree, I spent several months supported by the government in a program called experience canada (it was like katimavic)when i lacked direction in my life, my wife has three university degrees.

This cost my country a significant amount of money and i will be damned if I will turn my back on those who supported me when i was young.
You tell me whats responsible about a person who takes a great deal from his country to get educated and all the support that involved and then turns around and says "now that im making money i don't think its fair that i pay back the system that i used"

I was raised to give credit where credit is due and I owe this country a deep and meaningful thank you.

People think only me me me while forgeting that this country and its social services sent them to school, kept them safe, fed them if they were hungry, housed them if they were cold, and healed them when they were sick.

I can only think that some how the virtue of graditude was not something your parents ever bothered to spend time on.

As we have been poisoned by the right wing in this country, we have seen a shrinking middle class, a failing health care system, exploding poverty levels for children, the list goes on. The right is all about sucking money from our pocket and sending it right to the top to the detriment of our economy and the middle and lower classes.

The right that you so love has forced a massive shift of the tax base from corporations to the individual tax payer. If you think that the right has any of your intrests let me ask you this - corporate Canada has had a 25% tax cut over the last five years - and we see no massive job increases, we see no growth in the middle class, we see nothing. But for some reason people like you still clap there hands and follow the mob "yaaa we are getting poorer, health care sucks, education is becoming unafordable, weeeeee! I'm right wing because I have honour". No, your right wing because you are a sucker!

If the love of money is the only thing that motivates you, ask yourself would you rather pay 2500 in taxes a year for health care, or 5000 a year in health care for a insurance plan that you will lose if you develope a cronic illness, have a heart attack?

Or would you rather pay 20% to 50% more for your car insurance?

Would you rather pay vastly more for your or your childs education?

I have honour and I have respect for the sacrifices that others made so that i could get to where I am today, and i will not be a back stabing ingrate and demand a reduction in my taxes once i have become successful. A success that only came about because of others contributing to the social programs of this country.

I hope I can get through some of your "confusion" about the NDP this way (I'll try to be as simple as possible). The NDP is a social democratic party whose policies aim to rid the world of the the worst aspects of free market capitalism: unemployment, poverty, inequity, alienation, war, discrimination and environmental destruction, just to name a few.

For more than sixty years, the social democratic parties of Scandinavia, for example, have been very successful at doing this through progressive taxation, public investment into social programs, strong labour laws, high wages and good benefits, environmental protections and so forth.

Conservatives may not like these ideas, but they have made countries such as ours much better places to live, and I think even those on the Right such as yourself would admit this.

If you still oppose these social democratic ideals, you are free to move to other countries where these don't exist and where people work 70 hours a week for a few dollars a day, with no health or pension benefits, under horrible conditions of poverty and exploitation.

The choice is yours.

Beyond social democracy, a purely socialist society would advance economic democracy to a point where working people, and not state or corporate bureaucrats, would democratically-control production and investment, thus creating a participatory and classless society where people don't have to work, but would want to work as it expresses their natural creativities.

Now I know this sounds attractive to even you. But don't worry, I won't tell any of your conservative friends.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alphathree:
LOL, I'm an Ontarian and I was born in Canada.

I hate to tell you guys, but my views are rather moderate compared to others in the CPC.

There was one time when I had hoped that a CPC government would finally undo the damage the Liberals have done.

But seeing the state of this horribly fractured country, I now simply hope that the CPC lowers taxes to a livable level and keeps them that low long enough for me to run away -- to the United States.

If I were a westerner I would simply advocate separation, but I live in Ontario, so I'm stuck with my Ottawa politicians for a while longer.

---

What a change of tone from the posts I responded to. Your first posts had a naive tone, as if there was a chance you were a young student, honestly perplexed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
The thing about a large portion of the Canadian middle class is they aren't rich if they have to pay for American style healthcare and education.

.

---

Thank you for addressing an issue.

A couple points...when people talk about health care reform they are NEVER advocating for us to adopt the American system. And if they are, they are foolish. But...What’s wrong with, say, the French system (generally seen as the world’s best)? It has moderate user fees, short waiting times and wide-spread satisfaction amongst its users. Why are we afraid to have a real health care debate in this country and why do people insist in thinking in black (American system) and white (Canadian system) terms when it comes to health care?

If I were to make a post on rabble advocating for something like the French system would I be labeled a troll because it isn’t exactly the system Tommy Douglas envisioned?

RE: education

Is it cheaper to go to university in Canada as compared to the United States. Sure it’ll cost ya a pretty penny to go to Harvard, but there are lots of very good public options in the United States.

A comparison (Figures are in Canadian dollars and based on an undergraduate student taking a typical--varies depending on the school--semester course load):

$5,440.24 – State University of New York
http://www.suny.edu/Student/paying_tuition.cfm

*Florida State University - $2,891.59
http://www.sfs.fsu.edu/tuitrates.html

$2,485.20 – Ivy Tech State College (Indiana)
http://www.ivytech.edu/kokomo/tuition.html#fees

$4,614.49 – Lewis-Clarke State College (Idaho)
http://www.lcsc.edu/controllersoffice/reg-fee-sched.htm

$4,193 – Queen’s

$4,185 – U of T

$4,380 – University of Saskatchewan

$ 4,770 – University on New Brunswick

$7,468 – Acadia University

And lastly...forget the original poster, I'm asking now. I would love to engage in a rational and two-way conversation about how the NDP would create a better economic situation for the middle class...

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: dgrollins ]

quote:

---

A couple points...when people talk about health care reform they are NEVER advocating for us to advocate the American system. And if they are, they are foolish. But...What’s wrong with, say, the French system (generally seen as the world’s best)? It has moderate user fees, short waiting times and wide-spread satisfaction amongst its users. Why are we afraid to have a real health care debate in this country and why do people insist in thinking in black (American system) and white (Canadian system) terms when it comes to health care?

If I were to make a post on rabble advocating for something like the French system would I be labeled a troll because it isn’t exactly the system Tommy Douglas envisioned?

---

And you are being ingenious when you try to suggest that there is some how a simple way to debate Canadian vs French healthcare without taking into consideration that we live right next door to the USA, and the French do not; that we have a NAFTA agreement with the Americans that can open the flood doors to American style healthcare if we aren't very careful, and the French don't.

I realize the CPC folks here on Free Dominion are trying to win an election and that rhetoric is important for that goal.

But you seem to be smart people, and so I get worried when you actually believe your own rherotic.

I don't think the CPC is "evil" or any other such thing, and I do respect the principles of family values and smaller government.

I can understand why high-income families, corporations, fundamentalists and those wealthy enough not to have to work would vote CPC. These people would like support from the middle class to subsidize their children's education and day care, subsidize their business interests and prop up the infrastructure that the rich use too (like roads, police, firefighters etc.).

If I were such an individual and I had absolutely no gratitude, I would probably vote CPC. So I do understand the logic in this segment of the population.

But when the CPC rhetoric claims that it's good for the "middle class" and the "average Canadian", I don't really understand the logic anymore.

The fact that some union members, for example, still vote C[C, strikes me as odd. These folks are raking in the dough because their union is very strong. A CPC government would weaken their union - not strengthen it.

The suggestion that an CPC government would be good in the "long term" also seems suspicious. As best as I can imagine it, CPC policy would be workable for a few years until the economic impact of extraordinary tax cuts would start to kick in: loss to infrastructure, wage loss, more government dependency, and so on. The only fix would be to move to a more moderate program or begin deficit spending. Either way, I can't imagine how CPC policy is beneficial in the long term. Underlying a healthy economy is the supposition of a healthy society to generate the labour and consumers for said economy.

I'm not really trying to start a flame war so much as I am trying to understand why the CPC believes it can capture the "middle class" vote.

Now I've had this conversation many times before, and people have answered with extremely strange answers founded in economics that I've never heard of before.

But I know there are also a lot of smart and educated people on this board who truly believe the CPC is good for the middle class. And although you won't convince me to vote CPC, you may, with a rational argument, convince me that you are not only well educated and smart, but also sane.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

I don't want to live in your world of life through bureaucratic rules and lawsuits -- and neither do 300 million Americans.

---

There are two possible ways of organizing society; one in which those with power operate as they chose, and the other through rules.

Those of us who don't own a factory like the idea that the factory owner must abide by rules. We also like the idea that someone is checking the water supply for bacteria, viruses, and whatever else.

Once you have rules (let's call them "laws"), there must be a way of enforcing them. Some people prefer a huge police force. You could have prosecutors running around filing charges.

Or, you could have a system in which there is an element of semi-private enforcement of the laws; that would be "lawsuits", which join "rules" as something you dislike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
What a change of tone from the posts I responded to. Your first posts had a naive tone, as if there was a chance you were a young student, honestly perplexed.

---

Indeed. It -- and the thread title -- keeps reminding me of this guy

quote:

---

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

---

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

quote:

---

I don't want to live in your world of life through bureaucratic rules and lawsuits -- and neither do 300 million Americans.

---

Speaking as a guy who doesn't necessarily hate rules, you've got nothing on me. You guys friggin' love them!

Why else are your prisons full? What did those prisoners break? Hearts? Dance? Rocks?

Nope. They broke rules.

And as for lawsuits, you guys rule the world there too. You have a guy who tried to sue a major television network for tens of thousands of dollars because he was apparently forced to see a nipple during the Superbowl halftime.

If you guys don't like lawsuits, why the hell do you have so many of them, and more importantly, why are so many of them nothing more than whiny cash grabs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
Hey rollins, you need to scroll to the right. See those 'out of state' fees? See how they're typically in the $US10000 range? If you're going to compare SUNY to U of T or what have you, you're going to have to factor in that any kid from Connecticut to Oregon is paying waaaay more than your supposedly-comparable fees.

---

With all due respect, you're grasping.

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:
lets start off by saying that me and my wife make over 100,000 $ a year.

You might think that I would be clamering for a reduction in taxes when i get back to Canada. I wont because i have honour and a sense of responsability (something we need more of in our country).

---

Tuition prices in Ontario over 5 years

In the past 14 years tuition prices have increased by 150%.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: Hawkins ]

quote:

---

Is it cheaper to go to university in Canada as compared to the United States. Sure it’ll cost ya a pretty penny to go to Harvard, but there are lots of very good public options in the United States.

---

It is a PDF file, needs adobe.

"A considerable body of evidence has recently emerged to suggest that access to a post-secondary
education is not equally distributed in many countries. Specifically, students from more
advantageous socio-economic backgrounds hold a considerable advantage, especially with respect
to university participation. The objective of this study was to compare the different experiences of
Canadian and U.S. students with regards to post-secondary access.
The main finding is that two groups of students are disadvantaged in going on to university in the
U.S. compared to Canada."

And when we compare the education system in Canada to some of the Scandinavian countries, ours doesn't look as good.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: Hawkins ]

quote:

---

It is a PDF file, needs adobe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
It also exposes an American repugnican posing as a Canadian trying to troll a Canadian progressive board.

How obvious does it have to be before it is acceptable to expose them for what they are?

If I posted on the Free Republic board complaining that I didn't understand how anyone of honour could vote Republican in the Blue provinces, I'd expect to be called out as a lying troll.

P.S.

It's not a "spelling flame" ... the American troll spelled it correctly ... if they were complaing about American "honor" on an American board that is.

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

---

I don't like this cat he is a mind reader, and obviously really accurate.

Sure the Origional post was ironic as it posited an arguement structured in a false dichotomy, (which is rhetoric), but the origional question still stands...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

Sure the Origional post was ironic as it posited an arguement structured in a false dichotomy, (which is rhetoric), but the origional question still stands...

How does voting NDP benefit the middle class?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

By advocating policies that allow society to function as a society rather than as lions and water buffalo on the Serengeti.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe Canada or the USA has a lot to brag about when compared with some European countries

---

quote:

---

There is an alternative!? I hate adobe it eats resources like a no other, and its always trying to install third party stuff.

---

...thread drift...

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

Fine. This is a start. But which policies are you refering to. Show me with details, please...

---

The fact that the union members in Windsor, for example, still vote NDP, strikes me as odd. These folks are raking in the dough because their union is very strong. An NDP government would let them take home less -- not more."

My response:

Some people would put my family well into the middle class. I am a high school teacher and my spouse is in management. If you only looked at "financial" reasons for ourselves only, we probably would be best to vote Conservative. The 2000 Election brought us a tax break that allowed us to buy a new car (with the tax savings) with money left over.

However, we have seen as a result of our tax decrease...

* reduced education and health funding (my class sizes have gone from 20 to about 35 over the last 10 years)
* increased numbers of children living in poverty (the vast majority - like 90% - of people living on welfare are single parents with small children)
* closed addictions facilities (even though we have a major drug problem in Yellowknife)
* a crumbling infrastructure
* rapidly rising tuition fees

And the list could be extended if I had the time or inclination... All this affects my quality of life.

On the other hand, there are people in my life who are important to me who did not so benefit from the tax breaks. I have a sister (a divorced woman) struggling to send three boys to college. Her tax cut (from 17% to 16% of taxable income) netted her less than $300 for the year. In comparison, my taxes were reduced by about 15% -- tax rates dropping from 29% - 26% for $30,000 of my income and from 26% to 22% for another $30,000. Combine this with a reduced territorial tax due to it being calculated as a percentage of the federal tax (that has been changed since...), this made for a personal saving in the neighbour of $2,100 iin federal taxes and $1,050 in territorial taxes -- my spouse did even better!). The majority of Canadians are in my sister's position (average income less than $30,000) rather than myself. Why should tax reductions be mainly for the middle (upper?) classes and the brunt of the cuts affect those with lower incomes the most. It isn't fair and I'm a fair minded person. I know I did not need a tax cut like the one delivered by the Liberals after the 2000 election (in an election where the Conservatives offered an even bigger one).

I work in Education. There have been increases in Health funding by the federal government (maybe it will do some good though a major problem is the shortage of health care personnel, which cannot be solved only by more money). If we have another tax cut, education will almost certainly be affected. As someone who works in a high school, I can tell you that there is no more fat to cut. We are in the process of cutting what remains of our "optional" programming due to the latest round of "real" cuts in funding in the North. Class sizes cannot get much bigger as the numbers are already filling the classrooms and there is no more room for additional students.

then BigCinme said
"And your returning when? Good to see that you were able to get educated, and use our health care while here and go to another country to pay taxes."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
That's a might fine coat your wearin' Alphatroll.

---

Wow, gee, do you think maybe more people might go to out of state schools if the tuition wasn't double that of going in-state?

For that matter, on average 20% of enrolling freshmen are from out of state, ranging from a high of 87% (DC, also with the highest out-migration rate at 55%), down to a low of 7-8% in California and Texas.

Digging a little deeper, the states with the lowest out-migration tend to be some of the poorest (Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas), and those with the highest tend to be some of the richest (Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island). About 20 states have negative migration figures: more students leaving than arriving.

So on the whole I'd say that despite the financial obstacles placed in its path, student migration is an important factor in US higher education, and the costs of that need to be factored into any comparison of schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:
Originally posted by davidt:
lets start off by saying that me and my wife make over 100,000 $ a year.
You might think that I would be clamering for a reduction in taxes when i get back to Canada. I wont because i have honour and a sense of responsability (something we need more of in our country)

then BigCinme said
"And your returning when? Good to see that you were able to get educated, and use our health care while here and go to another country to pay taxes."

In two years, when I finish my law degree I'm returning to Nova Scotia.
I fail to see how me taking three years to see the world makes me a bad person. I fail to see how if someone takes a vacation or goes to another country to explore or be educated makes them ungrateful.

---

It doesn't. Don't let this guy bother you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
I'd like to know too. How would the NDP's policies make life easier for a double income family of four with, say, 90k/ year income?

---

That's like a single-income earner with $45k a year, so I can tell you under the tax system we in the NDP would like to see, the DI2Kids family would see a drop in the income tax and not have to pay GST.

Everybody seems to think the NDP is just about increasing taxes on everybody without bothering to ask whose taxes are actually gonna go up.

When we say we want to tax those people who make lots of money and not tax people who make little money everybody seems to throw a major shitfit even though it can rapidly be demonstrated that over half the income earners in this country clear less than $40,000 a year, and the odds of anybody making $200k a year are pretty freakin' slim.

It's just like why people have a knee-jerk no-estate-transfer-tax syndrome. They actually believe the pot of gold is just over the rainbow.

What we want to do in the NDP is actually GIVE you some of what was in the pot that you never would have gotten otherwise.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
With all due respect, you're grasping.

Most kids go to school in their home state/province.

---

The point is only Quebec has a differential tuition system. The rest of Canada charges the same tuition as long as you can prove you're a Canadian citizen. BC universities charge the same tuition to me and to a guy from Alburda.

State schools routinely use differential tuition.

BEEEEEP! NEXT!

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Because if you're not, my point still stands--that it isn't necessarily cheaper to go to school in Canada as compared to the United States.

That said, I will acknowledge that an advantage of the Canadian system is that students have a lot of flexibility in moving between different provinces to go to school without having to worry about paying higher rates. An advantage of the American system is that it creates Harvards.

However, I brought this up not to argue that the American system was better than the Canadian system, but rather to illustrate that it is not really that much cheaper to go to school in Canada--despite what the vast majority of Canadians believe.

Evidently the individual that first brought education up was not referring to the end cost, but rather to the idea that taxpayers supplement higher education in both countries. If that is the case, we are talking about different things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

BEEEEEP! NEXT!

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

---

And why was this necessary. Do you need to make a flippant, sarcastic remark to make yourself feel better?

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

Well for starters getting the water buffaloes $4 + billion that was going to go to the lazy lion sleeping on top of yesterdays $billons, redirected back to the water buffalo, to support the much more worthy cause of he communal watering-hole survival fund.

---

Are tax cuts to the corporate sector always bad in your estimation?

What if the failure to have a competitive corporate tax rate causes companies to flee Canada, taking their jobs with them?

Principles are great, but when a paycheck is threatened wouldn't most Canadians, middle class, or working class, be supportive of policies that create jobs and prosperity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[QB]

That's like a single-income earner with $45k a year, so I can tell you under the tax system we in the NDP would like to see, the DI2Kids family would see a drop in the income tax and not have to pay GST.

---

Great! Could you provide me with a link to a source that shows this policy?

I'm especially interested in the no GST bit. My understanding was that the NDP proposed a reduction in the GST on certain items .

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[QB]
Everybody seems to think the NDP is just about increasing taxes on everybody without bothering to ask whose taxes are actually gonna go up.

---

Well...fine..but it is the fault of the party for not better communicating this, rather than the fault of the people for not understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[QB]
When we say we want to tax those people who make lots of money and not tax people who make little money everybody seems to throw a major shift even though it can rapidly be demonstrated that over half the income earners in this country clear less than $40,000 a year, and the odds of anybody making $200k a year are pretty freakin' slim.

---

Clear less? So you mean make +70k? At any rate, could you point out these stats?

As for the +200k...If, say, you have lived under the poverty line for ten years while busting your ass off to get that PhD--putting yourself into major debt--shouldn't you be rewarded for that. Without punitive tax rates being imposed on you?

The argument against hammering the highest earners--that it is a disincentive to pursue higher levels of knowledge--has merit.

So, how do you balance things to make sure that we as a nation can keep talented people in the country and still have a fair tax system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[QB]
It's just like why people have a knee-jerk no-estate-transfer-tax syndrome. They actually believe the pot of gold is just over the rainbow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

As for the +200k...If, say, you have lived under the poverty line for ten years while busting your ass off to get that PhD--putting yourself into major debt--shouldn't you be rewarded for that. Without punitive tax rates being imposed on you?

---

dgrollins,

It's nice to hear conservatives finally admit the fact that there are students living in poverty in Canada. Although forgive me if I find it a little difficult to believe how apparently concerned they are with the plight of poor students, namely since conservative economic policy of lower wages, higher tuition fees and higher rents are largely responsible for student poverty.

You are forgetting a major point here: socialists don't believe that students, or anyone else, should live in poverty at any time in their lives. Post-secondary education should ideally be free so that students don't have to live with financial difficulties, and it is only a progressive taxation system that would allow us to afford such an initative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
So, how do you balance things to make sure that we as a nation can keep talented people in the country and still have a fair tax system?

---

What is called the "brain drain" from Canada is completely fictional when considering the tens of thousands of talented people that move to Canada each year. In fact, the number of doctors, scientists and other educated people that come to Canada is so ENORMOUSLY larger than that which move from Canada to the US, there isn't even so much of a "brain trickle," but I'm sure you knew that already.

In addition, if we were to look at the "brain drain" from Canada to the US, it is LOWER now than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s as a percentage of the population.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

So, then, how, other than with corporate tax cuts, would the NDP ensure that business and investment (and, for the middle class, more importantly, jobs) continue to come to Canada?

---

How about a highly skilled workforce, a low dollar, low interest rates, cheap (publicly-owned) energy, public health care (that business doesn't have to pay for directly), etc.

At the same time, your question assumes an incorrect presumption about the economy: only a certain number of jobs are created through foreign investment in Canada namely because what is called "foreign investment" is actually global corporations buying up Canadian-owned stock. This has nothing to do with building new factories or industries and creating new employment.

Businesses don't create jobs just because they have money in their coffers, they create jobs when they have customers at their front door. This is how the vast majority of employment is created in Canada. So if you're talking about tax cuts creating jobs, the tax reductions should be aimed at poor and working-class Canadians, not Big Business and the wealthy. Or, increase social program spending on those in Canada who need it.

Having said all of this, anyone with a sesame-street level understanding of Canadian macroeconomic policy would know that the policy-makers at the Bank of Canada would never allow the unemployment rate to fall below a certain percentage.

If you're concerned about job creation, lower the number of neo-liberal dinosaurs working at the Bank of Canada, not corporate taxation.

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

First of all, I'm not a Conservative--small C or big. Second, I'm not making statements, I'm asking questions, so please don't mistake a challenging question with a dismissal of your viewpoint.

That said, I want to see real solutions, based on NDP policy, put forward that that can address some of the problems that Canadians face. I don't want to hear rhetoric. So far not so good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Cain:
[QB]

What is called the "brain drain" from Canada is completely fictional when considering the tens of thousands of talented people that move to Canada each year. In fact, the number of doctors, scientists and other educated people that come to Canada is so ENORMOUSLY larger than that which move from Canada to the US, there isn't even so much of a "brain trickle," but I'm sure you knew that already.

---

I wasn't talking about “braindrain” specifically—although it is a consideration. I wanted to know how you could create a tax system that is fair, without unfairly targeting those who have worked very hard to get where they are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Cain:

Having said all of this, anyone with a sesame-street level understanding of Canadian macroeconomic policy would know that the policy-makers at the Bank of Canada would never allow the unemployment rate to fall below a certain percentage.

If you're concerned about job creation, lower the number of neo-liberal dinosaurs working at the Bank of Canada, not corporate taxation.

---

I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and guess that your knowledge of macroeconomics - and more specifically, of monetary economics - is based on reading screeds written by non-economists. And just how many Bank of Canada economists have you spoken to? Or even heard of?

Suffice it to say that since you don't seem to know what you're talking about, moderating your tone might be in order.

If we were having this discussion in 1990, then the cost-benefit analysis would indeed be non-trivial. My colleague Kevin Moran (whom, as it happens, we hired away from the BoC last year) recently presented a paper in which he argued that the transition costs of going to the low-inflation regime we have now were in fact quite large. Not large enough to counter the benefits of permanently low inflation, but too large to dismiss out of hand. Pierre Fortin had a point.

But now that we have low inflation - not to mention unemployment rates and interest rates we haven't seen in 30 years - there's no reason to get nostalgic about the high and volatile rates of inflation we had in the 70s and 80s. Remember 20% mortgage rates?

(Here's a recent thread where I tried to explain monetary policy.)

[ 13 May 2005: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[smackdown]

I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and guess that your knowledge of macroeconomics - and more specifically, of monetary economics - is based on reading screeds written by non-economists. And just how many Bank of Canada economists have you spoken to? Or even heard of?

Suffice it to say that since you don't seem to know what you're talking about, moderating your tone might be in order.
[/smackdown]

---

Much of my understanding in economics comes from my BA and Masters degrees in political science, and my readings on the dismal science of economics were from monetarist, Keynesian and Marxist political economists alike, so I'd like to think I know a little bit of what I'm talking about. As for tone, Stephen, you may want to save the "smackdown" for yourself.

In response to your question: no, I haven't spoken to many Bank of Canada economists, but then again, I haven't personally spoken to Stephen Harper or Monte Solberg either, but I know that their economic policies would be disasterous for poor and working class Canadians.

Likewise, I haven't had the displeasure of ever meeting someone like John Crow, but I know that the high real interest rate monetary policies of the Bank of Canada unecessarily drove up rates of unemployment and debt that to this day continue to keep wages increases low, unemployment higher than what it should be, and increase poverty rates to shameful levels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Cain:

I'm assuming that babblers are certainly intelligent enough to understand the correlation between zero inflation monetary policies and high levels of public debt and unemployment, although it is something that the Left needs to talk more about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
That's not quite right; the BoC's ability to influence the long-run rate of unemployment is essentially nil, although it can affect it in the short run. During the Great Deflation of the early 1990s, there was a conscious decision to trade off a temporary rise in unemployment for a permanent decrease in inflation. But once inflation came down, unemployment went back down again.

---

So how can you account for the fact that (a) the BoC's monomania about inflation extends to the fact that inflation is routinely mentioned in BoC literature and the website and (b) almost no attention is given to unemployment? You can't be seriously claiming that the BoC is unaffected by ideological bias.

Furthermore, how do you account for serious claims that have been made by economists over the last fifteen years that the BoC has engaged in strategies which do not get an official "this is a slow-growth no-inflation policy", but amount to the same thing, just hidden because even the BoC people aren't stupid and know that lip service needs to be paid to the dogma that the policies they put in place are designed to help output and employment.

Are they all lying (Pierre Fortin, Lars Osberg, et al) when they say that the BoC has deliberately embarked on a policy that favors rentiers due to excessively high real interest rates? In economics 101 we are taught that business borrowing is sensitive to, wait for it, the real interest rate. Since business borrowing is the driver of capital investment, wouldn't any sane person conclude that high real interest rates are a great way to indirectly crimp productivity growth, slow economic growth, and create anemic demand conditions because companies can't then employ as many workers or pay them as much? Gawrsh, I wonder....

The BoC, as I pointed out before, has a habit of routinely underestimating the size of the output gap in Canada's economy, which in effect amounts to tolerating a higher unemployment rate than would otherwise be the case due to their unwillingness to abandon the silly-assed NAIRU theory.

I submit as my final case study, the fact that the pronounced "hysteresis" effects in Europe are wrongly attributed to "rigid" labor markets and in fact the poor output and employment figures in non-Scandinavian Europe are directly the results of restrictive monetary policy.

Exactly the same monetary policy that the BoC has been pursuing since John Crow. Remember ole John? Zero-inflation John?

Yeah, that one. Or did you forget about him when you insisted that the BoC's policy of putting Canada's economy through the wringer had positive benefits?

Incidentally, I might also point out that you have accepted my use of Jim Stanford's Paper Boom book as a source, and will point out that an econometric model he ran on the size of the Canadian national debt showed quite clearly that if interest rates had been at 1960s levels the national debt in 1997 would have been about ten percentage points of GDP lower.

Nothing else, just 1960s interest rates.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I suppose so, if only to disabuse itself of the notion that such a correlation exists.

---

Stephen,

Do you actually think that higher real interest rates DON'T create higher levels of unemployment and debt?

Every economist on the face of the planet would agree with this basic correlation. As I said earlier, even a person with a sesame-street level understanding of macroeconomics would understand this. In fact, BoC economists don't only admit this, they JUSTIFY it, and quite PUBLICLY, I might add.

Let us start with our side -- we assume that everyone knows our point of view and if they don't agree they are nasty trolls with no interest in debate. While I find many of the statements offensive, it is not clear to me that this person was trolling. I think this is the case often. The person does not agree with us but was looking for a debate not merely a reaction to stir the pot. I believe that most conservatives do not understand our perspective. I think we should debate posts that while they may be objectionable, do pose real questions to deal with -- not just reply with insults.

Now, let's look at the presumptions in the original post. This person believes that the NDP is essentially about helping the less fortunate. This is in fact the worldview of neoliberals (modern conservatives). They see wealth as personally generated and any amount taken or given from the person holding it is charity (or robbery). That notion is the foundation of the difference between right and left. To explain to the original poster, we are not about charity and do not consider only the person holding the cash as having the only responsibility for its generation.

We believe that wealth is generated in a society by a combination of contributing factors -- ie collectively. The state contributes in providing infrastructure, education etc. society as a whole provides markets and those markets not only buy what the capitalists produce they inform and inspire them. The capitalist system does not account for this and concentrates wealth. Government, through taxes, has an obligation to reclaim some of this and redirect it back to society as a whole for roles and functions that we can only perform together and to individuals in the form of transfers who participate in the economy (as all people do) but have too small a share of it. Some participants contribute much but do not recieve direct benefits.

We also believe in the notion of an economic balance -- that is that the capital generators actually depend on the markets and collective social activity government can organize or provide, including education, security and well being (which includes cultural investment).

Unlike communists we see the point in the value of private creation of capital but we balance that by allowing enough benefit through innovation and work to be retained by the creator, businessperson, capitalist AND enough returned into the system in order to preserve and enhance the conditions that allow the capital to be created as well as provide for the well-being of the society and its individuals.

The idea that there are things best done by government and other things best done by private enterprise is well understood by us but we may draw the lines in different places than you would. For example, while private business is very good at creating capital in the right environment in the short term, it is unable to look after its own long-term interest (nevermind anyone elses) due to the competative environment it requires. On its own private enterprise cannot build even the infrastructure it needs directly -- never mind indirectly) It is government, through regulation and its own initiatives that can take on the longer term interest since the larger society has the stability to look longer for things to be built and investments to pay off. Private enterprise, for example cannot make the big investments that take a generation to pay off because shareholders who want quick dividends would not tolerate that. Also, not all of the benefits created collectively can even be divided. The environment for example is not something that can be quantified and divied up individually -- it is a common good. There are many common goods.

We believe the tensions between the two, when in balance are healthy. However, the degree to which the capitalists have monopolized control over the entire system is not only bad for many people in it but it threatens the system itself including all those capitalist enterprises.

Finally, modern social democratic movements (unlike communists and captialists) are very much informed by the concept of sustainability. By this we mean not just environmentally but also socially and culturally. We look to policies that may require additional investment now but are designed to allow the preservation of our systems, lifestyles, indeed everything -- for the long term. Important to social sustainability is the concept of equality of human beings. This is not to say we will get all the same from life -- but that we have equal value and equal rights as human beings and a right to reach our full potential in so far as society can preserve that for us. From there on we explore our individual abilities and fates.

In order to begin understanding this and us -- if you are a conservative minded person -- you should begin with considering our concepts of equality; collective wealth, initiative, ownership and investment; resources; roles and functions of the individual and society and the nature of governance. You will find that the charicature that right wingers imagine government and the individual to be is quite two dimensional.

When it comes to economics, I think we have the upperhand simply because we employ more tools and consider the systems and tensions between roles and functions more holistically.

There are many things that cannot be achieved by an individual working alone. The right division between group and individual effort is what produces the greatest inovation and problem solving. We feel that conservative views are too restrictive of collective abilities and responsibilities. For example, if we look coldly at an individual's education from a business perspective -- the individual would have to acknowledge society as a shareholder in her/his enterprise and that society made a contribution responsible for the ability to for the individual to create wealth.

Similar value can be considered in public transportation. the more people use it the freer the roads are for those who use cars, the cleaner the air, the lower the consumption of fossil fuels. You don't have to ride the bus personally to gain benefits out of increased ridership. these benefits are also common goods.

Surely you would not expect the investor of a business to get stiffed in the manner that conservatives would stiff the society that contributes to wealth creation through its initiatives.

Anyway -- these are some thoughts on-topic.

Maybe, if you are honestly trying to understand us you should look at some books as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
The pulpit is over there, and I for one am a socialist and don't agree that the NDP necessarily supports an "embedded capitalism" - some parts do, some parts don't.

---

And the government in Ontario is not highly regarded by many NDP supporters, personally I have an extreme loathing for Bob Rae and I don't think that is a necessarily uncommon thing amongst NDPers. But there have been NDP/CCF governments on the Prairies as well. They have been to varying degrees as well.

There are parts of the NDP which want to get rid of capitalism but do not see a revolution as a great way of doing it. The roots of the party are from this line of thinking.

It is not our policy to pay everyone an equal wage regardless of what they do. My point was that we consider wealth to be created by partly collective means.

The policy is rather similar for someone who wants to promote an economic system similar to say Sweden and someone who wants to go further. They both desire to take steps in the same direction, since the current system is far removed from where a large number of NDPers want it to be. But I don't think you understand the extent of the plurality opinions are on how far people actually want to go.

There is no controversy over it because the direction and pace is right for both sides, more or less. And since the current system is going to the right rather to the left (to be very simplistic using a spectrum for economics) there is no argument to be had on "how far do we want to go?"

I ceertainly would not agree with your stopping point Sean in ideal conditions. For I have an extreme utopian goal, but we can agree to support NDP policy because I have moderate expectations for change. I am not willing to push the envelope too far because I know the current culture is not in a similar mindset.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
To deny or think that those policies which founded the NDP are now long gone, subplanted by some sort of neo embedded Liberalism was my point of objection. Nor am I trying to preach upon the unity of this position, merely pointing out it still has at least some reminence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fossilnut:

Such as? I attended university in both Canada and Germany and took some courses in Strasbourg, Franc/...there's only no comparison because the average European (I don't know about the UK) has little prospects of attending University. When I lived in Germany students were channeled like cattle into trades, etc. while we Canadians of similar high school age were applying to universities of our choice back in Canada. I went into Geology.... My choice. My best friend into Engineering, his choice. I went to McGill. My choice. He went to Quuens... his choice. Students in Germany could only drool at our opportunities to shape our own futures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alphathree:
I realize the NDP folks on this board are trying to win an election and that rhetoric is important for that goal.

---

I am new on babble as of today, and maybe it is not prudent of me to answer this posting, because so many seem to think it is useless, but I will give my view anyhow, and you can do with it as you see fit.

About my personal situation. I am an "upper middle class white" male, quite well employed, living in Alberta. Until about 9 years ago I was a staunch Conservative, having liked both Ralph Klein and the early Reform Party (imagine that!). In the mid-nineties things changed, and my worldview transformed where today I am in a position where no party 100% fits into the picture of what I think a better world would look like, but for me, the NDP is the only party I can identify sufficiently with to be a proud supporter.

To me, this isn't about winning an election, because I already know that of the three major Canadian parties, it is the most unlikely that the NDP would form the next government. But to me it is a matter of not compromising ones principles, and putting my support where my heart is.

To me, the purpose of government is the protection of the individual from harm, whether bodily, economic or other. Governments role should be to act like a stewart, administering to our benefit, and not to rule us for the sake of power. It should serve and act like it is managing the affairs of a huge family, making sure that nobody suffers, rather than the affairs of a dairy or mining operation, where Canadians merely get treated as resources to be exploited by special interests.

A big deal is being made of Adscam, and without question, I find it outrageous too. If Judge Gomery determines at the end of his inquiry that crime has been committed, I want to see everybody involved in jail, especially the politicians behind the plot. But that is a small piece of a much larger picture. The more important and revealing picture is how corporatians are interwoven with the ruling party, a picture we seldom get to see on such public display.

But this is not about the Liberal Government. Adscam is more than that. The Gomery inquiry revealed a short while ago, largely ignored by the media, that the same sort of corruption was far more widespread under the Conservatives, and that the Liberals curtailed but did not eliminate the influence peddling and 'sponsorship'.

The much bigger picture we need to see, is that Canada is suffering from a hugely corrupt two-party system which has been purposely set up by corporate interests, to switch between the parties whenever a 'scandal' hits the tabloids and "the people won't take it anymore". The two-party system of Conservative & Liberal Parties ensures that the corporate culture always get their perks, no matter who is in power, because while different on their social agenda, both parties serve the corporate agenda equally.

For decades Canadians have been cheated out of government that has worked in their favor, - except mainly for the short periods where minority governments were dependent on another party to stay in power - and have been fed a constant stream of policy which has empowered corporations and disempowered ordinary citizens who pay the actual bills. At the times when the Liberals were dependent on the support of the NDP, they were no longer able to press ahead with their corporate agenda, and had to institute some of the people-friendly ideas of the NDP. I need only remind you that Universal Healthcare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance System - programs the vast majority of Canadians would never want to part with - while instituted by the Liberal Party, only became reality because of the NDP. Tommy Douglas, recently voted the "Greatest Canadian", as the driving force behind the Saskatchewan NDP government before leading the federal NDP, instituted many valuable programs and services in Saskatchewan, which were for the most part dismantled under the corrupt and criminal Conservative government of Grant Devine within a very short period. Why Canadians will not entrust the governance of the country to a party which we can thank for the greatest accomplishments and public services this country has ever known, and instead keep voting for the "big money parties" which have no interest in anything but dismantling every last bit of those great institutions, is beyond my comprehension.

Adscam is only a very small piece of the puzzle, where corporations benefit on the backs of ordinary Canadians. Corporate welfare runs rampant, and has done so for decades. Prominent recipients are Bombardier, Ford, Air Canada, Triple5, Gainers and others. And while the two major corporate parties want to convince you that Corporate Welfare and constant Corporate Tax Cuts are a good thing, while our infrastructure, public transportation, environment, and social programs are falling apart, and the burden eventually has to be picked up by Joe Canadian, the reality is that all these taxpayer-funded perks stop neither layoffs nor outsourcing. How many millions... how many billions have been pumped into these corporations, only to have it backfire on us anyway in form of layoffs or economic blackmail for even more money, under the threat of layoffs?

Despite what many people like to believe, the recipients of this welfare are not the economic engine of our country. The economic engine and largest employer in this country is small business. Everytime a giant moves in, more people lose their jobs than are being created by the giant corporation which replaces them.

The people who are not (yet) affected by this think it's a good thing, that it makes the marketplace more efficient. But not all that glitters is gold. This assumed gain in efficiency does not work to the benefit of the average Canadian, but only to the benefit of the few people who control the corporations, because it destroys a lot of jobs which used to enable people to live independently, and transforms them into not only fewer low-paying jobs, but turns what is being transformed on top of that into part-time jobs (or maybe more appropriately, "hobbies"). This in turn puts pressure on the social system as well as the families of those people thus 'employed'.

I work with a staunch Conservative, and we have many discussions. He believes in the 'competitive society' advocated by most Conservatives, and I gave him an example of how this policy is costing him money. His sister (divorced, in her 40's) works at Wal-Mart. The nature of her employment - despite her employment for quite a few years - is such that she earns around $700-800 pay per month. Because she cannot afford to own her own home on those wages, and neither is able to afford a decent rental unit - her car broke down over a year ago, and she has not been able to repair it - he is renting a house he owns to her considerably below market value, so she has a roof over her head. I told him that because Wal-Mart gets away with not only paying people very low wages, but also employ most of their employees part-time, in order to get around paying benefits, the burden of his sister's living an acceptable life has shifted from the corporation to him. Though still Conservative, he does view a few issues a bit different now.

Anyhow, it is getting quite late, and I am getting a bit tired, so I should probably end this for tonight. The long and the short of it is, that I believe that while The Liberal & Conservative Parties will always serve Corporations over benefitting you and me, the NDP has a genuine humanitarian-driven interest in doing the exact opposite.

They're not perfect, and won't produce perfect government, but neither will any other Party. The Corporate Parties, with the help of the corporate media, have successfully managed to portray the NDP thus far as a party unable to govern, and Canadians have been more than willing to not give them the chance to prove themselves, while nearly every Canadian has at one time or another directly benefitted from policies which have only become reality because of the NDP. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

This will explain all.

[ 15 May 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

I would, however, in the spirit that you raised it, like to quibble with soemthign you said.

The idea of corporate welfare is quite simplistic. Even the concept of welfare is offensive since I am not opposed to welfare as it has a role in providing last chance money for those who need it.

Governments should invest in business to advance social goals and their objectives. They also should invest with an objective of making some money to either reduce costs or to pay for other costs that need supporting. I am not convinced that all government revenue should be from taxes alone.

Your statement that small business makes the country go is only partly true. (I am not opposed to small business having run small businesses for many years.) However, small business cannot do everythign the economy needs. Indeed, as much as you may think it sounds like trickle down theory, small business needs the larger businesses as well and not because of the direct commercial activity either.

Only large enterprises -- public or private -- can consistently afford higher wages or support unionization. If we only supported small business in this country the average Canadain wage would drop drastically. Most small business hires only a few minimumornear minimum wage employees or no employees at all. Not everyone is cut out to run a business. To sustain large communities you need large numbers of workers getting very good wages. To that end soem of these strategic business investments can achieve that.

One of your examples was Bombardier. Let us just look at that one. I have comments already in another thread about Bombardier but let me add this: Quebec is a small-business friendly environment. The economic activity created by the good union wages at Bombardier provide the buying power that is the life-blood of many small businesses in Quebec.

So I think you have to be careful about the big-business small business thing.

Now as a New Democrat, I am very concerned when we invest in business that we get a good deal. I personally prefer the idea of government taking a minority equity stake in a business to improve the chance of a better return on investment rather than grants. I also think that having the government seated at the corproate table also helps when the government has regional employment objectives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
Red Albertan,
I am also very impressed with your post. Given how many useless posts show up there are many people here that will welcome the tone and thought you bring.

I would, however, in the spirit that you raised it, like to quibble with soemthign you said.

The idea of corporate welfare is quite simplistic. Even the concept of welfare is offensive since I am not opposed to welfare as it has a role in providing last chance money for those who need it.

---

I used the terminology because it is common usage, and hardly my invention. As mentioned in another post, my main opposition is to government 'giving away' money with nothing even remotely tangible in return. But I would like to offer another idea to the whole 'corporate support' agenda, if that's a better description.

As for Corporate Taxes... Since Corporations are not 'real' people, though often enjoying more rights and less obligations than real people - but that's maybe for another posting - all Corporate Taxation eventually filters down to the individual.

In the age of computers, and in order not to show favoritism, which is currently happening, Corporate Taxes should then maybe be directly tied to the creation of fulltime jobs, meaning then that all Corporations could start out at a certain percentage of Corporate Tax, and a portion would be eliminated with every living-wage fulltime job they create, potentially resulting in 0% tax for some. Of course, such a scheme would have to eliminate the fudging of numbers, where a corpotration 'creates' X amount of jobs while laying off people in another department. The aggregate numbers would have to be maintained for at least a year, to qualify.

'Corporate Welfare' on the other hand - giving money or other concessions to corporations without direct benefit - is playing favorites on the part of the respective governments, because it is supporting a structure which, in the case of Ford or Air Canada for example, creates an uneven playing field for the competitors who are not subject to receiving such benefit, and must now compete against a government-supported rival.

quote:

---

Governments should invest in business to advance social goals and their objectives. They also should invest with an objective of making some money to either reduce costs or to pay for other costs that need supporting. I am not convinced that all government revenue should be from taxes alone.

---

I agree, I think. ;-) As opposed to some, I would like to see government involved a lot more in 'business', but not the way they have been. There is a lot of talk about the increase in healthcare costs for example. This is partly due to the move by the Conservative government in the late 80's to extend patent protection for drug manufacturers, and the resulting 'evergreening', which the NDP wants to abolish. I would much rather propose as a solution that Canada turn one of its universities into a top-notch medical research facility, putting the best research minds of the country into one place and on government payroll. Any resulting discovery would reduce the cost of the drug portion of healthcare, as well as provide revenue via international licensing or outright sales of Canadian drugs to the world. But I do not think this idea would be workable under the current NAFTA straigh-jacket. The current practive of basically giving away discoveries made through publicly-funded research does not serve the people.

quote:

---

Your statement that small business makes the country go is only partly true. (I am not opposed to small business having run small businesses for many years.) However, small business cannot do everythign the economy needs.

---

That is true, and note I didn't say there should be no big business. However, if 'big business' is unable to survive without government handouts, while providing an essential service - like for example a national carrier - then it is time for the government to step in and take outright control of that business by providing the financing and simultaneously taking a comparable equity position in it.

quote:

---

Only large enterprises -- public or private -- can consistently afford higher wages or support unionization.

---

This is an issue where I do not agree with the NDP. There are at least two organizational structures I cannot agree with, and one of them is Unions. I am not sure if I will be able to properly explain my opinion in this context, without getting people to draw premature conclusions, but I will try to present the essence of my argument.

In my opinion Unions, rather than alleviate wage disparity, incite it. Unions actually fit quite nicely into the capitalist model, as long as they are controlled and affect only a small section of the work force. In my opinion the existence of Unions relieves the government from its duty of ensuring all workers are treated fairly. Because Unions exist, a huge portion of our population has "no admittance" to well-paying jobs, and the Unions and bosses in essence very much act like worker-corporations and CEO's. IF no Unions existed, people would earn less as a whole, and the public outcry would likely become so great that it would result in the entire overthrow of the capitalist structure of society as it currently exists. But because of the 'compromise' position capitalism allows to exist, huge numbers of people are permanently stuck in low-paying jobs with no real chance of ever rising above that. The existence of unions results in the abrogation of duties by government for the people.

quote:

---

Now as a New Democrat, I am very concerned when we invest in business that we get a good deal. I personally prefer the idea of government taking a minority equity stake in a business to improve the chance of a better return on investment rather than grants. I also think that having the government seated at the corproate table also helps when the government has regional employment objectives.

---

This is the point I made in another thread.

quote:

---

All that being said, I don't understand why government does not take a minority interest in some small business enterprises as well. I think it is healthy for government to invest in busienss but it should not do so as welfare (using your word) but it should do so as an investment (and they pay off for governments in many way. Just because we get the employment and economic activity benefits does not mean that we should not get equity at times as well.

---

I wish that workers where in copntrol of production and democracy in their companies, thus eliminating the need of unions. I see many unions as another layer of taxes and bosses. But we aren't there yet. Workers who are responsible for the companys' well being are more responsible anyway. If there is waste, a worker would try to minimize it if it means a direct benefit to them at years end. But withot profit sharing and worker being involved in more of the process this doesn't happen.

I am not concerned about the competition angle in any case where we get value in equity. Then it is a market transaction at a market price to the benefit of the company and the taxpayer. these transaction sbecause many will make money (or at least not lose everything as grants do by definition) put the government in a position to afford more.

Yet somehow that's never a problem.

I too am in favour of democratic worker control of firms.

[ 16 May 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

THE AVERAGE CANADIAN WOULD PAY LESS IN TAXES UNDER AN NDP GOVERNMENT! No joke, please check : Conservative vs. NDP tax platform; Election 2004

Of all the rhetoric i hear putting down the NDP, this notion of more taxes is the single most annoying one. Increased taxes for people, who already have more than comfortable livings (I'm sorry, if your family makes more than $150,000,then you're doing alright) and for large corporations is certainly acceptable in any attempt to build a better society by providing oppourtunity to millions who would otherwise fail.

Then the people who insist that Canadian companies, who already pay some of the lowest income taxes in the western world (yes, less than the US even) would not stay in Canada because of the excessive taxation....Where do you get these ideas?

Keep in mind, companies that don't make a lot of money in the year will pay no more in taxes. And, honestly, the NDP isn't even suggesting to increase corporate taxes. I think they should. Corporations, do not, contrary to popular opinion, get up and leave very easily. Billions of dollars of investment can not be divested that easily. It would mean substantial losses.

Moreover, where does most employment creation come from? Yes, small businesses. And guess what, the NDP has always had a friendlier small business platform than the other parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alphathree:
LOL, I'm an Ontarian and I was born in Canada.
...
I now simply hope that the CPC lowers taxes to a livable level and keeps them that low long enough for me to run away -- to the United States.
...
but I live in Ontario, so I'm stuck with my Ottawa politicians for a while longer.

---

Not according to your IP address, you don't. Nice try, though. Whoever caught "honor" is a good sleuth.

I run a board elsewhere, which makes me a very interested observer/participant. This may be naive of me, but I want to share some things I noticed on this thread:

-The poster who asked a question that was also on my mind; namely, how the NDP can help the middle class, was immediately labelled a troll

-On the basis of a popular (and allowable!) spelling of the word honour, the poster was also labelled an American, AND treated as if that was automatically an insult

-The moderator did a fine job of encouraging an actual response to this poster's question, but... it took most of the thread before Sean from Ottawa actually did that

-Several times the word "we" was used by posters, apparently to refer to both the NDP and the "owners," factually or otherwise, of this board

-The notion was raised that somehow a US-based troll might try to foment discord on this board, although it was never made clear why they would do such a thing

-The assistant moderator wound up with the "American" expression "real easy," in outing the so-called troll's IP address... I found it mildly ironic that this was not pounced upon with the same glee as the use of the word "honor" above

Is this an NDP board? Or is it an open discussion board? If there's an "in crowd" here, I'd like to know who they are, or more accurately, who "we" are. If there's an us and a them, it should say so on the way in. I joined up because I wanted to talk about issues that matter to me in an unbiased forum. I hope this is it.

I'm not here to make enemies, or friends, for that matter. These are simple observations. If it matters, I vote Green... but I still wanted to know how the NDP helps the middle class. It's the ability to learn about things like that that brought me to this board in the first place.

About 15 months ago a "troll" started posting right wing economic arguments against left leaning positions... a champion emerged and slaughtered the troll, i loved it, so much i printed of the 30 or so pages of the conversation. you refute a "troll" with reason and argument and you have the side benifit of educating others in the process.

I spend some time on this site to look this and that up, but the quality of discussion sometimes is nothing less than deplorable... the regulars are quick to take offense and are unwilling to engage arguments that are contrary to their own possitions.

I say lets call open season on the "trolls" and crush them with our logic and the force of our arguments. Not just pointless mocking that paints us as unable to respond in a reasonable and constructive way.

just my two cents.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: davidt ]

If you've read the first post on this thread and actualy believe that that piece of insulting fluff was an actual serious question, then I submit that the mods better check your IP address as well, cause we might just have another case of sock-puppetry.

edited to add:

I probably shouldn't be so hard on you, so if you really are interested in asking a question about "NDP Rhetoric", then maybe the best idea is to start a new thread and try forming your question is a form not designed to be insulting.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

I've said nothing out of line. NOTHING.

if we want to "take seriously those who want to keep all the power in the hands of the privildged classes." we should be prepared to refute those positions where ever we see them. We cant just stick our collective heads in the sand and say "thats not worthy of a response".

If we are to win the battle for the minds of our fellow citizens we have to vigiorously oppose those positions with the force of reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:
I'm posting under my REAL NAME with a link to my REAL WEBSITE and am doing so as a matter of principle. What you see is what you get.

I've said nothing out of line. NOTHING.

Do I need to post my address and passport number as well to avoid insults of this nature?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
but for God's sakes, why should anyone bother to respond with anything but contempt when someone insults everything you stand for and frames it as a "question"?

---

What...you didn't feel a desperate need to prove that you had "honor" and that you were sane to someone who had admitted they'd never vote NDP?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:
Yes. So what?

If this is how you treat strangers and newcomers you're hardly winning me over to your politics.

---

If you took that as a serious question then I have no illusions as to winning you over to anything. I'm sure you are an intelligent person but if I were a well off smug SoB I would have a hard time understanding the NDP rhetoric as well (if that sounds like an insult, then re-read that first post again and get back to me about your contention that it was a serious post.)

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:

What...you didn't feel a desperate need to prove that you had "honor" and that you were sane to someone who had admitted they'd never vote NDP?

Huh.

---

No im not a democrat im a socialist who who bothers to stand up for what I think.

-if you dismiss a post because it disagrees with your point of view, you can't have a discussion,

-if you dismiss a post because it contains insults, then I should ignore your replies to me entirely!

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatal ruminate:
Youi've seen that there are some people on this board who are so protective of what they perceive to be the party rhetoric that they feel compelled to attack or label as trolls anyone they feel threatens their beliefs.

---

No ones attacked and labeled you as yet. But maybe you're right, maybe it is only low-income families, unskilled workers and unemployed or seasonally employed people who would vote NDP so as to get the rich to pay for their children's education and day care, build cheap housing for them and to send them welfare cheques?

Maybe those who vote for the NDP have no honour?

Maybe I'm a poor representitive of the NDP for being "over protective" and recognizing a piece of crap for what it is and saying so?

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:
Whats so strange and "american democratic" about pointing out the typically poor arguments the right uses and suggesting that they be shown as the garbage they are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

Maybe those who vote for the NDP have no honour?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:
Look, I'm not suggesting that I liked everything about the initial post in this thread, but:

-if you dismiss a post because it disagrees with your point of view, you can't have a discussion,

-if you dismiss a post because it contains insults, then I should ignore your replies to me entirely!

You haven't addressed any of the points I made in my initial post; rather, you've attacked me personally. That's a shame, because if you got to know me I think you'd find me more friend, than enemy. And making enemies is a silly way to go through life, regardless.

---

Well good then ... here's a suggestion, rather than building your relationship from an already corrupted base, why not start a new thread and present your questions in your own words and manner so you won't get lumped in with supporting a lier and a troll?

being overly defensive to the exclusion of rational debate is to my mind, lazy and ineffective when it comes to bringing people on side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:

Not only that, but NDP'ers really suck with the bat'leth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:

I like to be effectual when it comes to defending my politics.

---

Part of being effective is choosing your battles, though - and using your time to fight battles worth winning. Let's not overstate the importance of this thread - you're not letting down The Cause(TM) by failing to respond in exacting detail to a glorified "NDP sUxx0rz" post on teh Intarweb.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by davidt:
exposing someone as alier takes more than saying "your a lier" i take the seemingly radical notion of explaining why i think the way i do.

being overly defensive to the exclusion of rational debate is to my mind, lazy and ineffective when it comes to bringing people on side.

I like to be effectual when it comes to defending my politics.

---

It turns out he was lying. So the people questioning the esteemed Alphathree smelled the same old smelly bait some of us have been smelling for years around here, and called him on it. If Alphathree had really wanted to know what the NDP could do for the middle class all he had to do was ask:

"What does the NDP offer to the middle class?"

But he didn't do that. If he had babblers could have posted a link to the NDP site and started a real discussion and there would have been no need for you to scold people here who have been around the mulberry bush a million times.

quote:

---

The notion was raised that somehow a US-based troll might try to foment discord on this board, although it was never made clear why they would do such a thing

---

When you figure out why people troll let me know cause it's a mystery to me and babble gets loads and loads of them, some more sophisticated than others. And some are US-based tolls. Usually they get caught up in their phoney personas, can't keep all their details straight or just flat out violate babble policy and engage in hate speech. The really do run the gamut. If it wasn’t verboten I could give you some user names to search and you’d see that there is good reason on babble to be less than trusting in situations like this.

Finally, this is a progressive board, is it really so hard to see why some folks don't want to explain the fundamentals over and over again to mostly disinterested right wingers? It’s not always about being overprotective about babble or being “In”. Isn't it possible progressives might like to get on with working out our own differences? It's not preaching to the choir. We aren't all singing the same song, we aren’t even all reading from the same songbook. Take a peek at the feminist forum for an idea of how far apart views can be inside a group of people that all self-identify as feminists. How can we learn to understand each other and work together if we spend most of our time fending of feminist bashing? I have no patience to repeatedly explain that no, as a feminist I don’t hate man, nor do I lack respect for stay-at-home Moms. After the 20th repeated myth busting I realized that I should stop engaging in Ground Hog Day like games with disingenuous punks but sometimes they clutter up the forum terribly and have to be dealt with. It isn’t hard at all to see the difference between a simple, sincere question and the first post in this thread, as a seasoned moderator it should have been a piece of cake for you Mr. Newland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
When you figure out why people troll let me know cause it's a mystery to me and babble gets loads and loads of them, some more sophisticated than others. ... It isn’t hard at all to see the difference between a simple, sincere question and the first post in this thread, as a seasoned moderator it should have been a piece of cake for you Mr. Newland.

---

I didn't say I was a "seasoned moderator," I only said I ran a board elsewhere. I'm interested in learning more, in the process of discussing some issues meaningfully.

Seasoned or no: the trolls I've met are nothing like this poster, whether he or she is a liar, or otherwise. Their tactics are incendiary and hurtful. There may be a category of troll that includes asking relatively sophisticated questions (however rudely) and then sitting back and waiting for the response, but truly, I've never found that to be a problem on the board I administer. Lesson learned? Maybe. I'm still not convinced that first post was sufficiently evil to deserve the scorn it received.

In any case, you've noted elsewhere in your post (which I excerpted for brevity) that this is a "progressive board," implying that therefore one only had to be so patient with apparent conservatives.

But that goes directly to the confusion behind some of my queries: as a newby, how am I to know this is a "progressive" board, and that right-wing opinions are therefore implicitly or explicitly unwelcome?

I earnestly believed this board was "progressive" in the sense that it was a place where discussion from all points of view would be tolerated, if not encouraged. I checked the FAQ and all the info I could find, and did not see anything to disabuse me of that notion... until I entered this thread.

Just to make sure I've got this (and I'm not being sarcastic) is it true to say that this board is for people who have decided they are NDP supporters to talk about issues from the many varied perspectives that decided NDP supporters can provide?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:

Just to make sure I've got this (and I'm not being sarcastic) is it true to say that this board is for people who have decided they are NDP supporters to talk about issues from the many varied perspectives that decided NDP supporters can provide?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:
I'm still not convinced that first post was sufficiently evil to deserve the scorn it received.

---

Some of us were convinced that the first post was disingenous and that the poster was misrepresenting himself. Guess what? We were right. Should we all ignore what experience has taught us because you haven't reached the same conclusion?

quote:

---

how am I to know this is a "progressive" board, and that right-wing opinions are therefore implicitly or explicitly unwelcome?

---

I didn't realize we had established that right wing opinons were unwelcome and I've been a member here for three years. It's dishonesty and contempt that are unwelcome and I believe Alphathree came equipped with both.

quote:

---

... is it true to say that this board is for people who have decided they are NDP supporters to talk about issues from the many varied perspectives that decided NDP supporters can provide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newland:
Wow, this thread has been really educational for me, as I am a babble newbie.

I run a board elsewhere, which makes me a very interested observer/participant. This may be naive of me, but I want to share some things I noticed on this thread:

---

So far so good, starts out reasonable, even offers of providing some insight.

quote:

---

-The poster who asked a question that was also on my mind; namely, how the NDP can help the middle class, was immediately labeled a troll

-On the basis of a popular (and allowable!) spelling of the word honour, the poster was also labeled an American, AND treated as if that was automatically an insult

---

No, you are being either ingenious or haven't bothered to read the full post.

The reason he was labeled a troll was because of how he lit into the NDP and NDP supporters as being dishonourable layabouts who were only interested in living off the teat of the hard working upper class ... the "American" dig was only a small clue as to the whole "American-rugged-individualistic" attitude of the poster.

quote:

---

-The moderator did a fine job of encouraging an actual response to this poster's question, but... it took most of the thread before Sean from Ottawa actually did that

---

Sean in Ottawa is way too nice, but leaving that aside, you are wrong ... many people tried early on to do what I considered a waste of time, and unfortunately I was right, because not a single thing changed, the replies were still laced with poor bashing rhetoric.

quote:

---

-Several times the word "we" was used by posters, apparently to refer to both the NDP and the "owners," factually or otherwise, of this board

---

Do you have any specific examples? "We" can have many meanings ... including but not limited to "we" as the regulars on the board; "we" as the NDP; "we" as a clique of board members; "we" as some friends and myself; "we" as in Canadians; and so on. Usually I am able to discern the meaning by the context, and if I can't then I ask what the "we" is referring to.

quote:

---

-The notion was raised that somehow a US-based troll might try to foment discord on this board, although it was never made clear why they would do such a thing

---

No, the notion was raised that the poster who claimed to be from Ontario (in his profile and proclaimed in this thread) was in fact from the USA ... he could have been from France as far as I'm concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that the poster was a liar (thanks Kinetix) and was therefor up to questionable good.

quote:

---

-The assistant moderator wound up with the "American" expression "real easy," in outing the so-called troll's IP address... I found it mildly ironic that this was not pounced upon with the same glee as the use of the word "honor" above

---

Because many of us know that the mods really are Canadians, their real names, what they look like, and where they live (at least which part of their cities.) But, for all we know, you may be right, maybe they really are Americans that now live and work in Canada, but what they aren't, are Americans, living in the USA, pretending to be Canadians in order to sneakily kick sand in the face of Canadians.

quote:

---

Is this an NDP board? Or is it an open discussion board? If there's an "in crowd" here, I'd like to know who they are, or more accurately, who "we" are. If there's an us and a them, it should say so on the way in. I joined up because I wanted to talk about issues that matter to me in an unbiased forum. I hope this is it.

---

Here you go already, starting to "accuse" this board of doing something so horrible that every board everywhere does exactly the same thing ... regulars tend to form an "in" crowd ... progressives are no different in this respect than any other group, but somehow it is this new and outrageous lefty conspiracy to keep poor "centrists" like Alphathree from expressing their opinion.

quote:

---

I'm not here to make enemies, or friends, for that matter. These are simple observations. If it matters, I vote Green... but I still wanted to know how the NDP helps the middle class. It's the ability to learn about things like that that brought me to this board in the first place.

Peace.

---

If you're still interested, then create a new thread and voice you specific questions in your own terms and those who read your questions can make their own judgments as to your seriousness in asking ... but I would suggest if you do want people to take your questions seriously, that a less accusatory tone would work a lot better.

www.rabble.ca

Take a peek around and let me know what you think the mission statement of this place really is. For real. And explain to me how we should always keep re-reading Chapter 1.

I can see how fourms like...

quote:

---

labour and consumption
Discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view.

---

and...

quote:

---

feminism
Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view

---

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]