# Canadians Set To Vote Conservative: CBC News Poll



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I was going to drop this in MacDoc's "and Harper wants an election !!!!" thread, but I didn't want to bust their balloon. 

But this poll pretty much matches the poll in the thread "Poll: if the election were today, how would you vote?" posted by rgray.



> Canadians are most likely to vote for the Conservatives in a federal election, and believe Stephen Harper and Jack Layton would make better prime ministers than Stéphane Dion, according to a new poll sponsored by CBC News.
> 
> The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 38 per cent of Canadians would vote for the Conservative party if an election were held immediately.
> 
> ...


Canadians set to vote Conservative: poll

There's gonna be a lot of ehMacers cryin' over this one!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yeah, but SINC, three ministers aren't running in the next election...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I know, I know. Ain't it awful?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

SINC said:


> I know, I know. Ain't it awful?


I have reflected on this, and now find it is a non-issue.

Adolph surrounds himself with yes-men, incapable of independent thought, so there is really no loss.

Their home ridings are probably safe anyway.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

similar numbers except in reverse when we went into election the last time.

I predict Harper either just misses a majority by a handful of seats, or, if Dion really drops the ball, which is entirely possible, he gets a majority.

My feeling is, we need to get the 'Harper' out of our system, and let him have his noose. I know if he gets his 4 years, that will be all he'll have. Mark my words.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> similar numbers except in reverse when we went into election the last time.
> 
> I predict Harper either just misses a majority by a handful of seats, or, if Dion really drops the ball, which is entirely possible, he gets a majority.
> 
> My feeling is, we need to get the 'Harper' out of our system, and let him have his noose. I know if he gets his 4 years, that will be all he'll have. Mark my words.


The trouble is, the legacy he leaves will make (Ontario's) Mike Harris's seem like schoolyard antics. All Harper wants is one term. 

Don't be complacent! Convince everyone you know on the fence to vote strategically. To me this isn't a partisan issue. It's the wholesale dismantling of our Country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


>


MacDoc is already toasting the new majority, but even I I find that a little presumptuous.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I predict Harper either just misses a majority by a handful of seats, or, if Dion really drops the ball, which is entirely possible, he gets a majority." I agree with Groovetube. 

Qiuebec and Ontario will be the real battle grounds, with the Liberals gaining in the Atlantic provinces, the NDP and maybe even the Green Party gaining some seats in the west. But PQ and ON shall be where the election is made or lost by Harper in his quest for a majority government. We shall see.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

*Cause polls are exacting science right?*

So why don't we just forgo the whole election thingy and use this poll as the results? Cause nobody ever answers differently in a poll then in an actual election right? Plus do you know anyone who willfully answers that unsolicted phone call during the dinner hour for a short survey? 'Bout the only thing poll is good for is creating a list of lonelies and nothing better-to-do's that I'd never want to have over for bridge & mint jullip night.

All I have to say is FOUR MORE YEARS!
Oh wait that's not fixed yet...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The polls are never wrong in the US

Google Image Result for http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-01/34569547.jpg


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Don't be complacent! Convince everyone you know on the fence to vote strategically. To me this isn't a partisan issue. It's the wholesale dismantling of our Country.


I see that desperation has now set in for some Canadians. They forget that a Conservative majority is what most Canadians appear to want and they should respect that because after all, it is democracy at work.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> The trouble is, the legacy he leaves will make (Ontario's) Mike Harris's seem like schoolyard antics. All Harper wants is one term.
> 
> Don't be complacent! Convince everyone you know on the fence to vote strategically. To me this isn't a partisan issue. It's the wholesale dismantling of our Country.


Mike Harris was a liberal wuss, and Harper is really no different. Perhaps the only improvement that Harris brought was that he replaced Rae, who was the worst Premier of all time, who lead a government that was a big flaming zeppelin right from the get go.

I expect Dion to basically fold in the Debate. He will be squeezed by all of the parties. Harper will want to keep Dion from claiming the Center; Layton needs to keep Dion from intruding on the Left; Duceppe needs to bolster the Bloc in Quebec; and Dion needs to make sure that May doesn't steal his only plank when it comes to the Environment. Not that Dion will have an easy job, since the daggers are aleready drawn in the Fiberal party. Now, if Dion does manage an excellent debate, that may actually swing things. However, seeing that the Fiberal seats have been bled in various by-elections, and the withdrawl of the local Fiberal candidate here in The Hammer (not that they have a chance against the NDP in the nation's poorest city - 33% of the city now relies upon the United Way...)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I see that desperation has now set in for some Canadians. They forget that a Conservative majority is what most Canadians appear to want and they should respect that because after all, it is democracy at work.


Hardly desperation SINC. And shame on you for exacting the same ridiculing tactics you so decry when you feel they are leveled at you.

Something about dishing it out but not taking it.

Also, democracy is respecting what the 'majority' of those polled are saying? That is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard for awhile.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Hardly desperation SINC. And shame on you for exacting the same ridiculing tactics you so decry when you feel they are leveled at you.
> 
> Something about dishing it out but not taking it.
> 
> Also, democracy is respecting what the 'majority' of those polled are saying? That is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard for awhile.


Ridiculous tactics? My we're stretching things today aren't we? 

I simply made an observation based on your knee jerk over reactions to the issue. Kinda like you didn't approve of two consecutive polls now that essentially say the same thing: *Conservative majority*.

You will _have_ to respect it once it happens though, won't you?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> You will _have_ to respect it once it happens though, won't you?


A Nazi comment would be far too easy here.

I will respect what I wish to respect. I also will be there to say I told you so to the foolish herded masses.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ridiculous tactics? My we're stretching things today aren't we?
> 
> I simply made an observation based on your knee jerk over reactions to the issue. Kinda like you didn't approve of two consecutive polls now that essentially say the same thing: *Conservative majority*.
> 
> You will _have_ to respect it once it happens though, won't you?


Ridiculing, not ridiculous SINC. Wait a minute... ok, ridiculous also.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh man, let's start with the jackboot imagery. This is surreal.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Be careful, mrjimmy. Big Brother has Room 101 for your kind. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But I should think the jackboots will have a distinctive Western flair this time around! They'll go well with the bright white stetsons and those black armband thingies.

____________

Polls should always be taken as an absolute forecast of the Truth. That anyone could dispute this is certainly alarming.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

double post, sorry


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Ridiculing, not ridiculous SINC. Wait a minute... ok, ridiculous also.





mrjimmy said:


> A Nazi comment would be far too easy here.
> 
> I will respect what I wish to respect. I also will be there to say I told you so to the foolish herded masses.


Better read it again mj. It was a _question_.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Better read it again mj. It was a _question_.


Doubtful. I think it was bait meant to provoke with a little truth mixed in on the side. I have been around this board long enough to see this strategy of yours SINC.

Nice try though and big ups on the low comment.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

In times like these all Green and NDP should vote Liberal. The only worse than a Liberal government is a conservative government. Not only are they as corrupt as Liberals but push recessive policy. 

I am economist and I can clearly read conservative fiscal policies as completely retarded for any sustainable economic growth. 

The key word for me is "choice". If Harper drops the word "choice" all hell will come.

Choice means deregulate everything, suck public funding out of everything Canadians hold dear. Harris spewed choice and look what happened to public education and health care. Choice means reduce government spending and give tax reductions to keep people compliant until their kids cannot read and are in classes of 40+ kids and have 10 hour hospital wait times so the conservatives can say "oh well I guess governmental social system is not working. We need CHOICE!" Aka private schools and hospitals and maybe a dash of school funding based on area property taxes.

We might as well just move to south LA. 

That word may mean I leave this country.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Doubtful. I think it was bait meant to provoke with a little truth mixed in on the side. I have been around this board long enough to see this strategy of yours SINC.
> 
> Nice try though and big ups on the low comment.


Ask a question and you invent a conspiracy? My sympathies sir.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ask a question and you invent a conspiracy? My sympathies sir.


Conspiracy? Please. I'm just callin' 'em as I sees them.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This poll does not say that the Cons would get a majority. Slim majority governments have been garnered with similar numbers, but in our first-past-the-post system, it all depends on where those numbers are distributed and how all the votes split riding by riding. 

Given the current pictures in the various regions I fail to see how this few point bulge in today's polling will translate into enough seats for the Cons to get a majority. While most think the Cons could gain a bit in Ontario, they are also predicted to lose a few in BC. They can't get any more than they have in Alberta and the other areas will likely be a wash. They may simply win by greater margins in some of the current ridings where they previously won by slim ones.

I think you'll have to see sustained plus-40% numbers for the Cons and their supporters to start talking with any confidence about majority government. But anything can happen in the next six weeks, until the real poll.



SINC said:


> I see that desperation has now set in for some Canadians. They forget that a Conservative majority is what most Canadians appear to want and they should respect that because after all, it is democracy at work.


A poll is not the will of the people and under no circumstances can support of less than 50% be considered the wish of "most Canadians". Yes, under our broken system of electoral mis-representation even 37% of the popular vote has bestowed unhindered majority power upon a party, but that is not a good example of democracy at work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I am economist and I can clearly read conservative fiscal policies as completely retarded for any sustainable economic growth.


Seriously, this is your view as an economist? "Retarded?"


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> I am economist and I can clearly read conservative fiscal policies as completely retarded for any sustainable economic growth.


The results of fiscal policies on economic growth depends upon which sector of the economy you're in. 

If you'd like to get into an economic policies debate, I'll play, but I'd suggest you change your approach if you want to talk about sustainable economic growth. For starters, most fiscal policies are mere theories and the market has far more influence on the actual results than any policy paper or legislation. People's day to day choices (buying Made In China goods, for instance) will have far more impact on the Canadian economy than voting Green, Liberal, or Conservative. The government can 'regulate', and 'encourage', (ie: a green tax on gasoline may 'encourage' more people to take public transit), but the final choice is always left up to the individual. It's the way our country works.

A far and equitable tax system may in fact encourage growth. But it has to be perceived as fair. It's not just the reality of how much each of us pays - it's perception of and reaction to implicit 'fairness'.

Apparently everyone thinks someone else should be paying for everything. I don't mind paying taxes (and I think I pay more taxes than a lot of people), but I do want value for taxes paid.

You also may wish to define 'sustainable'. Sustainable over the short term, or the long term?

As I've said elsewhere - making a positive choice means being part of the solution. And that also means recognising when you are part of the problem.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> People's day to day choices (buying Made In China goods, for instance) will have far more impact on the Canadian economy than voting Green, Liberal, or Conservative.


This is a hugely important concept. If more people understood this, I think it would dramatically change our society. As much as I still favor adding a mandatory civics class to the high school curriculum, I think any modern civics class should focus more on aspects of individual behavior that actually impact society significantly, and consumer choice is the biggest.



> As I've said elsewhere - making a positive choice means being part of the solution.


"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Cheers


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> This is a hugely important concept. If more people understood this, I think it would dramatically change our society. As much as I still favor adding a mandatory civics class to the high school curriculum, I think any modern civics class should focus more on aspects of individual behavior that actually impact society significantly, and consumer choice is the biggest.
> 
> "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
> 
> Cheers


I've also got fairly well defined opinions (or diatribes depending upon your perspective) on 'personal responsibility', 'expectations of entitlement' , 'make do or do without', and a variety of other topics. I think the one most often used is 'actions speak louder than words'.

As individuals we get the government we deserve as a society.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...any modern civics class should focus more on aspects of individual behavior that actually impact society significantly, and consumer choice is the biggest.


So that they would feel a flush of embarrassment when purchasing made-in-Asia goods at half price?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So that they would feel a flush of embarrassment when purchasing made-in-Asia goods at half price?


Or maybe even learn not to be so consumption oriented.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> As individuals we get the government we deserve as a society.


The government _the voting majority _deserves. Although even that's too simplistic. Once can work earnestly toward the type of government one wishes and never receive any benefit from that effort.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Or maybe even learn not to be so consumption oriented.


Thereby depressing the economy.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The government _the voting majority _deserves. Although even that's too simplistic. Once can work earnestly toward the type of government one wishes and never receive any benefit from that effort.


And then there's the theory which seems to be somewhat prevalent in today's society that everything needs to be for your own personal immediate benefit and gratification.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Thereby depressing the economy.


The Chinese economy?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Retail economy--much of the money spent on Asian goods remains here.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Thanks Mleh!! Excellent post.

It definitely is the actions of the individual. It's not up to the government to wipe your rear end. Do it yourself. 

In our society we have a myriad of choices. You can choose to buy a fuel efficient car or take public transit if you wish. If you truly care about the environment that much then you personally do something about it. Why does the government have to play some kind of shell game with tax money? Are you as an individual incapable of doing the right thing without big brother breathing down your necks?

You can choose to buy goods made locally. It takes time to find things and often costs more initially. The decisions of each individual determine the outcome of our economy. Perhaps next time when folks decide to buy outside of Canada they should give some thought to the poor schmuck who will lose their factory job up the street because of your buying decisions. That unemployed person then pays less tax into the system. They don't spend. It's a vicious circle that begins with an individual's choice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”


In which case, the old man does not get the government he deserves.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Retail economy--much of the money spent on Asian goods remains here.


Quite right. All those minimum wage jobs.

Who owns HBC now? I keep forgetting ...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> In which case, the old man does not get the government he deserves.


The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the best time to plant is 40 years ago, but perhaps I'm more ambitious.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Nah, it's just I live in a temperate rainforest. 20 years is plenty of time to grow a fairly substantial tree.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Regarding Harper's economic record, the fiscally conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation isn't impressed:

Tories slammed for $8.8-billion pre-election spending splurge



> OTTAWA - The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the Harper government's pre-election spending is out of this world.
> 
> The group says the Conservatives have doled out a whopping $8.8 billion since June - including a $2,000 grant to commemorate a UFO sighting.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

torys, spending restraint?

HA HA HA HA HA HA.

We'll need another paul martin to fix their mess in a few years.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Regarding Harper's economic record, the fiscally conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation isn't impressed:
> 
> Tories slammed for $8.8-billion pre-election spending splurge


Hmm... power at any cost (to us).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> We'll need another paul martin to fix their mess in a few years.


If they get a majority, that money won't be spent, so the best way to guarantee fiscal responsibility is to vote strategically for Harper.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If they get a majority, that money won't be spent, so the best way to guarantee fiscal responsibility is to vote strategically for Harper.


So what you're saying is that Harper's tax money free-for-all will end if he gets his majority and that he would rescind the $8.8 billion in shiny baubles promised to the rubes he hopes will vote for him? 

If so then your boy Steve is far more Machiavellian and cynical than even I thought and I pegged him for pretty high on both those scales.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If they get a majority, that money won't be spent, so the best way to guarantee fiscal responsibility is to vote strategically for Harper.


did I read this correctly?

omg I think I did. lol.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The only way to keep the Cons out is for the left to unite. 
By far and away, Canada is left or left of centre, its just that its split over the Liberals, NDP and Green Party. 

In the US, if you had the Republicans vs the Democrats and another major left wing party, Republicans would probably indefinitely be in power. The fact that we have 3 left wing parties and the cons can't get a majority (Which they won't this election either) shows how dismal support is for a right wing party in Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would agree with you if you said this 25 years ago EhMax, but the Liberals ain't your daddy's Liberals. They have migrated to just slightly right of centre. Don't look at whether the Conservatves can easily achieve a majority--look at the way the centre has shifted to the right. That's the real story.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I would agree with you if you said this 25 years ago EhMax, but the Liberals ain't your daddy's Liberals. They have migrated to just slightly right of centre. Don't look at whether the Conservatves can easily achieve a majority--look at the way the centre has shifted to the right. That's the real story.


Left of centre is still left, and there is still almost double left support in Canada than right. If there wasn't an overblown scandal by several liberal MP's, the Liberal would still easily have the majority.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

To a point I would agree with Macfury. I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I want a strong social safety net for those in need, government spending on the infrastructure, the environment, education, programs like the CBC, but not things like the Senate, the Gov. General's office, etc. 

There are those who would want one side of my beliefs, and they might fall in the left-wing of the Liberal party, but more likely in the NDP and the Green Party. Other parties might like pieces of my beliefs, but not the whole package. I think that there is a growing group of people who want a centrist and balanced majority governing group. Sadly, there is no one party that involves a strong social agenda with a fiscally sound view of collecting and spending the money of taxpayers and corporations.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree with MF as well. The Liberals are really a centrist party. They aren't left wing and they aren't fully right wing. 

Another way to look at it is the last election results and what direction Liberal support went after the AdScam. The NDP only gained a marginal percent increase, while the Tories gained a significant higher percentage of the vote. The ratio was something like 3:1. One could argue, this suggests the Liberals actually have more in common with the Tories than they do with the NDP.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe that's true, VanDave. One centrist party shades into baby blue, the other centrist party shades into pink. Both have a penchant for talking a good line and blowing tax dollars - mostly to get elected / re-elected.

Whereas the NDP shades into Martian.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ehMax said:


> The only way to keep the Cons out is for the left to unite.
> By far and away, Canada is left or left of centre, its just that its split over the Liberals, NDP and Green Party.


I'm not sure I agree - as pointed out by others, the Liberals are more centre than left. Although the Greens seem to have moved to the left under Elizabeth May, I'm not sure they are a party of the left - at one time they described themselves as “Neither Left Nor Right But Ahead". The only consistently left wing mainstream party in Canada is the NDP, and they seem to stay ~18% support give or take.

You would also need to consider the second choice of people voting for one of the parties you described as left wing - I suspect that many who support the Liberals (or even the NDP or Greens in some cases) would vote Conservative as their second choice.

Perhaps Preston Manning was right when he said that the notions of left and right were obsolete a few years back...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martin had the Libs covering the centre right after the Progressive Conservatives tanked.

Dion has moved the party left - the centre is open with no one covering it despite Harpers best sheepskin atttempts.
The move left is part of what has the Libs floundering and Dion is an even worse politician than Martin if that's possible ( different reasons ).

We have some pretty centrist provincial parties - nada in Ottawa.

I'd be happy to boot the lot and go to a real Federation with an Interprovincial Regional Council

The situation with the Bloc and NDP is a natural for a coalition party that would happen in any number of other countries..... but no - not our Idjits in Ottawa.

A pox on them.....

Danny Williams for PM??...now we're talkin'..just the fact he detests Harper speaks volumes about the lacunae at the centre.

Arnie's Radical Centrist is MIA in Canada 

••

and fix the damn riding size imbalance....tired of Toronto and other urban centres getting shafted by podunk rural ridings....

••

Y'know I miss the likes of Manning and Broadbent and Clark - real parliamentarians unlike the rabble we have now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> and fix the damn riding size imbalance....tired of Toronto and other urban centres getting shafted by podunk rural ridings....


I agree with some of what you said, but I don't believe Dion is farther left--his green policies are merely ill-founded.


Regarding rural ridings, I agree in principle, but in practicality I wouldn't want to see the province run like Toronto and am happy to see its influence limited.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Left has nothing to do with his green policy - don't attribute.
His timing is all off for structural change just now and it's a poor political decision- Harper trashed the flexibility and you can bet there's a deficit coming.

Dion's got a streak of Federalist nanny state rather than the pragmatism of the Martin/Chretien duopoly where a fiscal conservative married one of the craftier politicians on the planet.
Dion has problems in Quebec because he represents the past Liberal Ottawa COTU.

Dion needs to run something - he reminds me of a milder young Bob Rae. Rae learned. Much as I detest the man - Ignatief may be the better alpha male for the Libs.

BC Libs and Quebec Libs and Ontario Libs all seem centrist and of course Danny Williams from the other side on the spectrum.

••

I'm not the only one seeing Dion left - even Harper did and this is a good analysis



> The big split on the left plays right into Harper's hands
> Article Comments (104)
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


globeandmail.com: The big split on the left plays right into Harper's hands

That article is a good read - I'd love to see the likes of John Manley leading the Libs :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I wonder what percentage of Canadians could actually name Dion as the Liberal Party leader or even pick him out of a line-up. My guess is the number would be surprisingly small. I just asked my wife and she didn't know.

It isn't a good thing to be an unknown when you are running for leadership of a country. The good news for Dion here is that although Harper has outmaneuvered him consistently, he will still get a chance to redefine himself to the electorate. Although, it's probably too little too late.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe that Dion is to the left himself, but other than the Green Shaft, the party doesn't seem to have any other patriarchal policies in mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Left has nothing to do with his green policy - don't attribute.


Of course it does. At its heart it's really about income redistribution. But I'm not attributing this to you.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Of course it does. At its heart it's really about income redistribution. But I'm not attributing this to you.


You're like the speeder who calls his speeding ticket a tax grab.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Excessive parking fines are a tax grab. But then again, they're virtually announced as "revenue tools."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oink oink - smell of pork....



> *Tories slammed for $8.8B spending splurge*
> Updated Fri. Sep. 5 2008 12:19 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


He cuts funding to arts programs with a worldwide constituency to promote Canadian cultural products - well established....and $2,000 for a UFO commemorative....

Now about trimming the fat in gov salaries....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAcDoc: You're late to the table with that one. Already been upped.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bears repeating....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> He cuts funding to arts programs with a worldwide constituency to promote Canadian cultural products - well established....and $2,000 for a UFO commemorative....
> 
> Now about trimming the fat in gov salaries....


He knows that those involved in the arts wouldn't vote for him anyway. But UFO spotters, they're lining up at the advance polls!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All pork should be reigned in--arts and UFOs--lest we get into the dangerous territory of asking Canadians whether they prefer the government to fund a movie they will never see or a UFO commemorative that they might. These arguments always get into a worthless debate between whether the government should fund the esoteric and unsupportable, or the populist. I say neither.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> All pork should be reigned in--arts and UFOs--lest we get into the dangerous territory of asking Canadians whether they prefer the government to fund a movie they will never see or a UFO commemorative that they might. These arguments always get into a worthless debate between whether the government should fund the esoteric and unsupportable, or the populist. I say neither.


I say both! That way the whining and complaining can be kept to a minimum. I would much rather attend an esoteric, unsupportable art exhibit about UFOs brought to you by the Government Of Canada than be bombarded by the advertising of the corporate sponsor(s). 

Taxes will always exist. They can't all be spent on electioneering. We have to have fun too!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Taxes will always exist. They can't all be spent on electioneering. We have to have fun too!


Have fun with your own money, not at the expense of taxpayers. I would rather my tax dollars go to people and things that are actually needed.

There is a lot of work for talented artists in this country, if you are willing to work for 'the man'. Our society is bombarded with media and they always need artists to keep things fresh. The video game industry has created huge opportunities for artists. 

It's strange that some artists feel the only way they can express themselves is through tax dollars.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Have fun with your own money, not at the expense of taxpayers. I would rather my tax dollars go to people and things that are actually needed.


It's all subjective isn't it? Things that are actually needed... Why don't we divert some of those tax breaks to big corps into arts funding? There are many tax dollars floating around being squandered on more inessential things than the arts. 



> There is a lot of work for talented artists in this country, if you are willing to work for 'the man'. Our society is bombarded with media and they always need artists to keep things fresh. The video game industry has created huge opportunities for artists.


Isn't that just what the arts are about? Working for 'the man'? I believe you are referring to technicians. Artists generally don't work for the man. They prosper with that pesky little thing called freedom of expression that employers don't seem too keen on. Surely you understand that? 



> It's strange that some artists feel the only way they can express themselves is through tax dollars.


I think that's just your ignorance talking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Have fun with your own money, not at the expense of taxpayers. I would rather my tax dollars go to people and things that are actually needed.


I agree. One of the things government could be really good at--managing and upgrading infrastructure--has gone on the back-burner because it has its tentacles everywhere. The "Big Eyeball" sentiments expressed by mr. jimmy suggest that the rank and file just wants its bread and circuses subsidized--a sad state of affairs.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree. One of the things government could be really good at--managing and upgrading infrastructure--has gone on the back-burner because it has its tentacles everywhere. The "Big Eyeball" sentiments expressed by mr. jimmy suggest that the rank and file just wants its bread and circuses subsidized--a sad state of affairs.


No more sad than a society that doesn't see value in artists and their art.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> All pork should be reigned in--arts and UFOs--lest we get into the dangerous territory of asking Canadians whether they prefer the government to fund a movie they will never see or a UFO commemorative that they might. These arguments always get into a worthless debate between whether the government should fund the esoteric and unsupportable, or the populist. I say neither.


And I thought that the Tories would actually need the support of the United Farmer's of Ontario??? Besides, we shouldn't discruiminate. People named Art should have as much right to seek federal funding as people named Biff, Donnie, Helmut and Kenny...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> No more sad than a society that doesn't see value in artists and their art.


Wrong. Nobody is suggesting that at all. Rather, we are just talking about tax dollars being used.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> It's strange that some artists feel the only way they can express themselves is through tax dollars.


stranger still are the businesses and corporations that feel they can't conduct business without tax dollars.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Wrong. Nobody is suggesting that at all. Rather, we are just talking about tax dollars being used.


Sure they are. What other options do true artists have? To be corporately funded? Don't make me laugh. To be self financed? To earn their living through the sale of artwork? Maybe later in their career but what about at the beginning?

Learn more about the arts and artists and perhaps you may understand this. Sitting by with the old 'not with my tax dollars' isn't very inspired. And it's very very old....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well now the 'move to the US' option will be far more used.

Corporate funded? heh. riiiiight.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> No more sad than a society that doesn't see value in artists and their art.


What's sad is that some people believe that a society only values art if other people pay for it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Sure they are. What other options do true artists have?


It's a choice, not a disease.



mrjimmy said:


> Sitting by with the old 'not with my tax dollars' isn't very inspired. And it's very very old....


It isn't very old at all. Previous generations of artists of high calibre worked and prospered long before they began demanding others feed them while doing so.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It's a choice, not a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't very old at all. Previous generations of artists of high calibre worked and prospered long before they began demanding others feed them while doing so.


the world is a very different place than in 1930 Macfury.

As someone who has devoted almost 25 years and never taken a dime from taxpayers money you haven't one clue.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What's sad is that some people believe that a society only values art if other people pay for it.



I personally have no issue with the few dollars of my taxes going to support the arts in whatever form the granting agencies see fit. No problem at all. Because really, that's all we're talking about, a few dollars. If even.

Anyone's desire to withhold something as insignificant as that speaks volumes to me of their appreciation of the arts. A pittance to the taxpayer. Devastating to the artists. The stand on your own two feet and suckling at the public teat are so so tired. In fact, they have become a cliche they are so tired.

If you truly appreciated the arts, you wouldn't have issues subsidizing them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> If you truly appreciated the arts, you wouldn't have issues subsidizing them.


Can anybody come up with some other nouns to replace 'arts' to show Mr. Jimmy how silly his statement is?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no but we're quite certain you can/will.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not to worry - libraries will be next - buy your own damn books.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I understand from what I read today that for Stephen Harper to call an election at this time may well be illegal, based on a law in 2006 that his own PC government created that sets specific timelines for elections, barring a non-confidence vote. Suddenly I think I understand why Dion and the Libs abstained from policies that they disagreed with—smart move actually. As long as there is not a non-confidence vote, the Harper party has to stay in power as a minority government until 2009, whether it wants to or not. Set election dates he wanted so that he prime minister cannot call an election at his whim. He should be careful what he wishes for. 

I think the Governor General's answer tomorrow may well be "non", since Mr. Harper does not have the non-confidence vote required to call an election, and a "parliament that isn't functioning" is not a good enough reason. Perhaps it's not functioning the way HE would like, if he had a majority, but it's actually functioning quite well, by the looks of it. The opposition parties have a great deal of power if they DON'T force an election. Really, what Mr. Harper appears to be saying is that he does not have confidence in his own government. Now there's an election platform.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Not to worry - libraries will be next - buy your own damn books." Better still, underfund post-secondary education so that people will not be able to become teachers. With fewer teachers, more and more students might not be able to read these books which are no longer in the non-existent libraries. Just a thought.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I understand from what I read today that for Stephen Harper to call an election at this time may well be illegal, based on a law in 2006 that his own PC government created that sets specific timelines for elections, barring a non-confidence vote. Suddenly I think I understand why Dion and the Libs abstained from policies that they disagreed with—smart move actually. As long as there is not a non-confidence vote, the Harper party has to stay in power as a minority government until 2009, whether it wants to or not. Set election dates he wanted so that he prime minister cannot call an election at his whim. He should be careful what he wishes for.
> 
> I think the Governor General's answer tomorrow may well be "non", since Mr. Harper does not have the non-confidence vote required to call an election, and a "parliament that isn't functioning" is not a good enough reason. Perhaps it's not functioning the way HE would like, if he had a majority, but it's actually functioning quite well, by the looks of it. The opposition parties have a great deal of power if they DON'T force an election. Really, what Mr. Harper appears to be saying is that he does not have confidence in his own government. Now there's an election platform.


It will be an interesting day tomorrow. I also find it somewhat contradictory for the Conservatives to be meeting the Governor General on a Sunday morning over the weekend to dissolve Parliament. What happened to their family values and respect for the Lord's Day? Why not last Friday, or on Monday? I hope she refuses his call, and tells him to get back into the House of Commons and stop wasting taxpayers money.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Not to worry - libraries will be next - buy your own damn books.


Slippery slope indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Slippery slope indeed.


Pretty soon people will be back to wiping their own butts instead of waiting for government supplied toilet paper, eh Vandave?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Pretty soon people will be back to wiping their own butts instead of waiting for government supplied toilet paper, eh Vandave?


I suppose that would be acceptable as long as people still have to ask permission to go first.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It isn't very old at all. Previous generations of artists of high calibre worked and prospered long before they began demanding others feed them while doing so.


Nonsense. Patrons, benefactors and hell, even the church! All fed them and allowed them the ability to concentrate solely on their work. Not working full time designing video games and painting on the weekend.

Artists have always been 'funded' somehow throughout the ages. As you may have read, many high calibre artists lived hand to mouth only to achieve success posthumously. Living off welfare and other social assistance.

And not just in Canada!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Nonsense. Patrons, benefactors and hell, even the church! All fed them and allowed them the ability to concentrate solely on their work.


I have no problem with individual artists arranging donations with their private patrons who see something worthwhile to patronize. I have no patience with those who go begging to the government.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have no problem with individual artists arranging donations with their private patrons who see something worthwhile to patronize. I have no patience with those who go begging to the government.


Then I would recommend getting the (HUGE) list of businesses that have 'gone begging' to the government and make it point not to deal with any of them.

Otherwise, you'd just be a mouthy hypocrite no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Then I would recommend getting the (HUGE) list of businesses that have 'gone begging' to the government and make it point not to deal with any of them.
> 
> Otherwise, you'd just be a mouthy hypocrite no?


I even buy from artists who have suckled the teat of government, so I treat them all equally. What kind of person would discriminate against them just because they took advantage of easy money? If they don't take it, someone else will.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my that's rather noble. Nothing like sticking to one's principles.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have no problem with individual artists arranging donations with their private patrons who see something worthwhile to patronize. I have no patience with those who go begging to the government.


No one is begging. The Government offers. People apply and are accepted or not. And certainly no one is getting rich off it. Not like other 'handouts' the government offers. 

Depending on what or who is receiving the grant, there is significant spin off economic activity. There are some sound economics in play here. It's simply not funding some artist whose work you don't understand.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> No one is begging. The Government offers. People apply and are accepted or not. And certainly no one is getting rich off it. Not like other 'handouts' the government offers.
> 
> Depending on what or who is receiving the grant, there is significant spin off economic activity. There are some sound economics in play here. It's simply not funding some artist whose work you don't understand.


agreed. I'm sure a few haven't even considered the process of applying for grants.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I even buy from artists who have suckled the teat of government, so I treat them all equally. What kind of person would discriminate against them just because they took advantage of easy money? If they don't take it, someone else will.


I'm not sure that works MF...

"If I didn't do it, someone else would" has never worked for me as a defense or a justification - either morally or legally... but perhaps I was talking to the wrong cop?

Has your experience differed, or did you mean it some other way?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I mean that since both businesses and artists have accepted large grants from the government, I treat them equally.

I refused to buy gasoline at Sunoco or PetroCanada when the government owned a stake in it, for example, because that was a clear distinction, well publicized. I can't buy a made-in-Canada car without patronizing a company that takes government money. The company that decides not to take advantage of government largesse will soon find itself as a competitive disadvantage when all other companies are on the take--an economic distortion created by the government. While I blame the companies/artists to a small degree for taking money that the government supplies them, I put the heaviest blame on government for making it available.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I mean that since both businesses and artists have accepted large grants from the government, I treat them equally.
> 
> I refused to buy gasoline at Sunoco or PetroCanada when the government owned a stake in it, for example, because that was a clear distinction, well publicized. I can't buy a made-in-Canada car without patronizing a company that takes government money. The company that decides not to take advantage of government largesse will soon find itself as a competitive disadvantage when all other companies are on the take--an economic distortion created by the government. While I blame the companies/artists to a small degree for taking money that the government supplies them, I put the heaviest blame on government for making it available.


So you want to see the government end ALL subsidies to all businesses. Any business that requires startup money, a grant to employ new people, develop new technologies, all of it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No he wants to live on a desert island with maybe a few other desert islands within canoe distance - each with one person.....that's the logical conclusion of Ms approach.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

Not to divert the discussion about the arts, etc. but reading back at the title of the post, it will be interesting to see some of the polls in the next few days.

In my riding, there will be some competition between the liberals and conservatives (traditionally liberal, but lost some percentage points in last since it was a new candidate).

I would bet that the earlier polls stating that Canadians were set to vote conservative are biased in many cases. Just look at Harper using pre-election party money buying up commercial time with their unexciting messages.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You just have to shake your head when you see Harper going off on how this is going to be an election with the liberals doing personal attacks etc.

Have a look at the party websites... and have we seen any liberal ads in a while? All I've seen were the attack ads by the tories.

Clearly Harper is banking on the misinformed vote.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh yeah the neocon champagne crowd really tends toward premature joculation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So you want to see the government end ALL subsidies to all businesses. Any business that requires startup money, a grant to employ new people, develop new technologies, all of it.


Yes.



> Have a look at the party websites... and have we seen any liberal ads in a while? All I've seen were the attack ads by the tories.


They no longer have enough money to run ads.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, at least you are being true to your Libertarian views. I actually agree with some of the points that Ron Paul has made in the US. We may not agree on the notion of funding for the arts (of which I support), but we actually have a few points of agreement. More importantly, you present your views is a rational manner, which helps to get you point across, even though many may not agree with this point. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes.


So you're fine with a devastating loss of jobs and tax revenue as a result.

Even your neocon buddies aren't that stupid.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, at least you are being true to your Libertarian views. I actually agree with some of the points that Ron Paul has made in the US. We may not agree on the notion of funding for the arts (of which I support), but we actually have a few points of agreement. More importantly, you present your views is a rational manner, which helps to get you point across, even though many may not agree with this point. Paix, mon ami.


no he isn't. He admitted to being a hypocrite on these very same views. I say put your money where your mouth is. I do, why would expect to accept someone's view if they don't actually stand by them?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"no he isn't." To whom do you refer? Macfury or Ron Paul?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So you're fine with a devastating loss of jobs and tax revenue as a result.
> 
> Even your neocon buddies aren't that stupid.


I think the corporations and the government hacks who supply them with government largesse have done a great job of convincing people that failing to ply them with cash will result in "a devastating loss of jobs and tax revenue." 

Note that I support this approach in other countries, so that they essentially subsidize the cost of consumer goods we buy in Canada. Nothing like having taxpayers in other countries pay for what I buy.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I mean that since both businesses and artists have accepted large grants from the government, I treat them equally.
> 
> I refused to buy gasoline at Sunoco or PetroCanada when the government owned a stake in it, for example, because that was a clear distinction, well publicized. I can't buy a made-in-Canada car without patronizing a company that takes government money. The company that decides not to take advantage of government largesse will soon find itself as a competitive disadvantage when all other companies are on the take--an economic distortion created by the government. While I blame the companies/artists to a small degree for taking money that the government supplies them, I put the heaviest blame on government for making it available.


What about the legal structures which permit a corporation to be treated (in some senses) as an individual - would that not bear some of the blame? It would seem to me to create some of distortion of scale that we're dealing with here in terms of arts vs. business - especially when we look at the amounts and the entities receiving the largesse.

So at the core of it - you do not want the government to make investments which may pay out later in improved products, productivity, standards of living etc.

I take it you have never used a public washroom or municipal sewer system? Gov't investments which have provided benefits not only to your convenience, but to your health as well.

Is MacDoc correct is in "lonely island" opinion? "Digging your own holes" so to speak?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, at least you are being true to your Libertarian views. I actually agree with some of the points that Ron Paul has made in the US. We may not agree on the notion of funding for the arts (of which I support), but we actually have a few points of agreement.


If you and I ran a coalition government, Dr. G., I'm sure we could find enough commonality to both provide a better deal for the arts AND the taxpayer.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think the corporations and the government hacks who supply them with government largesse have done a great job of convincing people that failing to ply them with cash will result in "a devastating loss of jobs and tax revenue."
> 
> Note that I support this approach in other countries, so that they essentially subsidize the cost of consumer goods we buy in Canada. Nothing like having taxpayers in other countries pay for what I buy.


Interesting - I can see this strategy working short-term MF.

But long term it failed for the Japanese, and it failed for the Pilgrims on the Mayflower - sooner or later you find you can't wall yourself off from the rest of the world or jump on a ship and sail away to somewhere new.

Though I would agree that the structure and function of these grants is based too much on fear and not enough on foresight - there are enough examples of "about-face"'es on both side of that table once the money has actually changed hands and/or the legislative easement obtained.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> What about the legal structures which permit a corporation to be treated (in some senses) as an individual - would that not bear some of the blame?


Yes it does. The government is behind much of the power a corporation has.



eggman said:


> So at the core of it - you do not want the government to make investments which may pay out later in improved products, productivity, standards of living etc.


The government has a notoriously poor track record in picking winners in this regard, often rewarding friends, backing losers and wasting billions in brain-damaged schemes.



eggman said:


> I take it you have never used a public washroom or municipal sewer system? Gov't investments which have provided benefits not only to your convenience, but to your health as well.


I use them when the government has taken away all choice in the matter. But the government is well-suited to invest in those areas where it's impossible to have the user pay for the service in any reasonable manner--residential roads and municipal sewers, or national defence, or paying for a judicial system, for example. By attempting to do all things, government has failed at meeting its core requirements. It can't fix potholes or process sewage effectively because the money is earmarked for corporate hand-outs, for government television and radio, for festivals and ceremonies and hundreds of inane studies. 

The only response seems to be: we don't have enough money to do what you asked us to.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If you and I ran a coalition government, Dr. G., I'm sure we could find enough commonality to both provide a better deal for the arts AND the taxpayer." Macfury, keep in mind that I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I want to see less government assistance/tax breaks to big corportations, fewer tax loopholes for the very wealthy, less government spending on projects and reports that are meant to keep the public quiet and are destined to gather dust, and genuine tax relief for the middle class. However, for those in need, I am all for helping them obtain proper housing and especially an education that will enable them to obtain real employment, not just make work projects. I also support the CBC and funding for the arts, although I do NOT like the changes made to CBC Radio 2.

We could be the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So it would much better to have an environment where only those with the means to do so, be able to invest in ventures to be prosperous and employ people, perhaps being in a better situation to specify things like wages and working conditions, because certainly government interference in such matters couldn't be justified if you were true to your beliefs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So it would much better to have an environment where only those with the means to do so, be able to invest in ventures to be prosperous and employ people, perhaps being in a better situation to specify things like wages and working conditions, because certainly government interference in such matters couldn't be justified if you were true to your beliefs.


Yes, it would be much better for only those companies with actual money to invest, to tie up their own money in these ventures. If they didn't have their own money, they could encourage people to invest in their ideas through persuasive reasoning.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, it would be much better for only those companies with actual money to invest, to tie up their own money in these ventures. If they didn't have their own money, they could encourage people to invest in their ideas through persuasive reasoning.


that's precisely what I thought.

I'm afraid 1800s England was a while ago Macfury. Welcome to 2008.

Having the top few percent run businesses of any significance isn't a good idea anymore.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> We could be the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party.


You've got my vote. Despite his annoying habit of baiting liberals, and his rather extremest right-wing view of economics, I think MF would make a far better choice for Minister of Finance than any we're likely to have.

As much as he hates CBC, I expect even MF might find a few pennies left over for them and the Arts once he discovered the vast excesses he'd be saving by cutting corporate welfare.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As much as he hates CBC, I expect even MF might find a few pennies left over for them and the Arts once he discovered the vast excesses he'd be saving by cutting corporate welfare.


I suspect this may be the case. Once the books were exposed to the light of day, the amount of money thrown down the corporate sinkhole might look like a torrent compared to a tiny arts trickle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'm afraid 1800s England was a while ago Macfury. Welcome to 2008.
> 
> Having the top few percent run businesses of any significance isn't a good idea anymore.


Most employment in Canada is generated by smaller companies. I don't see how having government back ventures that otherwise can't attract backers will change the concentration of business ownership. It's not as if though government corporate welfare programs largely support small, independent businesses. They tend to favour exactly what you despise--businesses run by "the top few per cent."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Most employment in Canada is generated by smaller companies. I don't see how having government back ventures that otherwise can't attract backers will change the concentration of business ownership. It's not as if though government corporate welfare programs largely support small, independent businesses. They tend to favour exactly what you despise--businesses run by "the top few per cent."


well then I guess you've never run a business then have you.

Once again you've gone in circles. You've now gone to admitting that small business employs the most. Not all can get 'backers', and it certainly doesn't come without a price. I would agree that corporations get a lot of money they likely may no need to stay where they are, but it's absolutely asinine to suggest cutting off valuable funding to invest in an area that employs the most. 

Equally stupid is suggesting that all funding should cease because some bad investments are made. That's like saying let the poor starve in the streets because a handful of people abuse the welfare system (oh wait...)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well then I guess you've never run a business then have you.
> 
> Once again you've gone in circles. You've now gone to admitting that small business employs the most. Not all can get 'backers', and it certainly doesn't come without a price. I would agree that corporations get a lot of money they likely may no need to stay where they are, but it's absolutely asinine to suggest cutting off valuable funding to invest in an area that employs the most.
> 
> Equally stupid is suggesting that all funding should cease because some bad investments are made. That's like saying let the poor starve in the streets because a handful of people abuse the welfare system (oh wait...)


`
Your assumptions are entirely wrong...and there are no circles. Most small businesses are not government-supported. Many large companies are. The small companies provide employment without government assistance. They will continue to do so without offering more of it. Large corporations will continue to function handily without government hand-outs.

And please avoid the use of insult in your discussions. Insults do not add to the strength of your argument.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> `
> Your assumptions are entirely wrong...and there are no circles. Most small businesses are not government-supported. Many large companies are. The small companies provide employment without government assistance. They will continue to do so without offering more of it. Large corporations will continue to function handily without government hand-outs.
> 
> And please avoid the use of insult in your discussions. Insults do not add to the strength of your argument.


I must be touching a nerve if you're finding insult by my calling an idea 'stupid'. 

You're wrong. Small businesses do get help. They could use more help I think, given their value. I think less help could be given to corporations and that would result in substantial savings. But suggesting the help given to small business be cut off, is, a very, very stupid idea.

I have seen first hand from my peers what a small amount of grant money can do, and the people that get hired. 

Now don't get excited, to clarify, I called the idea stupid, not you personally. Is this correct enough for you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So most of the businesses run by your peers are marginal, and only grant money makes them successful? But you've succeeded on your own without taking money from the government.

I would cut their taxes so they could afford to invest in themselves a little better. And cut off their grants.

But we're in agreement that the big corporations don't need any more help.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So most of the businesses run by your peers are marginal, and only grant money makes them successful? But you've succeeded on your own without taking money from the government.
> 
> 
> I would cut their taxes so they could afford to invest in themselves a little better. And cut off their grants.
> ...


Macfury have you ever run a business before? Successfully for significant amount of time? Your comments tell me no, never.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc, I think that Macfury and I would share the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. I would take the left side of the office and he would take the right side of the office. We would meet in the middle to share lunch and a friendly chat. 

Vote for the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party ................. vote and the choice is yours , don't vote and the choice is theirs to make.

YouTube - 1964 Election Ad

YouTube - 1964 LBJ Political ad - Daisy H-Bomb

In your heart, you know that we are correct.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

By the way, we received a little black and white dog as a gift. We are going to share this dog, and regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep this dog.

YouTube - Nixon's "Checkers Speech" - Part 2 of 2


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> bryanc, I think that Macfury and I would share the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. I would take the left side of the office and he would take the right side of the office. We would meet in the middle to share lunch and a friendly chat.
> 
> Vote for the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party ................. vote and the choice is yours , don't vote and the choice is theirs to make.
> 
> ...


if that resulted in some sanity rather than theorized solutions I'm for it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Groovetube, jump on the bandwagon before it is too late.

Vote for the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party. In your heart, you know we are correct.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You and me and the PLCDP! Has a ring to it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm still curious macfury as to how much experience you have running a successful business.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, we have the signs already made up. We took colors from various other party, so we are a multi-colored/multi-platformed/multi-ethnic party. We shall bring about the best of all sitautions with the Pseudo-LiberCon Democratic Party. With your riding and my riding, and then with the two of us sharing the leadership reins, we shall hopefully get a spot in the leadership debates. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The televised debate will be known as the Tag Team Referendum, where you slap them silly from the left, and I take them down on the right. We finish them off with a sharp, centrist uppercut!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good idea, Macfury. Not being a violent person, I shall hit them with words.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not to worry, Dr. G.--I was referring to verbal sparring. I don't believe fisticuffs are accepted in the televised debate.

I will confess, however, that I recently re-read the Arthur Conan Doyle Professor Challenger books and very much enjoyed a story in which Challenger finishes a debate in front of a learned audience by dismantling the stage and hurling furniture at his opponent.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Not to worry, Dr. G.--I was referring to verbal sparring. I don't believe fisticuffs are accepted in the televised debate.
> 
> I will confess, however, that I recently re-read the Arthur Conan Doyle Professor Challenger books and very much enjoyed a story in which Challenger finishes a debate in front of a learned audience by dismantling the stage and hurling furniture at his opponent.


Sounds more like The Geraldo Rivera Show...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'm still curious macfury as to how much experience you have running a successful business.


well I can certainly understand why you'd avoid this.

Before I take anything you say seriously any further, I'd say a prerequisite for saying what is best or not best for business is certainly this experience.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, we could win the debate and start a landslide for our party. I have people lined up for the other 6 ridings here in NL, so that would give us 8 members in the House of Commons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have one in BC, two in Alberta and about a half-dozen in Ontario. We would definitely qualify for a research budget.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, with your six, and you, and my six, plus me, that would make 14 MPs. We might make it as an official party ............. or the official opposition ..................... or even a minority government ............. or ... do I dare to hope .................... we could form a majority government. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Seriously, I think that it is important that we all vote for someone. We need to express our views with more than just words, but also with our votes.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Little Shift Of Horrors


----------

