20 Replies to ““Vote for me””

  1. … Some things to like at The Maple Leaf Party. .. It’s a start.
    The graphs of federal government income – outflows deserves some attention. The equalization figures are illuminating. Hello Quebec? how about another provincial election with Marois at the helm. Go for it.

  3. Liberal Count Ignatieff is depressed.
    The Count has conceded defeat.
    *I-narcissist or narcissistic? “look at me”.
    Count Ignatieff:
    “It’s now increasingly in the hands of the voters,” Ignatieff told Postmedia News Thursday. “I feel that in the final week, people are going to (look at me and) decide, is this guy listening to me? Does this guy hear me? Is this guy working for me?
    “I want (voters) to say, he’s my guy.”
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Poll+results+suggest+Ignatieff+some+work+over+Canadians/4658374/story.html
    …-
    “Talks about himself in the 3rd person singular”.
    “His speech is peppered with “I”, “my”, “myself”, and “mine”.”
    “Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?”
    http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

  4. speaking of things election, if the lieberals fall in queerbec polls, howcum the new democrats grabbed the difference and not youse on the right wing?
    how arrogant to casually dismiss the political views of the biggest province in the country.

  5. Because, they love to be coddled. And that’s why I mock them. Give them what they want.. give them their liberty and their new national government will seize it from them in a day.
    They vote for those that promise the most toys. How arrogant to think successful provinces should pay their way.

  6. “Transfer payments are pretty equal to personal AND corporate income tax combined. If we off loaded all of these bailout, subsidies and welfare schemes on to the Provinces where they belong we could eliminate all income taxes (personal and corporate)…There would now room for the Provinces to increase provincial income taxes to pay for the bailout, subsidies and welfare schemes that they choose to fund. If British Columbia wants to bailout the forestry sector then British Columbia taxpayers would pay for it. If Saskatchewan wants to bailout farmers then Saskatchewan taxpayers would pay for it. If Quebec wants $7 / day daycare then Quebec taxpayers would pay for it etc.”
    Yeah, who even needs a unified country when 13 separate ones will do. Because support for the forestry sector in BC and the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan couldn’t possibly benefit the rest of Canada, huh?

  7. It’s a wonder Canada survived nearly a hundred years without transfer payments. /sarc

  8. There is a difference between facilitating taxation and expenditure generated and controlled at a more local/regional level than having 13 entities responsible for all aspects of nationhood. It makes complete sense to structure a country along these lines. The Maple Leaf Party web site clearly identifies the commonly shared the big picture items that impact all Canadians such as:
     national defense
     civil & criminal justice system (i.e. police, courts and jails)
     interprovincial jurisdiction issues
     international relations
    These would form the basis for alliance between the 13 provincial jurisdictions. Restricting the federal government power to these essential and shared obligations certainly clarifies its role. Further, it limits overreach, intrusion into areas outside their jurisdiction and prevents the sort of extortion practiced by Quebec.

  9. Brian Mallard-
    Read the British North America Act that set up Canada, these are already spelled out in 1867. Most of the activities of the federal Gov. are exclusively the jurisdiction of the provinces.

  10. “not youse on the right wing?”
    Does “youse” rhyme with “louse”?
    Quebec,as all Canadians have known forever,is a socialist paradise,and they are naturally inclined to vote for their socialist buddies.
    It used to be the Liberals,but the NDP has outdone them in the Left Leaning Olympics,so now they will get to know Jack.
    I’m sure it will be a positive experience for all.

  11. The Public Accounts of Canada. Here’s a bit of a reality check for you. In 1996, at the height of the Martin/Chretien deficit “slaying” the PAC stated the composition of the national debt as follows: accumulated debt from 1867-1945= $12.6 billion, program spending 1945-1996= $15.4 billion, accumulated compound interest $546 billion. Question: Do we need a Maple Leaf/ Tea Party in Canada? HELL YEAH!

  12. I see the Quebec movement to the NDP as a positive. After two decades of disengagement from federal politics voters are leaving the negativity of the Bloc and looking at the federal scene again. Now just look a bit farther to the Conservatives.

  13. @ Brian Mallard & Ian vaughan: Back in 1867, social services like healthcare were by and large considered private, charitable, and/or religious matters. The state — federal or provincial — was largely uninvolved in their delivery, which is why the Constitution Act only enumerates “hospitals” and “asylums” specifically, rather than “health care” writ large, as being under provincial jurisdiction.
    And that might be all well and good for you and the Maple Leaf Party’s “Dan”, except that (a) we don’t lived in a time capsule and (b) intervening history, including the Great Depression, has since fundamentally altered the perceived role of the federal government, especially with regards to guaranteeing access to certain basic social services for all citizens.

  14. …Constitution Act only enumerates…
    Yeah,yeah, everybody sing together…it’s a living document…morphing from delegation of powers to guaranteeing social services…

  15. Davenport:
    “Yeah, who even needs a unified country when 13 separate ones will do.”
    That’s a great idea. Each one can compete for taxpayers. Quebec and BC can go broke trying to fund an entitlement social program paradise.
    “Because support for the forestry sector in BC and the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan couldn’t possibly benefit the rest of Canada, huh?”
    Why not just bailout everyone? Why not just a guaranteed income for everyone?

  16. Brian Mallard
    You forgot Indian and Northern Affairs. Treaty rights of First Nations, including Health. Their relationship is with the crown, not provinces (unless they live off reserves).

  17. Been playing with my grandson all day. First of all I have read the BNA Act. I am aware of what it defines. I was replying to the snarky comment from Davenport attempting to equate the delegation of taxation and expenditure to local entities with the silly notion of creating 13 separate nations.
    The reason that the BNA Act is primarily silent on areas like social services indicates that the authors did not believe that government should be involved in funding and providing those services. Their view was that charities and churches were providing the services reasonably. I realize that times change but the encroachment of government into areas like social services has not diminished demand. If anything it has made things worse by creating intergenerational dependency. I realize that Davenport believes that government is the answer regardless of the question. I do not. I believe that individuals provide the answers and government in many instances is the problem.
    The list of duties assigned to the federal government was copied from the Maple Leaf Party site. It was not intended to taken as complete or exhaustive hence the use of the phrase “such as.”

  18. Davenport at 5:04 PM, I was thinking the same thing about the ratio between personal/corporate taxes versus transfer payments. Time to stop that non-sense and let the provinces find other ways to fund their programs, or reduce and/or eliminate them if need be.

  19. Davenport at 8:55 PM “…intervening history, including the Great Depression, has since fundamentally altered the perceived role of the federal government, especially with regards to guaranteeing access to certain basic social services for all citizens.”
    Funny you should mention that. So much of our social programs and ideology comes from the Depression era. The depression ended in 1939 with the outbreak of war. That’s seventy two years ago. Only a tiny portion of the Canadian population was even born then.
    A complete review and overhaul is long overdue. So much of it has not worked, and even those parts which have worked, have now become problematic and threaten to destroy our economy and way of life. Western civilization is due for a healthy yank in another direction. It’s time to start dismantling and put the ideology that gains so much traction in the 1930s under the microscope. The Nanny state is not sustainable.

  20. The ECONOMIST in the UK had Canada pegged perfectly when it described Canada as ‘a long, thin string of population held together by bribes’.
    Nothing has changed in 30 yrs.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation