Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:

Here the pitch. If anyone would be interested in joining the executive, to help build the party, help evolve our policies or just give us advice, we would love to hear from you. You know where to reach us.


Haha, I'd help out, but all my advice would be to scrap a lot of your current social policies... like the universal university - that would bankrupt the east, and it would result in even more of the east sucking money from the pockets of non-eastern canadians. I think that easterners are likely sick of being seen as that mooching uncle that sleeps on the couch and refuses to get a job...


Quote:
A single Guaranteed Income Program to replace the various social support programs with a level above the poverty line.


Get rid of it- institute a reasonable minimum wage based on cost of living - reducing this will mean increased work(more jobs and this means more taxes, which means tax cuts or more services, right?) - hopefully bringing down the unemployment rates of 10%+ in most areas

Guaranteed income program means that 10%+ goes up and government revenue goes down, resulting in raising taxes or slipping into deficit territory.

Quote:
Self sufficiency for the region in basic items (food, water, energy etc …) regardless of international treaties.


Good luck - if it can be done it means you enter a protectionist-type of state and end up with massive economic loss. International and national trade should be embraced; it creates jobs and keeps money flowing. Ensures liquidity.

Quote:
Implementation of the most progressive environmental régime in the world.


Not a horrible idea - with the region's relatively low emissions rates, might be a good plan; but how? and how do you address the new oil industry?

Quote:
A rationalization and liberalization of government’s relationship with controlled substances.

Ok - now this requires federal removal from the criminal code, for one. but that aside; how do you deal with addiction services, and encouraging responsible use? what would the costs be?

Quote:
A complete review of all forms of taxation.
Simplification.
More excise taxes.
Increased progressiveness in income taxes.
Lower taxes on the whole.


based on your other initiatives, I highly doubt any of this will be possible without entering the realm of deficit spending.

Quote:
The idea that the private sector is the engine of growth be it entrepreneurs, small businesses or large corporations.

To me this seems to conflict with this:
Quote:
Public ownership and delivery of essential services, especially those that have a potential to become a monopoly or oligopoly if in the hands of the market.
Universally available health care
Universally available day care
Fully funded schooling from preschool through university
Public oversight of essential services; energy, telecommunications, water, and sanitation.


??

Quote:
Government policies to
aggressively grow the regional private sector,
increase business competition,
and increase investment capital in the region.


see above...

Quote:
The role of government as the manager of the private market.


You can't agressively grow the private sector and manage it - you need to pick one or the other.

Quote:
Increasing government’s ability to take action against private sector misconduct; whether through massive fines or government expropriation.


Nice plan; problem is that the private sector doesn't really participate in a lot of legal misconduct - the very word misconduct is vague. what is considered misconduct - poor choices will risk your ability to grow any private sector(nobody wants to start a business where their hands are tied).

Quote:
A regional stock exchange.


Why?

There's my free consultation for your social policy; the rest will cost you! lol. you know where to find me. 8)

Oh, btw - you may want to edit your first post- you forgot the a in atlantica in the url
atlanticaparty





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 193
Reputation: 72.8
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your feedback.

What about our policies for electoral and political reforms?
atlanticaparty





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 193
Reputation: 72.8
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
atlanticaparty wrote:
Tell me your definition (Authoritarian - Libertarian, Communist - Neo-Liberal, reforming - static, and then I shall answer your question

Perhaps you should purchase a dictionary? State your positions or don't but don't expect us to provide meat for your arguments.

atlanticaparty wrote:
We support universal health care and oppose a health care system inaccessible to even a single citizen. That is our platform. How that is actually structured is a detail for experts who actually know the details.

In other words, you have no idea what costs are involved in providing universal health care and have no plan to pay for them. Let's hope the taxpayer well never runs dry if your party ever gets elected.

atlanticaparty wrote:
We propose universal daycare, universities and trade schooling. We are derided for this in this thread. So we are asking if public-funded grade schools are ok, then why is, for instance universal daycare, not?

Universal daycare is a bad idea on several levels but the real issue here is the role of government. Apparently, you believe governments should be involved in the daily lives of citizens from cradle to grave. This is generally referred to as the "Nanny State" and while this concept is greatly embraced by socialists, some of us think socialism is a really really bad idea (just like universal daycare) because we recognize the effect socialism and the Nanny State has on citizens. It destroys initiative and builds a culture of entitlement (sound familiar?) which robs citizens of their independence and freedom.

If you consider yourself derided, perhaps your skin is a bit too thin for politics?

-Mac


You still have to define what you mean by 'right' and 'left'. You can be 'Right'' on social policy and 'Left'' on economics.

Well, you take the current health care system as a starting point and see if it can be improved while retaining universality.

Regarding the Nanny State, yours is an ideological argument rather than a practical one. No one in the party is a socialist, we just support good ideas.

You must be against universal grade schooling then, since by your definition it is part of the Nanny State.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:
You still have to define what you mean by 'right' and 'left'. You can be 'Right'' on social policy and 'Left'' on economics.

Well, you take the current health care system as a starting point and see if it can be improved while retaining universality.

Regarding the Nanny State, yours is an ideological argument rather than a practical one. No one in the party is a socialist, we just support good ideas.

You must be against universal grade schooling then, since by your definition it is part of the Nanny State.

The fact you're asking for definitions and then using the terms 'left' and 'right' in context seems to indicate you understand the terms and your request for definitions is therefore specious.

The biggest problem with the current health care system is the costs associated with paying wages for unionized workers at all levels. A two tier system might help to improve this but that's not guaranteed. All that aside, you have no plan for health care. You have only rhetoric. You've said as much.

How ironic to have you making accusations of someone being ideological rather than practical! I'm sure none of your group (if there is, indeed, a group) walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm a socialist!" but if it walks like a duck...

You would be surprised by how many people opt out of so-called universal grade schooling. Between home schooling, private schools and religious schools, there's a substantial number of students who never see a public grade school.

-Mac
atlanticaparty





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 193
Reputation: 72.8
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The fact you're asking for definitions and then using the terms 'left' and 'right' in context seems to indicate you understand the terms and your request for definitions is therefore specious.


For the third time define your terms. If you don't we will conclude that either you
1) can't or
2) really are not interested

Quote:
The biggest problem with the current health care system is the costs associated with paying wages for unionized workers at all levels. A two tier system might help to improve this but that's not guaranteed. All that aside, you have no plan for health care. You have only rhetoric. You've said as much.


The plan is to maintain the system's universality.

Quote:
How ironic to have you making accusations of someone being ideological rather than practical! I'm sure none of your group (if there is, indeed, a group) walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm a socialist!" but if it walks like a duck...


Define socialist.

Quote:
You would be surprised by how many people opt out of so-called universal grade schooling. Between home schooling, private schools and religious schools, there's a substantial number of students who never see a public grade school.


That was not the question. Here it is again. You must be against universal grade schooling then, since by your definition it is part of the Nanny State?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right v Left

Socialist

Hope those answer your questions
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that everyone who considers post secondary school a "right" are liberal arts majors (philosophy, history, poli sci and the like) as opposed to business majors, electricians, engineers.
If people work hard in High School and apply for scholarships and take out loans, rake up some short term debt, and make the right choice in what program to take then they can make it.
This is the way it should be. There is nothing wrong with a degree in “Marxist Theory” or whatever but no one said you had to take it and the government should not be on the hook.
A friend of mine will soon be graduating with a degree in Anthropology, she is past her 30’s and has saved hard for money to pay for her degree and is now getting it. This is how the system should work.
Considering how much money the government already gives to post secondary institutions I am loath to put more in as we are ALREADY GRADUATING TO MANY SOCIOLOGY GRADS WHO NOW FEEL THEY ARE “OWED” CUSHY JOBS!
Sorry for that rank, I just fear if we did what you suggest we could turn out like the UK and France.
If anything the government should put less money into the arts (not that the arts are not important) and more crucial programs.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The plan is to maintain the system's universality.


Just curious as to what you mean by 'universality' - do you mean everyone can access a basic level of service, regardless of ability to pay? Or do you mean that everyone MUST accept the basic level of service regardless of ability to pay for MORE?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:
For the third time define your terms. If you don't we will conclude that either you
1) can't or
2) really are not interested


Try option 3) I don't want to debate by your rules.

I could easily provide definitions for you but that's not what you're interested in (since others have already done so and you've chosen to ignore them). You're looking to nit-pick over petty semantic details and I'm not going to provide a target for you. Like I said (and you ignored) your request is specious.

Here's a link to a dictionary site if you need to look up specious. Merrill-Webster

atlanticaparty wrote:
The plan is to maintain the system's universality.

Empty rhetoric. Insert taxpayer's money.

atlanticaparty wrote:
Define socialist.

If the positions you're proposing represent your beliefs, might I suggest you obtain a mirror and study your face carefully while repeating this mantra: "If it looks like a duck..."

atlanticaparty wrote:
That was not the question. Here it is again. You must be against universal grade schooling then, since by your definition it is part of the Nanny State?

Evidently, you're incapable to reading between the lines which is hardly promising from someone who aspires for public office. I'll make my answer plain enough so even you can understand, okay?

If universal grade schooling meant all children were required by law to attend public schools than I would definitely be AGAINST it as being an intrusion in how I choose to raise my children. That is not the case. The current system allows parents to select to home school or have their children educated in a variety of alternatives to the public school system. I am not wholly contrary to the current model although the unionization of teachers and other workers means costs are higher than is necessary and some of the curriculum is little more than socialist rhetoric.

-Mac
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:

If people work hard in High School and apply for scholarships and take out loans,


I'm not so sure the government should be handing out any loans what so ever. Perhaps it's time that university students get a part time job & pay directly from thier own pockets, especially since there are too many graduates that can't pay their loans back.
atlanticaparty





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 193
Reputation: 72.8
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
Right v Left

Socialist

Hope those answer your questions


Thanks.

From the first link:
"As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."

Is this definition you choose?


From the second link:
"Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis, and lines often blur among parties. For more detail see the main article Left-Right politics:

* Equality of outcome (left) versus equality of opportunity (right).
* Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).
* Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).
* Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).
* Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).
* Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right).
* Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).
* Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right).
* Support for cultural and economic autonomy (left), or support for globalization (right)"

Which one(s) do you intend?


Any feedback yet on our political and electoral reforms?
atlanticaparty





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 193
Reputation: 72.8
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It seems to me that everyone who considers post secondary school a "right" are liberal arts majors (philosophy, history, poli sci and the like) as opposed to business majors, electricians, engineers.If people work hard in High School and apply for scholarships and take out loans, rake up some short term debt, and make the right choice in what program to take then they can make it.
This is the way it should be. There is nothing wrong with a degree in “Marxist Theory” or whatever but no one said you had to take it and the government should not be on the hook.
A friend of mine will soon be graduating with a degree in Anthropology, she is past her 30’s and has saved hard for money to pay for her degree and is now getting it. This is how the system should work.
Considering how much money the government already gives to post secondary institutions I am loath to put more in as we are ALREADY GRADUATING TO MANY SOCIOLOGY GRADS WHO NOW FEEL THEY ARE “OWED” CUSHY JOBS!
Sorry for that rank, I just fear if we did what you suggest we could turn out like the UK and France.
If anything the government should put less money into the arts (not that the arts are not important) and more crucial programs.


On the whole we agree. All we are saying is that everyone should have an opportunity PROVIDED they a) qualify (grades), b) demonstrate interest and c) are willing to work hard. No one who passes these hurdles should be held back by lack of funds. Why? Because it is a bad economic deal for all. It would have been better for all of us if your Anthropology friend had been able to secure funds earlier rather than later. Better to get her into the profession where she can start contributing more.

We are not saying the public should fund ANYONE who wants go to college.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not saying the government should be giving out loans just that our system already works in a manner that allows people to get an education if they work hard and make some sacrifices.
Most students who take out loans also work part time already (and it’s not just so they can party)

a b and c are all SUBJECTIVE (seeing as we do not have standardized testing like the us and some schools in the public and private sector inflate grades, id take a 70% student from UTS over an 80% student from UCC in a heartbeat)
it’s good in theory and I agree that these people should not be passed over but if they have the grades they will get the scholarships! There is no way you could actually make it work (besides bring in more universal standard tests like the SAT's and basing A on this).
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tougher standards such as higher grades & work terms should be part of the platform. It's in my opinion that every student should get a taste of the other end of the job market to build character & gain respect of the not so fortunate in society go through, & to build capital in order to pay college without getting masive government loans to pay for thier education.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:

On the whole we agree. All we are saying is that everyone should have an opportunity PROVIDED they a) qualify (grades), b) demonstrate interest and c) are willing to work hard. No one who passes these hurdles should be held back by lack of funds. Why? Because it is a bad economic deal for all. It would have been better for all of us if your Anthropology friend had been able to secure funds earlier rather than later. Better to get her into the profession where she can start contributing more.

We are not saying the public should fund ANYONE who wants go to college.


As someone who works full time and pursues part-time education, I must inform you that it is not hard to go to school if you are actually willing to take part in your option c.

Algonquin College, for example offers courses at about $300.00/each, Carleton University offers part time studies that cost $1000/1.0 credit(they work on a .5 credit system). Nobody is being held back because of any real lack of funds. In this particular city you can find a decent place to live for $500.00 a month(or less!). I have a roomate, a nice apartment in downtown ottawa and I pay about this much. When you take into account internet/t.v., cellphone, food and transit, my cost of living comes to around $850.00/mo.

I have a nice income for someone my age, but even if I were making $10.00/hr(nobody I know over the age of 18 makes less than this - and most significantly more) for 37.5 hrs./wk. I would be bringing home about 1200.00/mo. Now, realistically you will have some wild money, if you budget $100.00 for beer, going out etc. then you are left with about $250.00/mo. in savings - meaning that in a time frame of 4 months, you'll be able to pay for your tuition and a good portion of your books. By taking a year to save up money you could easily have enough saved to pay for most of your books for a couple years.

My education will take a good deal of time - about 7 years to obtain a B.A. Of course, I will be entering various essay contests and applying for bursaries and scholarships as well.

I get pretty angry when I hear people talking about how it's so hard to go to school and all that nonsense. If people were truly working hard and were actually dedicated, they would find a way. For this reason- I really do think you are basically advocating that ANYONE should be able to go to school.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Atlantica Party - a new provincial party

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB