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 3 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: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:
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?


Most of that seems accurate...

as I said - your freebies were with social policy :lol:
Since I need to pay for my school I will charge you $10.00/hr. for my colsultative services (hey, i'm not a crook!) lol
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the reason that no one comments on your suggested political / electoral reforms are that most of us would likely agree with them - they're very populist, which many of both the right and left are attracted to.

However, what you've broadly defined as 'Social Policy' is very left-leaning, and even appalling, to a lot of people here. I would suggest, as friendly advice, to keep in mind that the non-political public don't really care too much about government systems - they care about the economy, and what you seem to offer is a highly interventionist style of governing.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hasdrubal wrote:
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.


No disagreement there.

Yes, you would need some way of standard testing etc etc
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
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.


No true.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
atlanticaparty wrote:
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?


Most of that seems accurate...

as I said - your freebies were with social policy :lol:
Since I need to pay for my school I will charge you $10.00/hr. for my colsultative services (hey, i'm not a crook!) lol


Ok, here are the SHORT answers.

Do we advocate state or community ownership of the means of production?
No.

Equality of outcome (left) versus equality of opportunity (right).
Left for health, opportunity in education and a basic safety net, right on everything else.

Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).
Same as above.

Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).
Needs more definition here. As far as it goes, right. But the question is flawed.

Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).
Government should support liberty and as such support neither.

Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).
Irrelevant.

Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right).
We support secular government.

Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).
Right.

Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right).
Out of context. Elected officials are hired to promote the national interest.

Support for cultural and economic autonomy (left), or support for globalization (right)
Again, probably out of context for elected officials. If globalization helps a country then right, else left.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I think the reason that no one comments on your suggested political / electoral reforms are that most of us would likely agree with them - they're very populist, which many of both the right and left are attracted to.

However, what you've broadly defined as 'Social Policy' is very left-leaning, and even appalling, to a lot of people here. I would suggest, as friendly advice, to keep in mind that the non-political public don't really care too much about government systems - they care about the economy, and what you seem to offer is a highly interventionist style of governing.


Thank you. We agree.

Our intention with Social Policy was only to provide a well rounded policy platform. Our real goal is electoral and political reform leading to a better quality of political discourse. For the purposes of electioneering we could simply have photo-copied any of the social policy from any of the three parties, since they are mostly the same. We were hoping for just a status-quo economic policy, with a few adjustments so we could focus on reform.

Social/economic policy is not the purpose of the party, although it seems to be of GREAT interest in this forum. Honestly to us it is fairly irrelevant next to political reform. Suffice to say, there is really no point to debating social/economic policy if the rules of the political game are going to change first anyway.
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough, but the thrust of my comment was that ordinary people vote based on 'Social' issues - they should be well developed and appealing, 'for the purposes of electioneering'.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Fair enough, but the thrust of my comment was that ordinary people vote based on 'Social' issues - they should be well developed and appealing, 'for the purposes of electioneering'.


Thank you. We want to try and make the case that, yes social issues are important, but what is even more important is discussion and reform of HOW issues are debated and implemented.

We have tried to make our Social Issues generically status-quo, because we don't want to distract attention from the reform issues. So we *have* to support universal health care, because most people would not support the party otherwise. Unless someone can demonstrate that there is terrific political mileage in dismantling the welfare state over the short term in Atlantic Canada our hands are tied.

Having said that we would love to hear from anyone who thinks, given what we just said, we could improve our Social Issues policies, lets hear it.
Hasdrubal





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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Party can win if you speak against the welfare state by proving that that the economy is hurt by it & keeping the better paying jobs out of the region. The current problem with Maritimers is the fact no party clearly talks about equalization, & welfare as hampering economic growth. If it can be done, the people understand that equalization & welfare is actually keeping economic growth out of the region, the people will listen & vote for change. Maritimers are socialists only because the elites make sure of it by using the argument that there's no other way of life possible, it's time to show them there's another way.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hasdrubal wrote:
Maritimers are socialists only because the elites make sure of it by using the argument that there's no other way of life possible, it's time to show them there's another way.

Good post. The problem is you have to show them another way without offending their pride. During the past couple of elections, the Liberals made certain all Maritimers remembered that Stephen Harper once called them a welfare state. The fact that it's the truth has no impact but the perceived insult was enough to ensure no Conservative MPs.

-Mac
biggie





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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

atlanticaparty wrote:

Having said that we would love to hear from anyone who thinks, given what we just said, we could improve our Social Issues policies, lets hear it.


I would suggest altering your stance on post-secondary education. At least by the wording it seems as if you want to give everyone free university.

I think you should instead suggest enabling all citizens an opportunity to afford education by increasing lending options for middle and low-income students, increased tax incentives for those who participate in part-time education(increasing the amount that can be claimed per week of classes, and possibly even an equal education tax-credit for non-credit professional development courses from recognized institutions).

One thing I have thought of on several occassions is an income tax credit for volunteer work. Base it on hours volunteered; non-profits could provide a "receipt" for hours worked on their behalf. You could make it $2.00/hr. of volunteer work and cap the credit at $260.00(which would come right off the top of taxable income). I'm not sure how much of an effect this would have on volunteering, but certainly some would take advantage of it. Volunteering develops critical working skills as well as provides professional references and just looks great on a resume. Encouraging volunteer work means that people are more employable. And of course, lets not forget all the good work that so many non-profits do. Ontario forces it's highschool students to volunteer a certain amount of time before graduation from secondary school for these very reasons.

Your proposal for guaranteed income sounds nice, but it is far from it. It will encourage the people of the maritimes to not work. Guaranteed income means that working may mean not making much more, but having to work hard. Focus on tax cuts so that people can keep more of their money, but are encouraged to work.

Self sufficiency? No... you don't want to enter into the realm of protectionism. Strengthening your position at home means strengthening your position abroad first. It is extremely important to maintain liquidity, and protectionism of this nature could ruin the regional economy, stifle development and eliminate competition.

Your stances on drugs; that's a matter of opinion. However, it is important for you to realize that you don't have oversight on that jurisdiction. Narcotics charges fall under the Federal Criminal Code, not under provincial legislation.

You want to manage the private market - how? This enters the realm of communist "control the means of production" theory..

"A regional stock exchange." - not bad, but why?

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

not horrible - but will this not result in government oversight? and consequently, a costly bureaucracy? And what effect will it truly have? what are the current issues of companies participating in "misconduct". Define misconduct.

I would also suggest advocating diversifying industry in your provinces. By keeping business-friendly legislation and fair taxation this should come. Look to Alberta and Ralph Klein's work in this area for a perfect example (in 1985 energy made up 36.1% of the GDP - 2005: 28.3%)

What I see when I see your social policies is unkeepable promises. You're advocating massively increasing services while lowering taxes. All the while your region of the country is sucking money out of the other regions, obviously the revenue just is not there.
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent ideas on volunteering, speaking from a purely selfish point of view :lol:

As an aside, a small change introduced into the tax code in Alberta (maybe Federally) around 3 years ago, was to make to first $1000 made by paid-on-call firefighters (aka most 'volunteer' firefighters) tax free.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would suggest altering your stance on post-secondary education. At least by the wording it seems as if you want to give everyone free university.

I think you should instead suggest enabling all citizens an opportunity to afford education by increasing lending options for middle and low-income students, increased tax incentives for those who participate in part-time education(increasing the amount that can be claimed per week of classes, and possibly even an equal education tax-credit for non-credit professional development courses from recognized institutions).


Thanks. We will discuss this.

Quote:
One thing I have thought of on several occassions is an income tax credit for volunteer work. Base it on hours volunteered; non-profits could provide a "receipt" for hours worked on their behalf. You could make it $2.00/hr. of volunteer work and cap the credit at $260.00(which would come right off the top of taxable income). I'm not sure how much of an effect this would have on volunteering, but certainly some would take advantage of it. Volunteering develops critical working skills as well as provides professional references and just looks great on a resume. Encouraging volunteer work means that people are more employable. And of course, lets not forget all the good work that so many non-profits do. Ontario forces it's highschool students to volunteer a certain amount of time before graduation from secondary school for these very reasons.


Sounds good. Government could also create a charity bank, a sort of clearing house for individuals and charities looking for each other.

Quote:
Your proposal for guaranteed income sounds nice, but it is far from it. It will encourage the people of the maritimes to not work. Guaranteed income means that working may mean not making much more, but having to work hard. Focus on tax cuts so that people can keep more of their money, but are encouraged to work.


We will discuss this one too.

Quote:
Self sufficiency? No... you don't want to enter into the realm of protectionism. Strengthening your position at home means strengthening your position abroad first. It is extremely important to maintain liquidity, and protectionism of this nature could ruin the regional economy, stifle development and eliminate competition.


Understand the concern. This is making sure that basic needs are not controlled by foreign powers; water, basic food, power ... The US maintains strategic stockpiles and restricts foreign control of critical industries. Although free markets would allow say, Chinese ownership of the Tar Sands or Boeing, nobody would agree that that is prudent for the national interest. Security trumps free markets.

Quote:
Your stances on drugs; that's a matter of opinion. However, it is important for you to realize that you don't have oversight on that jurisdiction. Narcotics charges fall under the Federal Criminal Code, not under provincial legislation.


Not just drugs but other sorts of anti-social activities; gambling, prostitution, etc ..
The idea is to create a proper functioning marketplace for these as opposed to making them a black market activity.

Quote:
You want to manage the private market - how? This enters the realm of communist "control the means of production" theory..

No. Effective oversight, management and encouragement of markets. Effective and efficient private markets do not exist in a vacuum nor spontaneously appear.

Quote:
"A regional stock exchange." - not bad, but why?

Canada has five stock exchanges, perhaps there will be/is a niche for one specializing in East Coast issues or activities. AMEX in the states has done very well specializing in synthetic instruments.

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

not horrible - but will this not result in government oversight? and consequently, a costly bureaucracy? And what effect will it truly have? what are the current issues of companies participating in "misconduct". Define misconduct.


No more oversight than exists currently. The issue is companies who break the law and pay minimal fines and treat it as a business expense.

Quote:
I would also suggest advocating diversifying industry in your provinces. By keeping business-friendly legislation and fair taxation this should come.

No arguments there.
biggie





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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sure I can dig up data on those issues if it would help, and I would be happy to do so.
atlanticaparty





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes please.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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