Not to put myself on a pedestal, but I for one read both the Globe and Mail and National Post when I read up on the election. I think having balance to your own view is important. I feel that the opposition parties feel it is enough to rip on Harper's past, present, and future policies, and don't spend nearly enough time supporting their own policies with their own arguments (for example, the economics that support's Layton's 5%+ Credit Card Interest Rate Cap would be interesting to see....)
An NDP-er friend of mine recently showed me this article about how the correlation between lower corporate tax rates and economic growth is spurious, and that the only country with lower corporate tax rates than ours is Ireland, and we all know how that is going... I'm now forced to reconsider my macroecon 101 assumption that less is more in the case of corporate tax. I feel that there is not enough give and take of positions and arguments like this going on. Some of the political discussions I've been in have just been recreations of the Talking Head debates on CBC where the clearly biased panelist talks AT the other panelist, rather than with them. This sort of discussion is so pointless and unproductive that it's incredible CBC even invites these panelists to talk. On the other hand, CBC's Power and Politics with Evan Soloman is a great show that makes more explicit its attempt to provide critical insights into the days events.
Here are some of the arguments I've made on Facebook with fellow politically aware people.
- This article is full of all sorts of gems "Harper’s team may not be very conservative by most standards (U.S. Tea Party activists wouldn’t let them in their front yard)" uh..... yes they would and they have: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/
SpecialEvent7/20051213/elx n_harper_speech_text_05121 4/ - The text from a speech made by Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank.
Wednesday at 11:55am · - John Doe 1 : As soon as this "not so conservative" leader came to power, BAM - no more $ for women's advocacy groups -http://www.cbc.ca/news/can
ada/story/2006/10/04/tory- funding.html. Then he proceeded to try to privatize as much as he possibly could and push through deregulation and corporate tax rates at an unprecedented rate. No that conservative?? Harper is Benjamin Netanyahu's next top model; we are in deep trouble if the Conservatives get in.
Wednesday at 12:05pm · 
...
I like how we're having a whole election over whether the corporate tax rate should be 15% or 18%. Regular Canadians don't care, this is something for ideologues to decry either way.
And that being in 'contempt of parliament' is a vote made by clearly partisan judges who themselves gain from a guilty verdict.
And sure, women's advocacy groups are important, but this is targeted funding for a specific group, and during hard economic times, SOMETHING has got to get cut, and its usually the smaller programs, whether its for disabled children, or whatever. Should Womens Advocacy groups be small? No, they shouldnt
John Doe
rabble.ca
The following is designed not to insult or ridicule the Harper Conservatives -- it is to show accurately and honestly why the Tories shouldn't run or represent Canada. Stephen Harper promised to "change the face of Canada" so drastically we wouldn't recognize it. He has succeeded and Canadians mus
No comments:
Post a Comment