[GunPlumber]

Scape Scape:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree with having reservations about Harper and his more social conservative leanings, particualrly on gay marriage. However, at this point it would be contemptible for me to vote Liberal. If you're not going to throw a government out of office for that level of corruption, then I wonder what it would take.

I think the Liberals need a little time to go stand in the corner and reflect on their sins. I'll vote for Harper and hope he realizes that Canadians like freedom more than social conservatism.

They also like a track record of fiscal responsibility

8 budgets in a row they have done the job of balancing the books. Since the peak year of 1995-96, the government has reduced the accumulated national debt by more than $52 billion. The debt-to-GDP ratio measures the size of the debt compared to the size of the economy, and this indicator has fallen even more dramatically. In 1995-96, it was at 68 per cent. In 2003-04 is had fallen to just over 42 per cent, and is now forecast to reach 38 per cent in 2005-06. Goodale has set a target of 25 per cent within 10 years. That's nothing to sneer at and we have yet to see a conservative government that can run a country without polarizing it and balance the books. The liberals could (and probably will) spend half of the surplus to keep Parliament in session but they will still be in the black. I would like to see the debt payed off faster but we don't need to pay off the mortgage tomorrow and we have responsibilities today that must be addressed such as the child care program that has been promised since the 1970's and getting health care back on track.

Years ago, the Liberals redesignated many sources of non-taxed public funds as "General Revenue". Included in these appropriations were the Public Service pension, Unemployment Insurance, and the Canada Pension (to name but three). It is an an accounting fraud that would make Andy Fastow (Enron's former CFO) green with envy! At some future date, there will be no water left in those wells and the 'balanced' budget will be exposed for the sham it is. If I robbed 7-11's to make ends meet, I could justifiably claim that my budget IS balanced whilst conveniently overlooking the fact I will constantly need to find new targets to plunder in able to maintain an illusion of fiscal responsibility.

What we surely don't need to achieve a balanced budget is, more ill-thought and unaffordable social programs. The gun registry was originally sold to a public that didn't want it, by claiming that the total cost of implementing it would not exceed $2 million. At last count, the true cost had exceeded $2 billion and by all accounts it is nothing more than a dismal failure. Do we really need a national childcare program which optimistic liberals admit/claim will only suck $1 billion annually from the national treasury. And at what point will we recognize that it has become another dismal failure? When the cost exceeds $10 billion annually? When the tab reaches $100 Billion/ annum. And who exactly put a gun a to your head to have children while simultaneously promising that tax dollars would be used to relieve you of the responsibility to raise said children while you pursued lifestyle-options that ignored your responsibility to your offspring? Having children is a personal choice that is both expensive and time consuming. If you are not equal to the commitment, don't exercise the option, and don't burden me with the cost of paying for your mistake.

[Scape]

Excellent and well thought out responses GunPlumber. It was a pleasant surprise to read your posts. It is a far more mature and reasoned response than what I have become accustomed to as of late. Hope we can aspire to further discussions. With that in mind...

$1:

While I understand your desire to discredit Stephen Harper (whom I consider a spineless policy wonk), your unfortunate misinterpretaions of his "agenda" does not enhance your own credibility.

Guilty. As the heart of Harpers popularity is the western backlash to the ivory tower mentality in Ottawa that is so blatantly apparent he is also representing all of Canada. As a doctor must swear to do no harm so to must a federalist swear to protect the interests of Canada. I do not believe that Harper is truly for Canada and would benefit from it's fall so if my credibility takes a hit for screaming, "WOLF!" then so be it.

Harpers base of support is frustrated at having no voice and endless constitutional talks that just postpone but do not address the grievances that threaten to tear this country apart while giving favor to the people who do want it torn apart. But Meech lake and the Charlottetown accord were not sabotaged by the Liberals alone and the radical surgery of decentralization that Harper is proposing could very well kill Canada and open a window for the PQ making the country easy pickings to take advantage of.

As was previously posted the Liberals will steal from us and sell us out, at a moderate pace, the Conservatives seem most likely to sell us out as fast as possible but the end sum gain will be our country is gone. It's not much of a choice I'll grant you that but if the choice is being a poor Canadian or a British Colombian I will choose Canada in the hopes of buying her more time. Harper's curious definition of 'disgraceful'

$1:

If you are not equal to the commitment, don't exercise the option, and don't burden me with the cost of paying for your mistake.

Do we measure the lost man hours for childcare now? My wife is a skilled medical clerk that should be working for 22-28$/hr but she is home making 6$/hr with child care. Freeing up more of her time would quickly generate more money from taxes but she has the responsibility of children over money. Are you saying the responsibility of child care is something that is only worth glib lip service or condemnation? I think your premise is misguided, this is not an efficient nor effective use of manpower and clearly the private industry has come woefully short to task on this one. Do you see a viable alternative? Do you understand that the wage gap between genders is based on child rearing and that this could be a benefit to correct that disparity?

$1:

Having children is a personal choice that is both expensive and time consuming.

We live in the 21st not the 18th century. It is time our society reflect that with a open door to men and women of ability. Your assumption of personal choice is just that, an assumption and a horribly sexist one as well. I hope that is just a moment of frustration and not your actual position. Having children is a rich reward that has many benefits. Your measure of their worth in time and money cheapens their lives. Besides that Natural born Canadians will only be growing 75% whereas immigrants will be 130% We have a man power shortage and a shortage of skilled labour. Non-Europeans to surpass 50% in big cities How do you expect Canada to stay Canadian when Canadians living here get no support for child rearing?

[hwacker]

Scape Scape:

Excellent and well thought out responses GunPlumber. It was a pleasant surprise to read your posts. It is a far more mature and reasoned response than what I have become accustomed to as of late. Hope we can aspire to further discussions. With that in mind...

$1:

While I understand your desire to discredit Stephen Harper (whom I consider a spineless policy wonk), your unfortunate misinterpretaions of his "agenda" does not enhance your own credibility.

Guilty. As the heart of Harpers popularity is the western backlash to the ivory tower mentality in Ottawa that is so blatantly apparent he is also representing all of Canada. As a doctor must swear to do no harm so to must a federalist swear to protect the interests of Canada. I do not believe that Harper is truly for Canada and would benefit from it's fall so if my credibility takes a hit for screaming, "WOLF!" then so be it.

Harpers base of support is frustrated at having no voice and endless constitutional talks that just postpone but do not address the grievances that threaten to tear this country apart while giving favor to the people who do want it torn apart. But Meech lake and the Charlottetown accord were not sabotaged by the Liberals alone and the radical surgery of decentralization that Harper is proposing could very well kill Canada and open a window for the PQ making the country easy pickings to take advantage of.

As was previously posted the Liberals will steal from us and sell us out, at a moderate pace, the Conservatives seem most likely to sell us out as fast as possible but the end sum gain will be our country is gone. It's not much of a choice I'll grant you that but if the choice is being a poor Canadian or a British Colombian I will choose Canada in the hopes of buying her more time. Harper's curious definition of 'disgraceful'

$1:

If you are not equal to the commitment, don't exercise the option, and don't burden me with the cost of paying for your mistake.

Do we measure the lost man hours for childcare now? My wife is a skilled medical clerk that should be working for 22-28$/hr but she is home making 6$/hr with child care. Freeing up more of her time would quickly generate more money from taxes but she has the responsibility of children over money. Are you saying the responsibility of child care is something that is only worth glib lip service or condemnation? I think your premise is misguided, this is not an efficient nor effective use of manpower and clearly the private industry has come woefully short to task on this one. Do you see a viable alternative? Do you understand that the wage gap between genders is based on child rearing and that this could be a benefit to correct that disparity?

$1:

Having children is a personal choice that is both expensive and time consuming.

We live in the 21st not the 18th century. It is time our society reflect that with a open door to men and women of ability. Your assumption of personal choice is just that, an assumption and a horribly sexist one as well. I hope that is just a moment of frustration and not your actual position. Having children is a rich reward that has many benefits. Your measure of their worth in time and money cheapens their lives. Besides that Natural born Canadians will only be growing 75% whereas immigrants will be 130% We have a man power shortage and a shortage of skilled labour. Non-Europeans to surpass 50% in big cities How do you expect Canada to stay Canadian when Canadians living here get no support for child rearing?

From what I read you need to get a new job with more money, if you can't afford to have kids, don't.

Either find a way to live cheaper or find a way to make more money.

Take the immigrants that come from other countries, they come to Canada with 6 kids but live in a shithole because they can't afford anything else. Is that my problem, NO.?

Why should I or anyone else pay for the cost of them having more kids then they can realistically afford.

Most third world countries are third world countries because they have a population much higher then they can afford to manage.

If you decide to bang your wife tonight and a child is the outcome well then my friend that’s your problem not mine , and I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for your kids care while you and your wife are at work. You had the fun not me, time to pay for the pleasure.

[Gunbunny]

Scape Scape:

Do we measure the lost man hours for childcare now? My wife is a skilled medical clerk that should be working for 22-28$/hr but she is home making 6$/hr with child care. Freeing up more of her time would quickly generate more money from taxes but she has the responsibility of children over money. Are you saying the responsibility of child care is something that is only worth glib lip service or condemnation? I think your premise is misguided, this is not an efficient nor effective use of manpower and clearly the private industry has come woefully short to task on this one. Do you see a viable alternative? Do you understand that the wage gap between genders is based on child rearing and that this could be a benefit to correct that disparity?

Scape:

There is only one real argument in my mind about the child care program. What about the child's emotional development that comes with a more permenent attachment to the primary caregiver, mom or dad? Children need that attachment from the time they are born till the time that they head off to kindergarden. It's a proven fact that ALL children need this attachment.

I'll find you the link I got this from.

What we need is something that is quite a bit different from just a check to the nationaly sponcered daycare, that will have people pay anyway cause the govt. doesn't give enough money to that branch. It's government and that is the way that they will work. We need a better solution. You've said it you self. Problems don't go away by just throwing money at it. Case & Point: Gun Registry. It failed before it even got out of the gates. Then the current govt. just kept throwing money at it. People just gotta learn when it's time to cut your losses and let go.

Preperation & Planing Prevents Piss Poor Performance.