Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Conservatives - Just not the fiscal kind


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:59 PM

http://www.theglobea...article4649919/

The Conservative government no longer has targets for erasing Canada’s federal debt, which grew by $125-billion since the recession.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed Wednesday that the recession has derailed Ottawa’s long-term debt plans and new targets won’t be set until the government starts posting yearly surpluses again – which is not forecast to happen for three more years.
More Related to this Story

Posted Image Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty speaks with the media at a local store in Ottawa, Oct. 24,2012 . THE CANADIAN PRESS
Regulation

Video: No expiry date for prepaid credit cards: Flaherty
The minister said rating agencies look favourably at Ottawa’s finances but do raise concerns with him about provincial debt loads. He said it’s up to provincial governments to balance their books.
The federal debt stood at $582.2-billion for 2011-12, which is up from $457.6-billion in 2007-08.
It was just five years ago that the government was promoting an ambitious plan called Advantage Canada that promised to erase the country’s net public debt “by 2021 at the latest,” according to Mr. Flaherty’s 2007 budget.
Net debt is a measurement that includes federal and provincial government assets and liabilities, including accounts like Canada Pension Plan funds.
“Obviously that target has been stretched,” said Mr. Flaherty Wednesday, when asked for an update on Ottawa’s long-term debt targets.
Talk of the target disappeared in Ottawa after the recession hit. In recent years, Ottawa has refused requests to provide a long-term assessment of Canada’s bottom line. On Tuesday afternoon after the Auditor-General joined the calls for such information, Finance Canada complied.
The department projected federal debt as a percentage of GDP won’t be erased until about 2042. It also said Canada’s total government net debt stood at 34 per cent of GDP in 2011. When asked directly if his government’s new target for erasing the debt is 2042, Mr. Flaherty replied that any new government targets won’t be set until Ottawa’s back in surplus.
“Our priority now is on the deficit and to eliminate the deficit in the medium term,” Mr. Flaherty said. “We’re still on track to do that. Once we do that, then we can do as we did before in 2006, 2007, and that is start to use surpluses to – in part certainly – pay off public debt and then we’ll be able to plan a schedule for the elimination of federal public debt in Canada.”
Though the Auditor-General called on Ottawa to report on the long-term sustainability of provincial and federal finances, Mr. Flaherty said it’s up to the provinces to report on their own debt projections.
Opposition parties jumped on the Auditor-General’s findings Wednesday, accusing the government of creating a false crisis over public finances to justify changes to Old Age Security and provincial transfers for health and education.
Meanwhile, the fiscally conservative Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation said the government should be pressured to stick with its original debt plan, regardless of the recession.
“By abandoning it, they’re saying they’re adrift,” said Gregory Thomas, the federation’s federal director. “I think the fiscally conservative base of the government has to be profoundly concerned.”
Doug Porter, deputy chief economist with BMO Capital Markets, argues Canada’s new recession-era debt load needs to be looked at in perspective.
“It’s the reality that almost every industrialized world economy is dealing with this,” he said. Targeting the elimination of net debt was a reasonable goal before the recession, said Mr. Porter, but he questions the need for a target now.
“To have the federal government basically mandating a target that the provinces have at least as big a say in is perhaps not a useful exercise,” he said. “Canada is still definitely seen as a very favourable investment destination, and part of that is because of the more general perception that our finances are in better shape than most other countries and I think that’s still the case.”


If we can't even come close to balancing the budget now what the hell is going to happen when the demographic crunch hits us and we have much higher costs and way lower revenues?!? Not making the hard choices now means we can simply add interest payments to the mix.

Fiscal conservatives with economic backgrounds my ***.

We are sooooo screwed.
  • 1

#2 Dral

Dral

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,503 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:23 PM

Lucky only 15% of our debt is owed to foreign nationals.
  • 0

#3 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

Who is surprised by this? The only surprising thing is their admission of this rather obvious truth.
  • 0

#4 riske1

riske1

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 05

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:42 PM

Anyone who thinks that electing a Liberal or socialist NDP government will be the answer with regards to fisical responsibility needs to think again.

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.
  • 4
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

#5 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

Anyone who thinks that electing a Liberal or socialist NDP government will be the answer with regards to fisical responsibility needs to think again.

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.


You mean, Canada needs the American Republican Party? Our beautiful country may have its problems, but no thanks...
  • 4

#6 riske1

riske1

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 05

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

Not the Republican Party, the Tea Party would be perferable.

Less taxes and equal opportunity for all, not whoever happens to be considered a needy tax recipient by many of our gutless potiticians.
  • 0
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

#7 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:30 PM

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.


Explain all of that.
  • 0

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#8 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,739 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 25 October 2012 - 06:34 PM

The US debt looks at ours and snickers.
  • 0
Posted Image

#9 mcgillnuck

mcgillnuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:34 PM

Anyone who thinks that electing a Liberal or socialist NDP government will be the answer with regards to fisical responsibility needs to think again.

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.


You sound white
  • 0

Props to canuckbuddy for the sig

#10 KoreanHockeyFan

KoreanHockeyFan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,474 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

Anyone who thinks that electing a Liberal or socialist NDP government will be the answer with regards to fisical responsibility needs to think again.

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.


Uhhh...

Nevermind, too easy.

(Mind elaborating? I'm trying to be as open minded as possible)

Edited by KoreanHockeyFan, 25 October 2012 - 09:59 PM.

  • 0

#11 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:18 PM

You sound white

sounds like a really racist conservative.

Germany's liberal social system works. In fact they are single handedly keeping Europe afloat. If Conservatism worked, America would not be a giant hole right now. Blame him for the war, but he made the same decisions anyone else in the Republican party would have during his 8 years in office.

To show Canadian conservative minded people have no idea what they are talking about, I see almost ALL of them on here support Obama in the American election. Those are OPPOSING ideologies. I also see Canadian conservatives bragging about our "free healthcare". NEWSFLASH basic conservative ideals are against social benefits.

I honestly don' think conservatives have ANY idea what they are voting for.You brag about the things that make us Canadian, yet you vote for someone who has IDENTICAL views as an American (Harper). Yeah, let's make our country MORE like the one that trails us in every major category (except military) and that's in HUGH debt.
  • 2

#12 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:38 PM

This is proof in the pudding of how far US political tentacles reach if you see the product of Harper, Blair, Calderon, Sarkozy, Karamanlis, and so on, how their domestic policies are their country's version of George W. Bush's. Fiscal conservative used to be a more reasonable alternative, except for a while now that term is hijacked not by actual fiscal conservatives but fiscally liberal neo-conservatives who spend just as rapidly and recklessly. The populace is a bit slow to catch on due to the divisive nature of politics which is well intended on their part.
  • 0

#13 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:24 AM

Anyone who thinks that electing a Liberal or socialist NDP government will be the answer with regards to fisical responsibility needs to think again.

Canada needs smaller government, strict control on the zero growth enviromental nut jobs, immigration reform and drastic cuts to failed and unneccessary taxpayer funded programs like multiculturisim, biligualism and Liberal social engineering.


Well, certainly not the NDP, and not the liberals as is.

I would actually prefer a genuine liberal government. As in economically liberal, socially liberal.

Not libertarian, I don't want to destroy the government, just keep it lean and effecient.

Unfortunately there's no one we can vote in right now that has any sort of economic skill. Le sigh.
  • 3

#14 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:25 AM

The US debt looks at ours and snickers.


We should look at theirs, and their upcoming fiscal cliff timebomb, and use it as precotionary tale, not something to emulate.
  • 0

#15 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 26 October 2012 - 05:28 AM

Lucky only 15% of our debt is owed to foreign nationals.


Unfortunately zero interest rate policy (or the linear equivelent we have now no real difference) means that the 85% of people holding the debt (canadians) can look forward to watching that balance erode due to inflation. Government policy in practice has been to reward leveraging up debt and speculate to your hearts content (they got your back) but to completely screw over savers.

Again, fiscally conservative my ***!
  • 1

#16 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,061 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:30 AM

You sound white


Hey, I'm white and I think that guys comments are @#$%'ing moronic.
  • 1

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#17 Teen Icarus

Teen Icarus

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 09

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:17 PM

As a fiscal conservative, I have to say that the 1960s NDP were probably more conservative than today's 'Conservative Party'...If only Preston Manning could speak publicly.
  • 1
Spoiler

#18 uber_pwnzor

uber_pwnzor

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:43 PM

Not the Republican Party, the Tea Party would be perferable.

Less taxes and equal opportunity for all, and by all we, of course, mean white, Christian, men with rich parents , not whoever happens to be considered a needy tax recipient by many of our gutless potiticians.


Fixed it*

Edited by Grammar Police, 29 October 2012 - 06:44 PM.

  • 0

#19 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:16 PM

Fixed it*


So you think that only mean white Christain men have any sort of financial acumen? Way to look down up others you racist eurocentric mysoganist!

Beleive it or not one it's a black female that I know that is among the best at math I have met. A blond women is also in the top ten.

Or is being good at math and understanding finance a bad trait to you?
  • 1

#20 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:23 PM

So you think that only mean white Christain men have any sort of financial acumen? Way to look down up others you racist eurocentric mysoganist!

Beleive it or not one it's a black female that I know that is among the best at math I have met. A blond women is also in the top ten.

Or is being good at math and understanding finance a bad trait to you?


He was being sarcastic, exemplifying why the Tea Party is stupid.

Is being good at spelling and having basic reading comprehension a bad trait to you?

Edited by CAPSLOCK, 29 October 2012 - 08:24 PM.

  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#21 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:28 PM

He was being sarcastic, exemplifying why the Tea Party is stupid.

Is being good at spelling and having basic reading comprehension a bad trait to you?


Small government with low taxes would be a better model than what the US (or Canada) is doing now (big government with low taxes).

If it's so stupid than why is it stupid? Would you prefer higher taxes?

By all means figure out solutions to balance our federal budget! I am all ears!
  • 0

#22 thedestroyerofworlds

thedestroyerofworlds

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 07

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:44 PM

Well their first mistake was cutting the GST, a move that many pundits and economists said was a bad idea. Compounding this was their policies to spend spend spend ( F35 program, navy ship building program, omnibus crime bill, etc).

Conservative Governments digging a hole for future generations:

Ronny Regan, Iron Lady Thatcher, The chin Mulmoron, Herr Harper, DUh Duh W Bush.

How many times do WE THE PUBLIC have to learn that conservatives are just rich CON men (or women), not brilliant political thinkers.

Edited by thedestroyerofworlds, 29 October 2012 - 08:44 PM.

  • 2

#23 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:07 PM

Small government with low taxes would be a better model than what the US (or Canada) is doing now (big government with low taxes).

If it's so stupid than why is it stupid? Would you prefer higher taxes?

By all means figure out solutions to balance our federal budget! I am all ears!


The Tea Party doesn't want small government and low taxes. They want a big government that keeps "Good Christian Values". They don't care about their tax rate, they'd just prefer it be spent on things like the over-bloated military instead of health care. Not to mention they're racist, homophobic and sexist.

Keep in mind, I'm not some super-liberal hippy either. I really don't care either way. But it doesn't take someone with a masters in political science to see why the Tea Party is dumb. I'm having a hard time seeing where you're arguing from on this.

On the one hand, you're espousing the values of a small government. That's cool, I can respect that.

Then you go rambling about the dangers of multiculturalism and "liberal social engineering." But when someone criticizes the Tea Party as being stupid for all of that, you attack them, and accuse them of the same stuff the Tea Party apparently believes.

Then you go completely away from those points and start saying because people don't agree with the Tea Party's social agenda, they want high taxes.

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, but whatever, all in good fun.
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#24 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

The Tea Party doesn't want small government and low taxes. They want a big government that keeps "Good Christian Values". They don't care about their tax rate, they'd just prefer it be spent on things like the over-bloated military instead of health care. Not to mention they're racist, homophobic and sexist.

Keep in mind, I'm not some super-liberal hippy either. I really don't care either way. But it doesn't take someone with a masters in political science to see why the Tea Party is dumb. I'm having a hard time seeing where you're arguing from on this.

On the one hand, you're espousing the values of a small government. That's cool, I can respect that.

Then you go rambling about the dangers of multiculturalism and "liberal social engineering." But when someone criticizes the Tea Party as being stupid for all of that, you attack them, and accuse them of the same stuff the Tea Party apparently believes.

Then you go completely away from those points and start saying because people don't agree with the Tea Party's social agenda, they want high taxes.

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, but whatever, all in good fun.


Seems like you're not getting your info from the right sources.

The Tea Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Are there racist/bigot/moronic people who would identify (wrongly so) as a Tea Party supporter? Of course, but there are equally as many who are racist/bigot/moronic who claim they're "liberal" too.
  • 0

#25 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:58 PM

Seems like you're not getting your info from the right sources.

The Tea Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. Are there racist/bigot/moronic people who would identify (wrongly so) as a Tea Party supporter? Of course, but there are equally as many who are racist/bigot/moronic who claim they're "liberal" too.


Sounds like you're getting your info from the wrong sources. The original 'Tea Party' was a group of rebels throwing British tea imports into the harbor in Boston during the American Revolution, as protest against the taxes being levied by the king. The current incarnation simply takes the name from that event. Someone probably made an acronym using those letters for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the name.

Yes, there are bigoted people on both sides. I know a lot of bigoted liberals. But the Tea Party is a breeding ground for the particular kind of stupid we were discussing. When Grammar Police brought up that the Tea Party promotes the interest of wealthy, middle-aged, white men, ron was unable to figure out that he was describing the Tea Party, not endorsing the position.
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#26 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:32 PM

Sounds like you're getting your info from the wrong sources. The original 'Tea Party' was a group of rebels throwing British tea imports into the harbor in Boston during the American Revolution, as protest against the taxes being levied by the king. The current incarnation simply takes the name from that event. Someone probably made an acronym using those letters for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the name.

Yes, there are bigoted people on both sides. I know a lot of bigoted liberals. But the Tea Party is a breeding ground for the particular kind of stupid we were discussing. When Grammar Police brought up that the Tea Party promotes the interest of wealthy, middle-aged, white men, ron was unable to figure out that he was describing the Tea Party, not endorsing the position.


Since this isn't a topic about American Revolutionary history, I thought it was implied that I was referring to the latest incarnation of the "Tea Party".

People I know who support the Tea Party from the grassroot levels are middle income folks, who believes social responsibility starts from the individual level, to family, to community, city, etc... a bottoms up approach, rather than from a top down with bigger government, etc. The best way to do that is for the government to reduce their taxation power, thus making it harder for it to intrude into people's rights.
I would say that special interest groups and so on have "hijacked" the Tea Party movement, where politicians claim for "less tax" yet sign off on stuff that will cost more money.
  • 0

#27 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:16 AM

Well their first mistake was cutting the GST, a move that many pundits and economists said was a bad idea. Compounding this was their policies to spend spend spend ( F35 program, navy ship building program, omnibus crime bill, etc).

Conservative Governments digging a hole for future generations:

Ronny Regan, Iron Lady Thatcher, The chin Mulmoron, Herr Harper, DUh Duh W Bush.

How many times do WE THE PUBLIC have to learn that conservatives are just rich CON men (or women), not brilliant political thinkers.


Ya I wouldn't mind seeing one point put back on the gst and shelving the F35 program.

The ships I don't mind so much because we need a better navy and it provides jobs here in Canada.

Omnibus crime bill I am half and half on. The parts where they act harsher to violent offenders I applaud. The parts where they crack down on drugs I do not.

I swear that like at the end of the great depression where they ended prohibition at the end of what is often called the great recession they will at least make pot legal and tax it to at least put more criminals out of business and rake in money.

Edited by ronthecivil, 30 October 2012 - 12:34 AM.

  • 0

#28 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:23 AM

The Tea Party doesn't want small government and low taxes. They want a big government that keeps "Good Christian Values". They don't care about their tax rate, they'd just prefer it be spent on things like the over-bloated military instead of health care. Not to mention they're racist, homophobic and sexist.

Keep in mind, I'm not some super-liberal hippy either. I really don't care either way. But it doesn't take someone with a masters in political science to see why the Tea Party is dumb. I'm having a hard time seeing where you're arguing from on this.

On the one hand, you're espousing the values of a small government. That's cool, I can respect that.

Then you go rambling about the dangers of multiculturalism and "liberal social engineering." But when someone criticizes the Tea Party as being stupid for all of that, you attack them, and accuse them of the same stuff the Tea Party apparently believes.

Then you go completely away from those points and start saying because people don't agree with the Tea Party's social agenda, they want high taxes.

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, but whatever, all in good fun.


Nope I am a policy geek wanting to talk about finance. If you look up a few post you will not that I am in favour of a liberal (not modern bleeding heart liberal but classic keep the government out of what it doesn't need to be in liberal) which would (for example) not give a crap one way or the other about multiculuralism (speak and dress however you want who cares?), would care less if you gay/straight, green/blue, male/female,shemale,whatever, would have a good yet effecient military, and would reform the freaking healthcare system so it wasn't the Canadian socialist model or the american capatilist model but instead an actual working model with element of public and private care (but still universal gotta have the goverment in some things).

And I wasn't rambling about multicultralism I was poking fun at people that assume if you like anything to do with the tea party that your some big fat white redneck with a southern drawl and you cousin for a wife.
  • 0

#29 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:28 AM

Since this isn't a topic about American Revolutionary history, I thought it was implied that I was referring to the latest incarnation of the "Tea Party".

People I know who support the Tea Party from the grassroot levels are middle income folks, who believes social responsibility starts from the individual level, to family, to community, city, etc... a bottoms up approach, rather than from a top down with bigger government, etc. The best way to do that is for the government to reduce their taxation power, thus making it harder for it to intrude into people's rights.
I would say that special interest groups and so on have "hijacked" the Tea Party movement, where politicians claim for "less tax" yet sign off on stuff that will cost more money.


That is kind of backfiring on them. Instead of cutting the goverment as a result of the stonewalling on any sort of tax changes that might hint of an increase the basically have pushed up the idea of the fiscal cliff. So for Christmas all the goodwill of these guys is going to result in more debt (and thus taxes that go to nothing), higher taxes and big cuts to the military.
  • 0

#30 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:33 AM

Sounds like you're getting your info from the wrong sources. The original 'Tea Party' was a group of rebels throwing British tea imports into the harbor in Boston during the American Revolution, as protest against the taxes being levied by the king. The current incarnation simply takes the name from that event. Someone probably made an acronym using those letters for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the name.

Yes, there are bigoted people on both sides. I know a lot of bigoted liberals. But the Tea Party is a breeding ground for the particular kind of stupid we were discussing. When Grammar Police brought up that the Tea Party promotes the interest of wealthy, middle-aged, white men, ron was unable to figure out that he was describing the Tea Party, not endorsing the position.


I figured it out just fine. But given that the statement was about as intelligent as saying that the Democrat party only supports the interests of minorities on welfare, attorneys, and radical islam what more could I do but point out the equivelent of something the lines of "my rich muslim friend happens to support the tea party!" (I don't know what party he supports actually but since he lives here it wouldn't be the tea party anyways but don't count on him voting NDP!).
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.