Bizud

Not just a quest for knowledge (although that's one of my main reasons), but also to find satisfying, meaningful, interesting work. "Every party except the troglodytes." Bloc Quebecois, NDP, Liberals, and Greens all support gay marriage. The Conservatives do not support it, but support civil unions. Eco-capitalism is basically a branch of green politics that accepts the basic tenets of liberalism and capitalism, but aims to reduce the destruction of the planet through, for example, the "green tax shift," which would reduce taxes on income and, to compensate, raise taxes on consumption and polluters. Contrast this with, for example, the German or New Zealand Greens, or Saskatchewan's New Green Alliance, which favour more progressive income tax and heavily endorse social programs and, to some extent, labour legislation (though the green movement and the labour movement have always had trouble relating, eco-capitalists tend to be more "pro-business" than "pro-labour"). I don't understand the iPod question.

Yeah, I don't like the guy, but the Hitler Youth connection is pretty meaningless; Nazism was probably the most totalitarian state in history; even when it wasn't compulsory, being in Hitler Youth was more common than being in boy scouts.

When big business conspires to raise prices to thwart attempts at "them commies grabbin' our money," it's time for price controls. Truthfully, though, there's no need for that, because other countries have proven that big business can be made to pay more in taxes without shifting that burden back onto the consumer.

PRICK!!!!!!! But seriously, no one deserves better than another. As for taxes, Canadians simply don't pay enough. We know where the low-tax road leads and we know we don't want to go there. As for university, well, you might do it to find a satisfying (note: this is not synonymous with "well-paying") job. If this is a load of crap, then why does anybody in Sweden go to university at all?

If other nations can fund social programs without huge debt, so can we. The reason we didn't is that while social democrats tax and spend, Liberals don't tax but spend anyway. You might want to investigate those a bit before dismissing the party; the claims of the NDP ruining BC are mostly bullshit. As for Greens, I don't care for them. They're eco-capitalists who are all too happy to let themselves be considered left-wing, when really they're actually quite centrist; they're progressive on social issues, but those are all no-brainers that every party except the troglodytes agrees on anyway.

It will either come out of the prices of their goods/services (in which case people will go to their competitor and it won't matter), the wages of their employees (which is what unions and labour legislation, like minimum wage, are for), or out of their profit margins.

Actually, I do realize the importance of reducing debt, which is why I will again cast my vote for the party with the best track record in that area - the NDP.

Someone on the rabble.ca forums posted this: And I wholeheartedly agree.

Coughcough Yeah, that there stagnant economy (4th highest economic growth in the province) really got a jump start, it did. Whooee.

We shouldn't "force people to pay" for things that we all need? So then people who can afford their own health care and private education for their kids shouldn't have to pay to support medicare or the school system? People who don't drive should have that portion that deals with paying for the roads deducted from their taxes? Maybe we should just make it so all taxes are optional! Why not, eh? It would be wrong to force people to pay, right? I can only imagine where your silly ideas would take us. You're right, business can close up shop and leave us screwed if our policies are not to their liking; you just don't seem to have a problem with that. You don't find that a little unfair? You don't think that gives them considerably more political power than you or me? I recognize it, and recognize the importance of reducing the power of business. Crown corporations are one way that's done. Labour laws (minimum wage laws, anti-scab laws) are another. And yeah, I realize the importance of paying down debt; that's one reason I support the NDP, who have a better record than Liberals and Conservatives in terms of balanced budgets, as mentioned earlier.

Yeah, so? That doesn't absolve Paul. "Personal responsibility" doesn't mean "sole responsibility."

The finance minister? The cutting of millions in transfer payments to the provinces, to help eliminate the federal deficit (really, transfer the burden to the provinces), was largely a Paul Martin idea.

So what's the answer then, Matt? Keep business happy at the expense of society? You're right that nowadays, if business isn't happy it can go somewhere else, and this can have a detrimental effect on an economy for sure. The correct solution, then, isn't to just accept that business runs the show, find the policy which will please them the most, and hope some of the wealth we bestow on them (the worker being the source of all wealth) will trickle back to us (where it belongs anyway), but to reduce the dependence of society on business for the delivery of goods and services. OH NO, NOT COMMUNISM?!??!?!!

Let's go through this piece by piece. First, the deficit. Running a deficit, while generally something to be avoided, is not the end of the world. It doesn't always mean "overspending." It means more money will have to be spent paying it off in the following years, but it's a good way to avoid having to slash services while waiting for the economy to grow enough to return to a balanced budget. The NDP inherited a massive deficit from the SoCreds. In the '91 election, the Liberals ran on a platform of eliminating the deficit right away by whatever means necessary; the NDP ran, and were elected on, a platform of reducing the deficit slowly over time, without cutting important services or introducing austerity measures (such as Bob Rae's "Rae days"). They did this, and the deficit was eventually paid off. Promise delivered. Tuition: That doesn't make any sense, the money can come from other places besides elsewhere in the education system. When we talk about teachers, we're generally referring to high school teachers, so tuition doesn't have anything to do with it. You're correct, the NDP did not give the teachers all that they wanted. I have mixed feelings on this, but that was part of balancing the budget, and you'd have been the first to complain if they'd have even one more deficit because they gave the teachers what they wanted. The Liberals certainly won't be any better, though. Post-secondary: Should tuition fees be raised? Answer, no, they should not, unless they are accompanied by other efforts making it easier for people to pay for school (like, student grants accompanying student loans...but the Liberals cut those). It's not enough to just say "need more money, ergo fees should raise." There's a question of principle here: In principle, who should be paying for something like education? All of us, in the form of taxes, or the people who use it, in the form of higher tuition fees? I think the former (we all pay, because it benefits us all collectively, regardless of who uses it), the guiding principle behind free high school education, free health care, and any welfare state measure, is more fundamentally correct. Survey the students of BC and you'll find most agree. In all your ranting you've made exactly one valid complaint: under the NDP, space for students to take health care courses did not increase. Is this a valid complaint? Yes. Does it make the NDP worse than the Liberals? Of course not.

If the government is responsible for its citizens, and some of them die because the government was unwilling to help them, does that not make the government responsible?

Word. Pretty much. Worth noting is that Adriane Carr (Green leader) will be appearing in the leaders' debate, but Democratic Reform BC leader Tom Morino will not, even though DRBC have one member in the Legislature and the Greens have none. Hmmm, wonder why this is, could it be because the corporate media is all too happy to encourage vote-splitting on the left, but not the centre or centre-right? Fuck you Global.

The moral of the story is, we're much better off under the NDP - which is one reason the province's population increased so much - than under the Liberals. Carole James' NDP might not be the same as Mike Harcourt's or Dave Barrett's, but if they're elected they'll elminate the $6.00/hour training wage, freeze tuition, hire more teachers, restore affordable services, and do it all with balanced budgets, healthy economic growth, and CanWest Global telling us we have neither. Given another four (or eight) years in office, the Liberals will keep the new minimum wage for trainees, tuition fees will continue to rise, public ownership will be replaced by private ownership, you get the picture. The BC Liberal philosophy is less government in the economy, more power to business, less power to labour, user-pay. That's not how I want this province run.

Go away, MAtt.

You seem to be missing information though such as how the budget has been balanced twice under generally accepted accounting principles (the same ones many accountants use), as well as how they payed off some of the debt. I don't dispute that it's been balanced at least once (twice, though, I'd like to see record of). My point is that everyone comes in here and slags the NDPs record because they've heard on tv how bad the NDP were, when in the 90's BC experienced good economic growth (4th in the province; last three years we've been 5th, if you're keeping score) and record job creation, despite being hit badly by the recession in east Asia. Unemployment stayed constant, but that's only because we also experienced record population growth, the highest in Canada (Liberal supporters will tell you we experienced a net migration deficit, but that's because they only count migration within Canada - more Canadians in BC did go to Alberta, yes, but even more people came to BC from outside the country). Liberals are quick to tell you the NDP were so bad that we became a "have-not" province, qualifying for equalization payments, but they don't tell you the equalization formula is a curve, and Alberta's economy was growing so fast that the curve changed radically; BC's economy was growing throughout the period. Liberals are quick to tell you the NDP always run deficits, but they don't tell you the NDP inherited a massive deficit from the SoCreds, and slowly, with minimal cuts (because services are more important than numbers on paper), balanced the budget, in keeping with the NDP's record as the best budget-balancers of all Canadian parties - despite the Chretien (Martin) Liberals cutting transfer payments to the provinces. It's a load of crap, basically.

Right, right, BCStats and Statscan are working for the NDP. Here's more. This source obviously is biased, but that doesn't make it false: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n08de04a.htm Here, from the same website, but referring to a report from the (admittedly left-leaning, but respected) Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n14jn04c.htm

Those two records you sited - the NDP's (who inherited a massive deficit) 2 balanced budgets over two terms and the Liberals (who inherited a surplus) one balanced budget over one term - are about the same thing. Moron. This shit has gone on long enough. The Liberal Record: http://strategicthoughts.com/record2005/realwages.html Now, to put the nonsense about BC's economy being shit during the 90's to rest, hopefully for good: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/bcea/tab1.htm http://strategicthoughts.com/record2005/provgdp.html A look at statscan will also show how BC experienced record job creation and record population growth. Keep talking out of your ass, Matt, about how the NDP were driving us to ruin and the Libs are getting us back on the right track. The only reason those stupid ideas are held by anyone is that the people we rely on to tell us these things - the media - just happen to be owned by people who, for $ome rea$on, prefer the Liberals.

And now...a pretty picture. In blue are the countires that have, for all intents and purposes, abolished the death penalty. The orange countries are the ones that, while retaining the death penalty in theory, no longer sentence criminals to death - capital punishment is abolished in practice. The yellow/green countries are the ones that have abolished the death penalty for crimes not committed during exceptional circumstances (usually during wartime). And the red countries are the ones which continue to sentence criminals to death regularly. The pattern does not require pointing out.

I saw your political test results, you were left-libertarian, right? So in what way are the Libs getting us back on track? Is it the higher tuition fees, or the lower wages? Is it the lower taxes, or the higher deficits? Is it the privatizations, or the service cuts?

I guess one good thing about a conservative government would be they'd (hopefully) scrap the gun registry.

You claim that the death penalty is barbaric and regressive, but also say "don't worry, though, a criminal still suffers plenty in prison." ;)