A Liberal with a moustache?

The tax was right and proper, and Layton allowed the media to spread nonsense about it without so much as even a half hearted attempt at correcting the "inaccuracies" being spread (I'm giving the media the benefit of the doubt by not calling them outright lies.)

He does that a lot, not willing, or able, to show up detractors with a simple telling of the truth. He'd rather go into convoluted meaningless speeches that do everything to not offend the person spreading misinformation, but not a thing to dispel the lies, or explain the truth.

I don't know how many times I've rolled my eyes as Jack refused to directly take on someone spreading misinformation, and instead just muddied up the issue by trying not to be confrontational, but in actuality making it look like he was trying to hide something.

No wonder some people think he's a used car salesman ... that's how he acts sometimes. He's selling a perfectly good car, but when someone comes along and accuses him of selling a car with bald tires, instead of pointing to the tires and showing that they are not bald at all, and that the accuser is a liar, he points to the sales contract and tries to explain how the condition of the tires is not included in the contract.

quote:Originally posted by josh:
One has to wonder should Kennedy, Dryden or Dion should win the Liberal leadership, where's the difference?

The difference is, they'll win government or opposition, and the NDP will not.

The NDP can be effective only when the governing party needs them or when they have new ideas that can be stolen. Neither is the case in this parliament. As long as the Liberals and BQ can't afford an election, the NDP is simply irrelevent except as a PR tool for Stephen Harper.

quote:Originally posted by josh:

http://tinyurl.com/hrcaw

There was only one interesting plank in the NDP's campaign—an inheritance tax. In itself, it was an altogether respectable and conventional proposal, involving only the portion of estates over $1 million and allowing exemptions for in-family transfers of small businesses and family farms.

[end quote]

Consiodering the huge transfer of wealth accruing to boomers from aging parents,a modest inheritance tax on the portion of inheritances over one million is an excellent method of funding social programs.

http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyths.pdf

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: josh ]

As someone that volunteered hundreds of hours on the 2004 campaign, I can tell you from talking to many voters that they were upset about the inheritance tax proposal and believed that it would involve the family home/estates of anyvalue.

Seatwarming, socialist purist scribes can cry all they want... if you were active in the 2004 campaign, you were well aware that people who knew the NDP had an inheritance tax plan were dead set against it, and had much misinformation about it.

It was necessary to drop the inheritance tax plan. The NDP needs to go back to the drawing board with that one and package something more palpable.

quote:Originally posted by LukeVanc:
Sanityatlast: the inheritance tax proposal exempted the family farm. And even the family home. So your concerns are unwarranted. However, this didn't stop the other political parties from spreading misinformation about the NDP inheritance tax policy.

As someone that volunteered hundreds of hours on the 2004 campaign, I can tell you from talking to many voters that they were upset about the inheritance tax proposal and believed that it would involve the family home/estates of [b]anyvalue.

Seatwarming, socialist purist scribes can cry all they want... if you were active in the 2004 campaign, you were well aware that people who knew the NDP had an inheritance tax plan were dead set against it, and had much misinformation about it.

It was necessary to drop the inheritance tax plan. The NDP needs to go back to the drawing board with that one and package something more palpable.[/b]

So what is taxed? I would sell our business, buy a farm and leave it to our kids. Or should I buy a million dollar house and leave that to avoid taxes? All that does is skew where wealthy people and not-so-wealthy people with assets will park their wealth. Drive up the price of farms and houses.

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Sanityatlast ]

quote:Originally posted by josh:
Now he's apparently playing footsie with Harper on child care.

If that's the case, that really ticks me off.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Here you go, Michelle, time to get ticked off:

So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over. Now it's: "Make sure we get the full amount!!"

The leadership of this party is a travesty. Read the whole pathetic retreat on
the NDP website.

You do know your jumping to conclusions don't you?

Could you please explain why it logically follows that having the NDP demand that the Conservatives follow through on their measly childcare plan automatically means that the NDP has abandoned its support for government funded daycare? This is what Chow pointed out in her press confrence, frankly I don't see why she shouldn't. Why shouldn't the NDP point this out:

quote: Chow’s demonstration featured Caledon’s analysis of a hypothetical couple with one child and a family income of $30,000:

* Annual family allowance: $1,200
* Minus income tax ($362) = $838
* Minus benefit clawback ($390) = $448
* Minus Young Child Supplement ($249) = $199
* Total: $199 per year (less than a dollar a day).

Please explain?

Harper announces a cut in health care funding to the provinces and replaces it with a $5,000 "Harper Health Hit" for each and every lucky Canadian. Spend it, save it, do what you like with it!

Jack and Olivia say: No! We need money to create more hospital beds and reduce waiting times! But hey, at least make the $5,000 tax-free and ensure that the poor get full value!

Am I coming through loud and clear? Does the word "shameless opportunistic hypocrite" spring to mind? Do I sound a wee bit angry at these people? Sorry for letting those feelings show.

Second, I think that Olivia is being very clever on child care. She's merely pointing out that the promised $1200 per child isn't everything that it's touted to be (the Caledon Institute has done a lot of good work coming up with the real numbers). The party has always said (in a nutshell) "If you want to give the allowance go ahead, but don't pretend that it's a substitute for a real child care program." To suggest that the NDP is abandoning its principled position in favour of funded and regulated child care is simply incorrect (of course, this wouldn't be the first time that unionist posted misleading information about the NDP).

Lastly, I couldn't let this part of Herschel's piece go by without comment:

quote:Judy Rebick opined that political leaders had become afraid to show vision with any leading ideas because, if they did, the media would crucify them. Jack Layton had a lot of good ideas, she said in so many words, but he's constrained from talking about them because of the media threat.

Well, knock me down with a feather! Isn't a true leader someone who isn't so easily intimidated?

Well, my friend, given that I spent the better part of four years with you on the NDP Media Committee -- during which time you argued pursuasively that media concentration and media bias was a major barrier to progressive change -- I have to say that I'm a little surprised to see you dismissing the role of the media in affecting the public discourse so flippantly.

I can see that it would instantly be attacked.It will be villified and scaremongered to death.The fear will always be there that government will incrementally claw back the exemptions as with the capital gains exemption or increase the tax or both.

Crafting an acceptable plan and selling it to the public will require resolve.

quote: Because the debate is no longer how to create child care spaces in order to free women from the kitchen, but rather how to make the Conservative lying scheme more lucrative - for stay-at-home women and working women alike. The only honest stand is: Not $1200, not one penny! Money for affordable day care spaces! Not one cent to stay-at-home parents!

Am I seriously having to explain this point?

Unionist, you should explain that you have grossly distorted and misrepresented Olivia and the NDP's position on child care, for starters. Scott has given a partial response to you earlier in the thread, but the best source is the NDP website itself (see excerpt below from the NDP's child care campaign home page

quote:

Working Families Need Childcare
Our children’s early years are a foundation for lifelong learning. Quality child care offers kids a head-start and makes life easier for parents who work or study.

This election, the Conservatives opposed the funding arrangements with provinces to create child care spaces. But Stephen Harper leads a minority government and will need to compromise. Mr. Harper plans to introduce a per-child payment that would cover a small fraction of families' costs for private child care. What this won't address is the critical shortage of affordable, quality child care spaces and it won’t provide working families with choice.

Last year, after 12 years of Liberal dithering, Ottawa began to sign deals with provinces to start creating new spaces. In total only three contracts with provinces were signed, but the NDP will press the Conservatives to continue and strengthen the modest steps made in the last minority parliament, including stable long term funding for licensed child care spaces.

The NDP will also introduce a National Child Care Act to lay a sturdy foundation for child care. This legislation would ensure two-way accountability — stable federal funding in return for provincial commitments to fund high-quality, non-profit centres. That’s the critical step the Liberals neglected when they inked child care deals. They wouldn’t pass legislation to ensure a sustainable program, and that’s left child care vulnerable.

This session, NDP Child Care Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina) is leading the effort to build this more lasting foundation for national child care – and you can help. Check out the links below to learn more and take action.

In other words, the NDP wants to not only create thousands of new child care spaces, but enshrine it in legislation. Jack is proposing actually building a national child care program the way we built Medicare which will culminate with the child care version of the Canada Health Act. This is very different then the "NDP sellout" scenario Unionist has presented, but it happens to be true.

BTW, for those babblers who buy into the "Jack is in bed with Harper to destroy the Liberals'
wonderful national child care program" fallacy, this

persuasive Le Devoir article demonstrates that this hysteria is largely misplaced. I encourage all babblers who can read French to check out the article, the gist of which is: very few child care spaces will be scrapped as a result of Harper's changes, because there was no national child care program under the Liberals. There were 3 funding agreements with Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and those will continue for another year, and those provinces will stretch those dollars as best they can. No other province had any plans to create even one new child care space under the Liberals, because the $$ had not been nailed down before the election.

Finally, let's not forget that Quebec created the most advanced universal child care program in Canada during the 90's with zero federal support. Jack is taking exactly the right approach - push for national legislation and long-term funding for child care spaces as an ongoing campaign, and if Harper wants to give $1,200 to parents in the meantime (the NDP campaigned on a similar promise during the 2006 election), let's make sure that money actually gets to the parents.

[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]