BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS

BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)

In that the Digest will not be developed until late in the day - or early tomorrow morning
these three posts  received are passed on to you for your thoughtful consideration.        

The last of the three invites you to participate in a CBC Poll.  Should you do so perhaps
you'll share with the Digest the reason(s ) for your decision on this maybe election issue

«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

From: "Randy Kubik"

Joe,
 
It's been a while since I paid much attention here.
 
This unethical and immoral ploy/gambit/game by Harper and Flaherty et al to cut off public funding to all parties is WRONG WRONG WRONG....
 
Is Harper deaf and dumb too?  Say it ain't so! 
 
This is not what voters, even conservatives and hopefully many Conservatives too, want to see... this kind of political B.S..... if you want to raise this issue at all do it as a separate issue, not as a line item of a fiscal update to be politically provocative and remove all doubt even from die hard conservatives, that you people are all the same, political morons with the same self serving underbellies... all ugly sites to behold...
 
Wow!!! yippee... what a great budget belt tightening move... Give us all a break... to save about $30 million a year and cut what most Canadians would agree is an equitable way to make the political system more fair and accessible to parties who can get public support through votes in general elections... what a brilliant and fair minded concept....
 
Also,
 
I was wondering where all the billions that the Liberals stashed away as endowment funds since 1993 are?  how many billions?  where is that money now and what is it doing?
 
And,
 
If the US or any government would be willing to "bailout" the greedy instead of the needy to the tune of $1 trillion (USA) or $100 Billion (Canada) then I would argue that the same money given to the needy, those citizens who are directly affected by the global (US created) crisis...
 
if we do some elementary math, simple division, with many more zeros than we are used to, then the following is possible... Note: I am not saying that this is what i would advocate or recommend... but who knows, eh?
 
$1 trillion divided by a single $100,000 one time personal tax credit (personal taxpayer bailout) is equal to 10 million individual taxpayer tax credits... Hmmm!!!.
 
Just to show all the ZEROS:... it is too simple to be believable... that i had to check the numbers more than 10 times.
a.)  1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) or 10 to the 12-th power
b.)  then knocking off (dividing) 5 zeros (for 100 thousand) from the trillion above
c.)  gives 1 with 7 zeros still or 10,000,000 or 10 million.
 
So instead of helping three or more blind mice like GM, Ford, and Chrysler with that kind of money, we the people can help 10 million of our brothers and sisters and do a better and surer job of stimulating the economy and re-instilling confidence in the new fair market capital system.
 
That number is more than triple the estimated 3 million job losses if the auto makers are allowed to just go bankrupt and when they get restructured the losses will be somewhat less... the way it should be, IMHO...
 
this money, in the hands of the people in need, will then be spent over time... on food, clothing, and other family and personal needs.... guaranteed economic activity... the first $700 billion the US Congress approved has no such assurances
 
and for those who would not qualify to receive a "personal bailout" and would say "what about me, where's mine?" I would answer, "I see it is a confidence builder for the market, a way to save and secure everyone else's jobs and it is a new opportunity for all.  It is us, the people, the middle class and those with class directing our taxes there... to the needy instead of the greedy.
 
the capitalistic system is fine but the free market part is the problem... we have seen and now know the ultimate impact of the free and willy nilly markets on the unsuspecting and unfluential pawns, the masses... you and I.
 
something called the fair market should be the new focus of capitalism... fair capitalism in a just and caring society... still survival of the fittest applies and maybe more so than before... in that with the collar locked on the human dynamic of greed, the system can remain checked and balanced... so the cheaters will have to make it without bending the rules to suit them.
 
silly thoughts eh?
 
RK, Ontario
November 27, 2008

=====
. . . first of all thanks for your thouhts.

Secondly Harper is neither deaf nor dumb
in any usual sense,

He is however blinkered by his beliefs in my
view.

Yours are not nor are they "silly thoughts eh?"
but challenging.

        Best regards

           Joe

===================================
From: "Robert Ede"
Subject: Part 1) are you a Harperite? Part 2) For why?

Upon seeing rumoured story  on www.bourque.com about decision to cut Pol Part Subsidies,
 
Rce writes to Joe;
"fabulous rumour
 
Joe-baby replies,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Joe Hueglin wrote:

For why (unless you are a Harperite)?
 __________________________________________
Today we know what was only rumoured yesterday
 
1) Harper-ite? - God Forbid. but I am beginning to admire his 'balls-i-ness'
 
-Breaks his 'election dates' promise and calls an early election because his insider info told him he'd have to 'wear' the monetary collapse if waited any longer
-called that election knowing, knowing, knowing he needed to grab some/most of Bloc's seats in quebec to go majority and knowing that was not likely
-asks for HUGELY POPULAR cuts from civil service, MP's ottawa-perks, top managers (who figured they were blissfully above this little hiccough among the plebes )and asks for prudence and frugality from parties by cutting the subsidy - also public popular, but so under-the-radar that the prime beneficiaries were sure it was an untouchable or at least a not-to-be-touched-nudge-nudge -- see Bloc & Green below
-DEFIES the opposition idiots to defeat his measures (non-confidence) and doesn't care if they do because:
a) it's an election that he can ONLY do better in "firm hand on tiller" "devil we know" etc"
b) the GG doesn't grant dissolution and a cobbled-together mishmash fails in 2-6 months - he sweeps back in a la Trudeau 1980
c) the big party opposition knuckles under citing 'extenuating fiscal, economic, monetary and personal-party" issues but gets concessions from Harper on a phased-out/phased-in electoral subsidy scheme for parties with 1-12-15 elected members
 
 2)Because - the subsidy is a B*LLSH*T a Chretien "permanent financing for big parties - without being beholden to big donors" policy of self-perpetuation.
I say parties can raise their own money AND only in writ periods should it be tax-creditable
 
The rest of the time parties can get money by doing something worth the public's payment. Failing that go away. And stop thinking/saying you perform a public service - it's all self-promotion.
 
The power of the party machine has:
1) destroyed the importance of MP's in the House - they think they'll never get elected w/o the party machine - so they better toe the line in the House
2) destroyed the Senate - only/mainly only partisan hacks populate the other place - most unqualifed to sit there if we ever adjusted-for-inflation the 1867 property ownership and net-worth qualifications/disqualifucation standard of $4000
 
3) isn't that enough to object to? wouldn't you prefer 308 thinkers bringing their constituents views forward? sort of like the original intention 1867?
 
From Kelly McParland. NatPost in the most recent DD
Stephen Harper Evil Genius
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnetwork.nationalpost.com%2Fnp%2Fblogs%2Ffullcomment%2Farchive%2F2008%2F11%2F27%2Fkelly-mcparland-stephen-harper-evil-genius.aspx&ei=GgcwSaaYM5zWMfS31KQL&usg=AFQjCNECj3MgCkEiyHSmT9vof2VXd0Lyag&sig2=_5cljJDwik4QikGFWD0aJQ

Kelly McParland: Stephen Harper, evil genius
"Elizabeth May gave him no end of annoyance in the last election, sitting directly beside him at the debates while delivering insults. A party that's never elected a single member dictating to the Tory leader where he went wrong. Let's see how insulting she is when she can barely afford train fare to Ottawa. And the Bloc -- that might be the sweetest blow of all. The Bloc depends on public financing for almost 80% of its income. Here's a party that has spent 20 years in Ottawa lecturing Canadians on how unworthy they are to host a province as incomparable as Quebec, and which survives only thanks to the income from taxes paid by those same unfathomably tolerant Canadians. "
 
"But more critical is the question of how much voters are likely to care. Party funding is hardly a galvanizing concern. "
 
===================================
From: Marjaleena Repo
Subject: URGENT: Vote to support public funding of political parties

Dear Friends,

Please take time to vote in support of public funding for political parties, an important part of Jean Chretien's electoral financing reform package back in 2003, whereby parties could no longer rely on corporate and union donations, and individual donations were restricted to $3,000 (since reduced to $1,100 by the Harper government). In return they Canada adopted a public financing approach that many countries already have, to prevent private wealth and corporate interests from skewing electoral results. This part of the "deal" is now being scrapped by the Harperites, without notice, and with the confidence vote land-mine attached to it! At no time did Stephen Harper even hint at such a move in his election campaign, which is par for the course for this rogue government.

The poll below is from the CBC, but there will be many others to respond to. The public has an important role to prevent the return to the "survival of the richest" in our elections. Take time to pen a letter or two to the national and local newspapers, too.

Should the Canadian govt. stop funding political parties in proportion to the number of votes they receive?

Yes, we might save $30 million.
No, this is a political move to weaken the opposition.
*************************

http://www.cbc.ca/news/polls/political-subsidies.html

The question does not provide any background information or context to public funding of political parties, so a lot of knee-jerk reactions can be expected. Let us provide the counter-balance from a perspective of supporting the financial democratization of our electoral system!

Marjaleena Repo