Doer steps down - Page 4

newflyer · #61 Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 6:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

A place where people can make as much money as they want doing whatever they want with no government restriction or regulation.

..apparently..

I only wish you could have lived in a society where pure socialism/communism ruled .. and how wonderful it is, where average people line up for even the basics like bread, while government officials live in luxury. Those countries are dropping like flies.. as former communist nations are becoming hardcore capitalist nations, such as China.

Sorry .. but I'll take a system where average people can achieve a very nice life with some hard work. Its not guarenteed and not easy, but it is available to anyone.

jmt18325 · #62 Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 2:02 PM**

Tax cuts on their own never create prosperity. A place with reasonable taxes and a comprehensive social safety net on the other hand does. It means that business doesn't have to pay too much in earnings, and at the same time they don't have to provide things to their employees like comprehensive heath insurance and employment insurance.

Canada (and all of those other countries) are not places that became prosperous by simply cutting taxes, and that's definitely not what happened in Alberta. Alberta probably has the most expensive social safety net in Canada (because until recently, they had the oil and gas money to do it), hence the cuts and the giant deficit.

Oh, and I don't mean to speak for Vid, but I don't think that he was advocating for communism or socialism...which aren't interchangeable concepts in reality.

vid · #63 Posted **Aug 30, 2009, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

I only wish you could have lived in a society where pure socialism/communism ruled .. and how wonderful it is, where average people line up for even the basics like bread, while government officials live in luxury.

You obviously don't know what communism even is, how the hell do you expect to argue against it?

I am really sorry to break it to you, but a society where pure communism exists has never existed. That is because pure communism, like pure capitalism, is impossible because such extremes are contrary to human nature and thus unattainable by our species in its current mental form. There has NEVER been a purely communist nation. NEVER.

Socialism IS NOT communism. The two terms ARE NOT interchangeable. They're as different as pure capitalist and mixed-market economies. STOP CONFUSING THEM.

I'll admit that to live in a purely communist society would be cool. But since it is impossible, I would never want us to even try to get there. Every time a nation has tried to be communist it fails less than halfway toward its goal because communism doesn't work when someone is in charge. A real communist nation would have no government.

DowntownWpg · #64 Posted **Aug 31, 2009, 10:26 PM**

Regarding our next Premier, I'd say that is it probably a given that he/she will be a current NDP MLA. It would just further complicate the matter, or at least push back the timeline for them to take office if they have to set a by-election, and have their new leader run in said by-election. Persumably there will be a by-election in Concordia (Doer's constituency) when he resigns as Premier and as an MLA... but, what if the new leader isn't from anywhere near Concordia. Sure, I know Doer himself doesn't reside in Concordia, but he does in a very near constituency (River East).

If they're smart, they'll choose a person from Winnipeg.

I haven't even narrowed my list of guesses to five yet... but by god, it better not be Chomiak!

****

Echoing what OTL wrote earlier in this thread, if only the MB Libs could get their act together. If they want people to give their party a second look, two things need to happen IMO: 1) Doer retires/resigns (check!), 2) Jon Gerrard retires from politics and they get a good centre-centre-right leader. The Libs should reclaim their territory as fiscally conservative and socially progressive... with neither of these ideals being too extreme.

With Mr. Popularity gone (Doer), and the Party of Angry Religious-Right Farmers and Anti-Winnipeg Southern Rural Dwellers (PCs) not registering enough popular support, between now an Oct 2011 could provide some interesting opportunities for the MB Libs. But again, they need to get their act together.

Only The Lonely.. · #65 Posted **Sep 1, 2009, 1:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Echoing what OTL wrote earlier in this thread, if only the MB Libs could get their act together. If they want people to give their party a second look, two things need to happen IMO: 1) Doer retires/resigns (check!), 2) Jon Gerrard retires from politics and they get a good centre-centre-right leader. The Libs should reclaim their territory as fiscally conservative and socially progressive... with neither of these ideals being too extreme.

With Mr. Popularity gone (Doer), and the Party of Angry Religious-Right Farmers and Anti-Winnipeg Southern Rural Dwellers (PCs) not registering enough popular support, between now an Oct 2011 could provide some interesting opportunities for the MB Libs. But again, they need to get their act together.

What I find interesting is that since Doer announced he was leaving we have yet to hear anything from the MB Libs.

Just judging by press coverage alone you would swear that Manitobans only have two choices: PC or NDP.

I suspect this election will be the Cons to lose.

I can't imagine Comrade Blaikie having the same mass appeal.

Kinguni · #66 Posted **Sep 2, 2009, 4:06 AM**

I like Jon Gerrard, but he doesn't have a party behind him. As long as the Cons keep playing the photo radar card and similar they're going to lose too. They need a platform and goals, such as properly cleaning up the WRHA bureaucratic overload or getting education levies completely off my property tax bill. Hugh McFadyen has come across as a big joke to me so far though.

Runt · #67 Posted **Sep 2, 2009, 6:50 AM**

Love this comment...."Angry Religious-Right Farmers "
So true,yet so false - Are they not looking (pleading)for gov. help in this 'Time of Need'.
They will back a PC gov. but they need a NDP gov for the handouts.
I will now hang my head in shame.
Vid is bang on with his take on Stalinvision.

DowntownWpg · #68 Posted **Sep 2, 2009, 3:31 PM**

Thanks.

Farmers are always exhibiting hissy fits and making unreasonable demands of government.

Spoiled brats, most all of 'em are. They are not realistic about the business they are in, and expect to be handed compensation on a silver platter whenever they have another 'bad year' (AKA, every year). If it's not the weather, it is the low value of grain, or gas & oil prices, or feed and seed prices, or crop insurance costs, etc, etc, etc...

Suggest to them that, given all the misery and poor viability of farming these days, that they should probably get out of the business... they'll angrily toss back some failed logic: "but this farm has been in my family for two whole generations!"

******

Oswald, Mackintosh out of running for NDP leadership

By: Larry Kusch

2/09/2009 9:10 AM | Winnipeg Free Press

WINNIPEG - Two cabinet ministers thought to be front-runners in the race to replace Gary Doer as NDP leader have decided not to run.

Health Minister Theresa Oswald announced her decision while attending a H1N1 conference in Winnipeg this morning.

Meanwhile, Family Services Minister Gord Mackintosh said through a spokeswoman that he has also decided against running.

Competitiveness, Training and Trade Minister Andrew Swan has scheduled a 1 p.m. news conference at which he is expected to announce his candidacy.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...-56718917.html

SmileyBoy · #69 Posted **Sep 2, 2009, 8:25 PM**

He he, if Alberta didn't have oil coming out of its anus, this conversation probably would look a LOT different.

Carry on.

newflyer · #70 Posted **Sep 5, 2009, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

You obviously don't know what communism even is, how the hell do you expect to argue against it?

I am really sorry to break it to you, but a society where pure communism exists has never existed. That is because pure communism, like pure capitalism, is impossible because such extremes are contrary to human nature and thus unattainable by our species in its current mental form. There has NEVER been a purely communist nation. NEVER.

Socialism IS NOT communism. The two terms ARE NOT interchangeable. They're as different as pure capitalist and mixed-market economies. STOP CONFUSING THEM.

Are you serious??? Try studing some history. There is no pure anything in government.. each government has its own view of power and control of its population. There is no absolute defined socilaist or communist ... or generic definitions which fit absolutely. Many communists governments claim to be socialist as a means to appease the people.

Government domination of society is proven to harmful to the development of mankind, which is why those nations which are futhest away from free market economies are ussually home disinfranchised masses. My family comes from such a society and I can assure there was very little positive about it. It has long been proven that societies which incourage independant thought, enterprise and independant capital are much better off.

Thats not to say that Doer was completely against this enterprise ideology. I will give him full credit for getting behind Centre Port Canada, which will be a great project for the city and province for decades to come. The fact that this massive inland port will be looking for special tax credits only goes to show you how capital allocation can be influenced, to benefit society.

newflyer · #71 Posted **Sep 5, 2009, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmileyBoy

He he, if Alberta didn't have oil coming out of its anus, this conversation probably would look a LOT different.

Carry on.

Yes ... it is proven that Alberta is the only wealthy society on earth..

If you don't have oil you may as well give up and and be satisfied with the status quo. Why look at building the economy if you haven't any oil. Its IMPOSSIBLE.... just IMPOSIBLE... it can't be done. Only if you have oil can you have a healthy self supporting econony.

Please ignore that many examples to the contrary .. as it defies the simplistic view of the local lefties...
For example Minnesota has tons of oil.

Carry on ...

jmt18325 · #72 Posted **Sep 6, 2009, 3:27 PM**

Minnesota is significantly less wealthy than Saskatchewan and Alberta...and Newfoundland. Their per capita GDP isn't all that much higher than Manitoba's and is very close to Ontario's. The right resources make a huge difference.

SmileyBoy · #73 Posted **Sep 7, 2009, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Minnesota is significantly less wealthy than Saskatchewan and Alberta...and Newfoundland. Their per capita GDP isn't all that much higher than Manitoba's and is very close to Ontario's. The right resources make a huge difference.

That's true, the average family income in Manitoba is considerably more than Minnesota or North Dakota. Low wage earners in Winnipeg make quite a bit more than low wage earners in Fargo, I know that for a fact. I would be hard-pressed to find an American state that has a higher family average income than Manitoba. Canada overall has a quite higher average income overall than the US.

And newflyer, the US is the more capitalist nation, so explain that away.

thegreattait · #74 Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 4:36 AM**

From my understanding the US has a higher GDP per capita then Canada, that to me is a statistic of a capitalist nation. (I'm not sure where the average income is in comparison). True capitalism doesn't take into consideration the needs of the poor, from either those that do not have the education or tools to improve their lott in live, or those who choose not to. In our Canadian system which has a mixture of Capitalism with some socialist elements, those that are less fortunate are better off then those who are less fortunate in the US. As a society I think we are all better off because we choose to reallocate resources from the wealthier segment of the population in order to provide for those less fortunate. i.e. Taxes to support communal benefits like health care education etc.

grumpy old man · #75 Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 12:22 PM**

USA - Per capita $46,859[4] (6th)
Canada - Per capita $39,183[6] (13th)

Source: Wikipedia

jmt18325 · #76 Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 3:32 PM**

Yes, but in the US, wealth is far more concentrated. It was said in a Mcleans article last year that the average Joe Canadian actually makes more than his american counterpart, and that the average is very similar. Either way, we have nothing to complain about when it comes to a relatively small difference in GDP.

vid · #77 Posted **Sep 8, 2009, 8:51 PM**

When you combine taxes and health insurance, we're also paying a smaller portion of our salaries than Americans for what we have.