Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Mr. Layton Had An Epiphany! (And He's Right!)

Consider: Budget due June 6 will phase out political subsidies

Mr. Layton says in response to ending subsidies:
"Take away public financing and essentially what you are saying is those with the best ability to raise money get to have their ideas heard by Canadians and the rest are essentially silenced," Layton said Wednesday in Ottawa.

Essentially Mr. Layton, Yes! Your startling revelation and analysis is bang on!

What is ever so obvious to millions of Canadians has finally been made plain to you.  This represents the first time EVER I have seen you Mr. Layton clearly articulate a 'free market principle' without using any word ending in    "-ist" or "-ism": thank you. 
If you take away 'public financing' that means you have to work and earn your success!  And the problem with this concept is...???
2.  (fill in issues here)

You want something in politics, go get it!  After all, you have an able minded and competent caucus, correct? 

It sounds like you are insulting the intelligence of your caucus Mr. Layton by stating they do not have the "ability" to raise enough money.  And yes, you did say, 'those with the best ability get...'.  So, train and grow in skills.  I know it's not "fair" don't go there with me Mr. Layton.  Simply accept your caucus has the potential to learn and grow and teach them to get results.  I barely survived a deep recession by working with our employees to try and become the best and get results. Through hard work, learning and taking responsibility we survived.  Now that you got the principle that  'being the best produces results' I urge you to show some leadership and train your caucus to be the best and consequently get results.

That's leadership your team can count on Mr. Layton.


  1. Problem is:
    1) Those who pander to large corporations or businesses with their policies will receive more funding
    2) The current system gives money based on votes received thereby giving a voice to parties that were voted for by the public - I would suggest they do have to work for those votes
    3) The result will be giving more money and therefore voice/power to a party that can raise more money not a party that Canadians voted for and want to hear more from.

  2. This subsidy is peanuts, maybe $15M a year? The $1,100 contribution limit kills any real issues with overinflated contributions. It's really a non-issue.

    Ryan - if we want to cut some subsidies that really add up, how about this one? The manufacturing companies should have managed their businesses better and not need any subsidies, am I right?

    Through Canada's Economic Action Plan, the federal government is helping Canadian manufacturers and processors by extending the temporary 50 percent straight-line accelerated capital cost allowance (CCA) rate for investments in eligible manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment undertaken in 2010 and 2011.

    The two-year extension of the 50 percent straight-line accelerated CCA rate is expected to provide $320 million of tax relief for Canadian business in 2011-12, and $990 million in total over the period 2011-12 to 2013-14.

    In fact, this whole website is littered with subsidies that contradict the concept of a free market and standing on your own two feet, what nerve!

  3. I wonder what Jack is going to demand in return for his support for the budget.

  4. Nonny #1 - I fail to see how pandering to corporations will help a party get more funding when corporate donations are expressly prohibited.

    Nonny #2 - I keep hearing about "subsidies" from people like you, and well, now you too. But if the only example you can come up with is accelerated depreciation as a subsidy, I can only shake my head. Accelerating a deduction that the business would get anyways is NOT a subsidy. The business does not gain an advantage other than to be able to write off the building or equipment faster and more in line with the cash flows to purchase the equipment. The deduction remains the same over time, it's just that more of the deduction comes sooner for the business, leaving less to claim in future years.

    But you're right Nonny, subsidies have to go. I suggest money for ethanol, wind power, solar power, other green energy research should go, not to mention money for suing the federal government over fake rights, and money for taking citizens to kangaroo court for the crime of not bending over backwards to reasonably accommodate another person.

  5. Oxygentax - Of course there's an immediate financial benefit to accelerating depreciation, and that leads directly to cash in the bank, today. Ask any company if they would like to claim 100% of CCA today, and you have your answer as to whether it is a subsidy or not.

    This is screwing with a free market. Economics 101 here.

    The bottom line is the manufacturing industry wasn't ready for a rainy day, so Mr. Harper intervened (see: screwing with a free market) to save the industry. Take away trade barriers, subsidies, import taxes, and we wouldn't have a manufacturing sector outside of the ultra high tech, because Canada is NOT competitive enough to survive in a free manufacturing market.

    I'm not sure why you think I'm a hippy? If the green energy isn't competitive, scrap those subsidies until the technology improves enough or fossil fuels are expensive enough to make green energy effective.

    My point is that the entire economic action plan goes AGAINST a free market, by creating artificial lifts for both individuals and businesses.

    Ryan has been VERY clear that the government should leave us to fend for ourselves, so how do you support a government that favors certain groups and provides subsidies to people such as the elderly, apprentices, manufacturing, etc?

  6. The left get enough taxpayer monies for their propaganda in our universities and the CBC.

  7. GM is another perfect example of the Cons interfering with the free market. Why weren't they left to rot? Why are taxpayers bailing out companies that aren't competitive?

  8. In a real democracy, the freedom to give money to a political party must include the freedom not to give money to a political party. A healthy democracy is one where people get involved - they volunteer, they campaign, they contribute, they donate. A healthy democracy is not one where the government takes tax dollars from citizens and gives it to political parties against the will of the people.

    And if people aren't donating money to political parties because they can't afford to, then their tax dollars shouldn't be used to help political parties, rather, their tax dollars should be used to help those people instead.

  9. DDTTR,

    That would really be hilarious to see Layton demand anything in return for budgetary support. He could demand salt, I suppose....then he can go pound it.


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain