Manage Peoples Lives, quote from thread below, who agrees?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"manage peoples lives".

This statement isn't the least bit surprising, considering the source, but consider the meaning of it. Big government, left more so, right a little less(Sometimes) believe they need to manage our lives, and aren't afraid to tell us so. And apparently, most people agree that they need someone to manage their lives for them, judging by voting patterns. Somewhere along the way, the definition of the word liberal got lost.

As a fiscal conservative(extreme) and a social liberal, I've never seen a political party or candidate who reflects my views. I don't want government spending my money for me(I'm fiscally conservative) and I don't want government telling me how to live my life, (I'm socially liberal, if there really was such a thing) I know I'm not alone, possibly even the majority of people must feel that way if they really thought about it, yet why is politics divided sideways on these lines? Conservatives, who theoretically want smaller government and therefore to trust taxpayers to spend their own money, yet they must also get tied up with abortion rights, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues where they want to restrict our lives. Yet liberals who in theory want to allow me to the choice of these things ( while restricting a host of others in the name of Political Correctness) want to control all my money and then some.

How about political agenda that is both fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, who doesn't believe that government is there to "manage peoples lives"?

And FWIW, I am a die hard supporter of conservative parties, and wouldn't vote liberal or worse if there was no other option. So what does that mean, apparently, I value my money more than my liberties?

[Hamloc]

In my perfect world taxpayers and voters would set the level of taxation and our elected representatives would figure out how that revenue would supply the necessary services. Unfortunately the so called progressives(I say socialist regressives) constantly try to extend governments reach into new aspects of our life every day. Alberta 5 I agree with you 100% I am very financially conservative and agree with your definition of socially liberal. I fully appreciate that it costs more and more every day to live but adding more government tax and oversight simply exacerbates the problem. Have our increasingly socialist government's reduced food bank use or decreased illicit drug use? I believe the never ending increase in government is a symptom of the disease not a treatment. Just my two cents.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

In my perfect world taxpayers and voters would set the level of taxation and our elected representatives would figure out how that revenue would supply the necessary services.

I believe the never ending increase in government is a symptom of the disease not a treatment.

I think I will keep your last line about the symptom and the disease, it sums up the problem perfectly.

And regards to your first statement, I'd take it one step further, those who are net taxpayers decide how much revenue the gov makes, those who are net collectors, decide how to spend it what is collected. SHould sort itself out in no time....

[Hamloc]

One other thing, I was listening to 630 ched's morning show today, our environment minister Shannon Phillips was in the studio taking calls. Right near the end of the show she was asked about a referendum in Alberta on the carbon tax. Her response was this is to important of an issue for the public to decide! I couldn't believe my ears but I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Top down socialist government, the public need not apply we are too stupid!!

[farmaholic]

Agenda-agenda-agenda.....who's is it? They all have one and it all gets influenced.

Even the elected who think the electorate is too stupid to have a say on important issues are merely puppets of the "agenda" themselves. Elected officials are only mouth pieces of those who "drive" the agenda.

We "trust" the elected officials to do what is in the best interest of the majority of the electorate.....I could hardly keep a straight face typing that.

[ajl]

A market economy has not existed in Canuckistan for years. I am not sure I would recognize one if it was too happen. If government stopped suppressing interest rates, the value of all of our farms would drop in half overnight. Anyone man enough to take a hit like that?

[burnt]

...I believe the never ending increase in government is a symptom of the disease not a treatment. Just my two cents.

What is the disease?

[bucket]

Ajl


Yes....but I quit buying land quite a while ago....so it will just drop back to what I paid for it.....

[westernvicki]

I have spent most of my life interested in politics and the political process, and traveled the world enough to know the importance of good governance. Better systems function with instituted checks and balances. A multi house representing regions and populace, combined with a multi party balance is meant to provide the conditions for meaningful and thorough debate and review prior to implementing policy. In Canada, Federally and provincially a strong majority grants the ability to drive policy, with opposition reduced to negative critics, reduced to waiting for their turn at the turnstile. For this reason I lobbied for the Triple E Senate: Equal, Elected & Effective as a sober second thought, they would at this time be reviewing the carbon tax had we gone that way. The house would have had to have the policy approved by the Senate. It was, not to be, and now we are headed to proportional representation as a process to engage, will it work? Hard to say, so many models so many factors, and still not a check and a balance in sight.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The choice between parties with what I consider diametrically opposed policies on fiscal vs. social issues is like this:

I go to the ice cream stand and I want chocolate ice cream with strawberry sauce. Their choices are: Chocolate ice cream with brussel sprouts sauce, or liver ice cream with strawberry sauce. Then there is the NDP, liver ice cream with brussel sprout sauce, I think the greens are the opposite, brussel sprout ice cream with liver sauce. And they won't serve it any other way, except in their combinations. But I get a choice, so we can still call it a democracy.

[Hamloc]

Burnt the disease is "me". Everybody is worried about me. Everybody believes that another restrictive law or another tax will make it better for me.

[stonepicker]

Burnt the disease is "me". Everybody is worried about me. Everybody believes that another restrictive law or another tax will make it better for me.

Agree 100%, there's no thought on what's best for the country anymore.

[Retired]

Hamloc Do you realy think a referandum is the true answer. Those wanting something bad would get out there people to vote ,those neutral would stay home so thoise with the best team wins, it has nothing to do with democracy. Would you let your kids vote on your financial planing,I would think not, they would vote for what feels good at thre stage of life today not what may be good for the future ..
How many are up to date on the pros and cons of this carbon tax,I sugest not very many. Those with a con slant will condem it for that reason on principal and those with a liberal/ ND slant will indorse it for the same reason,and those in the parlement will look after thier own ass.
So should we have a referandum, I would say not unless everyone voting knows what they are actualy voting on.

[checking]

On that basis, retired, there would never be a vote held for anything in Canada.

I think you should rethink your methodology, and let the chips fall where they may with a vote.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Need a process to weed out uninformed voters. I vote for my candidate or cause, then am required to answer multiple choice questions about their policies/consequences/costs, and if I answer wrong, my vote is nullified.