The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
CTF supports Liberal proposal to end 10 per centers
The sign of a truly nonpartisan organization is the willingness to support good ideas regardless of what party they come from. The Canadian Taxpayer Federation has demonstrated that they are nonpartisan by supporting the Liberal proposal to end the 10 per centers.
This should be a no brainer for anyone who supports smaller government, or even for those that don’t. It is difficult to argue that the Canadian people benefit from spending $30 million on party political propaganda. All parties have abused this system that was originally designed for constituency communication. All parties would look good if they come together and cleanse themselves of this program.
So I join with the CTF and call upon MPs of all political parties to support the end of the 10 per centers.
In a blog post a couple of days ago I said that small-c conservative activists should spend their energy in nonpartisan organizations. Thanks to the CTF for demonstrating why I wrote this. It is in organizations like the CTF that good ideas can be promoted regardless of whose idea it is.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on March 16, 2010 | Permalink
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Back the Liebral/NDP/Rich Ontarians party and they will ruin everything. If they get back in to office *shudder* they'll just bring this idea right back.
NO Negotiations with the rich Ontarians. These people are the enemy.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-16 11:25:57 AM
While the CTF complains loud and long about trifles like $30 million spent on 10%ers, they have nothing to say about the $5 Billion plus in subsidies for rural conservative welfare bum farmers. So spend energy in credible nonpartisan organizations. The CTF just ain't one of them.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-16 12:02:41 PM
"Welfare bum farmers." The sneering kvetch of a man who never touched a spade in his life. As for "credible nonpartisan organizations," who did you have in mind, Phil? The Marijuana Party?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-16 12:37:32 PM
Phil's comment clearly is incendiary but he does have a point. I agree that these 10 percenters should be eliminated but I am more disappointed that no party wishes to address the agricultural supply management system that prevents competition and hurts poor consumers to the benefit of large agricultural producers. Is there a non-partisan group that seeks to minimize the impact of the agricultural lobby in this country?
Posted by: Liberty | 2010-03-16 1:08:05 PM
Actually, I'm talking about subsidies to non-supply managed agriculture. If you don't want to subsidize supply managed agriculture, don't buy the product. If you don't want to subsidize rural conservative welfare bum agriculture...well, you have no choice but to fork over your hard-earned tax dollars. And the CTF is just fine with that, because they are a partisan propaganda organization, and not at all credible
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-16 3:34:09 PM
Yup, phil is against subsidies unless they're for dairy, chicken and eggs. I suspect he's a fan of the wheat board as well.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-16 4:59:04 PM
While it is only a very small drop in the bucket, I concur. Perhaps then I shall stop receiving the numerous mail-outs from Layton.
Phil, as a farmer not included in supply management, I would like to know where I can apply for the subsidies you mention since I have never seen nor received any. Please provide evidence for such claims.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-03-16 5:45:37 PM
Never participated in NISA, GRIP, AIDA, crop insurance, AgriInvest, AgriStability, or the multitudes of ad hoc payments and preferential tax treatments over the years, Alain?
Then as a fiscal conservative in good standing you would have no problem with the elimination of all Dept.s of Agriculture and the $$$billions they pour down the black hole of welfare bum entitlement year after year.
But the subject is the credibility of the CTF. I say that they have none when they tacitly support the pissing away of $billions every year on their welfare bum buddies on the farm.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-16 6:38:15 PM
So then if the CTF, in your opinion, phil, has no credibility, what organization does? What would be your shinning example?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-16 9:33:11 PM
BTW- Total support for farmers in Canada according to the latest OECD figures(2008) comes in at 8.2 billion USD which is .6% of GDP. And yes the OECD considers supply management a subsidy, with the most subsidized farmers being Dairy who pretty much get half of their income thanks to government supports.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-16 10:00:25 PM
I guess the OECD didn't get phil's "let them drink coke" memo.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-16 10:01:51 PM
Thank you Hugh for your endorsement and for so clearly demonstrating the merits of what we are pushing for, how, and why. We have to keep changing the political culture.
Posted by: Lee Harding | 2010-03-16 11:24:10 PM
So then if the CTF, in your opinion, phil, has no credibility, what organization does?
I can think of no organization that claims to speak for all (standing up for taxpayers) when they clearly speak from a narrow, ideological, hypocritical, point of view. If they were honest about where they are coming from, that would be one thing. But to claim to speak for taxpayers while supporting a huge socialist wealth redistribution scheme is beyond phoney.
Do you know what it costs me to support dairy farmers? Not one thin dime. Rural conservative welfare bum agriculture? $2500.00 a year... without buying a calorie of food.
Let's not forget that if supply management were eliminated, after the taxpayer compensated those producers for their quota, all of those producers would migrate to welfare bum agriculture status and demand their place at the trough. Indeed there would be an increase of production, since instead of producing for the domestic market, they would mirror their welfare bum ag cousins and produce 5 times domestic demand and demand that taxpayers keep them in the lifestyle they feel entitled to.
If Harding wants to change the culture, try some honesty for a change.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-17 10:00:10 AM
So let me get this straight. According to you phil, there is no credible organization in the world that advocates for things like lower tax's, smaller government and or less regulations.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-17 10:08:42 AM
There may be, Joe, but the CTF ain't one of 'em.
Marc Emery... there is someone who walks his talk. Lee Harding? Not a chance.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-17 10:43:28 AM
I am now a little more optimistic that I shall FINALLY see these ongoing NDP Partisan propaganda mailouts on MY TAX MONEY from that cheapskate SOB Jack Layton.
I had written and even TELEPHONED his offices DEMANDING that my name and that of my wife be REMOVED from their mailing list(voters list for Vancouver Centre) but the DELUGE kept right on coming.
Every time they ABUSED the free mailing priveledge the garbage container beside out mail boxes would be FULL of Layton's PROPAGANDA UNOPENED and every one of them was ANOTHER FIFTY CENTS out of the taxpayer's pockets.IF the NDP want to inundate us with their propaganda LET THEM PAY FOR IT AND NOT US.NO PAY=NO PLAY.
This perpetual NDP attitude that WE OWE THEM free everything needs to get canned.
NEXT thing I want to see is that dollar something a vote subsidy(you know? the one that saw the TRAITORS jump into bed with the BLOC) removed.If Iggy and Taliban Jack and of course the TRAITORS to CANADA want to play POLITICS let it be with THEIR money and not mine.
Posted by: John R. | 2010-03-17 12:43:30 PM
So phil, you can think of one individual who meets your personal level of purity but no organizations. How's about on the left side of the spectrum? In your opinion whose doing it right, who is the most consistent and the least hypocritical when it comes to bigger government, higher tax's and more regulations?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-17 2:22:24 PM
Well Joe, I don't know of any, left or right, who claims to be standing up for taxpayers, who has a lot to say about all kinds of issues, large and small, and whose silence on a gargantuan socialist transfer of wealth indicates tacit support for said transfer and completely contradicts everything they claim to be. For hypocrisy, nothing comes close to the CTF.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-17 8:10:29 PM
Yes, yes we all know who you don't like, how much you don't like them and why you don't like them, but that's not what I'm asking. I've asked you a number of times now who you do like and you have yet to seriously answer the question. What is your alternative? If you don't believe people should be supporting the CTF then who should they support instead? Who do you support?
These are not difficult questions, if you can't answer them then I think thou dost protest too much.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-18 8:14:51 AM
I would tend to agree with phil. I had a conversation with Jason Kenney about 6 years ago, whereby I told him that I was against all subsidies to businesses. He was for this. Then, I said that would also include farmers and he changed his tune. He said we had to support farmers and their way of life. I guess my way of life did not really matter to him. Wasn't he with the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation. Isn't this the definition of hypocrisy? Also, I have come to the realization that maybe what phil is trying to tell you is that once "they" get in there, they change their tune pretty quickly and that in my opinion is why a lot of people don't vote.
Posted by: g$ | 2010-03-18 12:25:50 PM
Kenny, is definitely a hypocrite and a big disappointment.
And while the taxpayers may not be perfect I still find them, as an organization, to be one of the most consistent ones out there. If the Conservatives were that consistent I wouldn't have a problem with them but unfortunately they're not. I will probably not vote in the next election but I will be supporting the CTF. If you can find me a more consistent organization I'll consider supporting them as well.
You can diss the taxpayers all you like but I don't think you'll find an outfit on either side of the political spectrum who is more consistent.
So I'll ask again, what is your alternative? If you don't believe people should be supporting the CTF then who should they support instead? Who do you support?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-18 3:50:11 PM
Consistently hypocritical, to the point of being an impediment to positive change. Support who ever you want, but don't try to tell me that these clowns are the real deal.
Posted by: phil | 2010-03-19 9:59:02 AM
If you know anyone who is the real deal, and would remain the real deal once elected, Phil, let us know. Only let me put on a hard hat first so I don't get injured by the flying pigs.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-19 11:25:14 AM
I'm not trying to tell you anything I'm asking you who you support?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-19 5:12:17 PM
Phil, the question was for you. Who do you support?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-19 11:09:49 PM
What's the matter phil? Afraid that the people you like and support won't live up to your own personal standards. Is that maybe why you won't tell us who they are?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2010-03-20 9:12:30 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.