The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

See, I don't agree with this assessment. There was a time when corporations and the wealthy were taxed much more than they are today. In fact, economic growth was relatively high during the 50s and 60s when those tax rates were much higher. We have been led to believe that taxes need to be low to support economic growth, and that couldn't be further from the truth (let's be honest, it's all about maximizing profits and not simply economic growth). Corporations are making record profits, buying back shares, paying executives enormous sums of money, and putting profits ahead of what's good for society because that's the way capitalism is designed. Anyways, allowing publicly-funded private healthcare is not going to solve the government revenue problem anyways. You will now have taxpayers paying the profits of these companies which only exist to grow revenues for shareholders. There is no incentive to keep people healthy and out of care, and what you will end up with is an American-style healthcare system that costs almost double per capita with worse health outcomes (as it is in America now vs Canada, UK, France, etc).

I'm not saying to publicly fund private health care. I'm saying don't make having private primary care illegal. People leave here to go spend their money on private care in other jurisdictions. Allow them to spend that money here.

Just to address the point from the economic growth. That was in a period when we were experuencing huge population growth and the post-war economy was really taking off. Even if that were the case today, I don't think we can keep taxing people. I hard disagree that anyone in public administration is more qualified than you to decide how to spend your money.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'm not saying to publicly fund private health care. I'm saying don't make having private primary care illegal. People leave here to go spend their money on private care in other jurisdictions. Allow them to spend that money here.

Can you explain how that would solve the problems we are having and how if we did something like that that we wouldn't end up spending double per capita on health care and worse outcomes like in the US?

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Just to address the point from the economic growth. That was in a period when we were experuencing huge population growth and the post-war economy was really taking off. Even if that were the case today, I don't think we can keep taxing people. I hard disagree that anyone in public administration is more qualified than you to decide how to spend your money.

Oh boy. I would like to know in which imaginary universe a libertarian society wouldn't just immediately collapse. My two favourite quotes about libertarianism: "Libertarians are like cats. They think they are independent until the litterbox is full." and "Libertarianism is astrology for men."

On a serious note, and accepting that we are social creatures who live in a society where we support each other and where taxes are actually a moral and a necessary thing, I would say we should be putting the burden on those with the means to pay and less on those who spend most of their paycheques on things they need to survive and to get a bare minimum amount of enjoyment and meaning in life.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Even if that were the case today, I don't think we can keep taxing people. I hard disagree that anyone in public administration is more qualified than you to decide how to spend your money.

LMAO okay, so where do roads and infrastructure, education, military defense, police, fire protection, parks, and planning come from? What does this blissful libertarian state look like to the average libertarian? Do roads turn to gravel, military disbands, homeschooling becomes the only option, and the protection of personal property becomes non-existent?

Or maybe once people realize what they've lost in the new libertarian utopia and that not everyone can hire their own personal police officer, doctor, or fire fighter, groups of people start banding together so they can collectively afford those services. Maybe like a neighborhood pools their money together to maintain their local roads and starts a private clinic only for themselves, or a volunteer fire brigade? And then over time, they realize that these services would become even cheaper if they joined up with some other neighborhoods to hire these services? And then after a few years, a bunch of neighborhoods realize these services can be delivered even cheaper and more efficiently if the whole city organizes together to form a public service? And then maybe a bunch of cities and towns get together and form a collective to help fund other services that cross jurisdictions, like healthcare and private protection from outsiders? And then maybe everyone in the country realizes they get the best bang for their buck of a group of elected representatives makes decisions for them on service delivery at a national level, with sub-national governments having jurisdiction over more local issues?

Hmmm, libertarianism is starting to sound a whole lot like capitalism in a western democracy, but with extra steps!

I can't wait to hear what other cool ideas you've been thinking about over your lunch hour in high school!

[optimusREIM]

I should clarify. I don't disagree with having some taxes, I just disagree that generally the government is better at spending than the individual. The other thing about public administration is they are perhaps the most inefficient entities out there. But again, I stress, not anti tax, just anti more tax. Contrary to popular sentiment, the reality is that eventually you do run out of other people's money, and modern monetary theory is bunk.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I should clarify. I don't disagree with having some taxes, I just disagree that generally the government is better at spending than the individual. The other thing about public administration is they are perhaps the most inefficient entities out there. But again, I stress, not anti tax, just anti more tax.

You mean you think your would be better at spending than the individual, right? There's always going to be a requirement for administration of services. You must not have worked at many private businesses, because I have worked at some large corporations that are entirely wasteful. This kind of waste has little to do with the type of organization and more to do with incentives and power structures. You can change the incentives of elections and government, (ie. ranked choice voting, public funding of elections, regulated advertising, more transparency and restrictions on lobbying, etc), and of the economy (i.e. democraticizing workplaces, breaking up monopolistic entities and preventing further acquisitions and vertical integration in the market, prioritizing public-funding based on outcomes such as lower suicide rates, increasing life expectancy, increasing literacy, etc).

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Contrary to popular sentiment, the reality is that eventually you do run out of other people's money, and modern monetary theory is bunk.

And that's why workers must own the means of production. Until then, wealth redistribution is the only way to prevent a capitalist society from collapsing, and we are getting pretty close to it.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You mean you think your would be better at spending than the individual, right? There's always going to be a requirement for administration of services. You must not have worked at many private businesses, because I have worked at some large corporations that are entirely wasteful. This kind of waste has little to do with the type of organization and more to do with incentives and power structures. You can change the incentives of elections and government, (ie. ranked choice voting, public funding of elections, regulated advertising, more transparency and restrictions on lobbying, etc), and of the economy (i.e. democraticizing workplaces, breaking up monopolistic entities and preventing further acquisitions and vertical integration in the market, prioritizing public-funding based on outcomes such as lower suicide rates, increasing life expectancy, increasing literacy, etc).



And that's why workers must own the means of production. Until then, wealth redistribution is the only way to prevent a capitalist society from collapsing, and we are getting pretty close to it.

Lmao whatever dude, I prefer the free market. Enjoy utopia without me

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Well, I mean, there have been various predictions for a global pandemic for a couple decades now.

This is exactly my point, a broken clock is right twice a day but I won't use it to determine when I should leave for work in the morning.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Lmao whatever dude, I prefer the free market. Enjoy utopia without me

That's your argument? Come on man. You have to come up with something better than that. The only ones living in a fantasy are libertarians. Also, markets don't all of a sudden disappear in a more democratic society. If you are curious, I can explain any questions you might have. If you want to continue being ignorant, then enjoy your day.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by dmacc

This is exactly my point, a broken clock is right twice a day but I won't use it to determine when I should leave for work in the morning.

Are we talking about how you plan your day or are we talking about how to create a robust healthcare system that can handle sudden, unpredictable, but realistically-possible events whether its a massive storm, mass violence, or a pandemic?

[bomberjet]

This was talked about previously. The link between MB Conservatives and the Cons down south. Came across my Twitter feed again today.

Jenny Cohn is an American who is increasingly focusing on the Conservative network of shitheads connecting across borders.
https://twitter.com/jennycohn1/statu...66423985950721

11/ Article about Alexey Komov’s virtual 2020 GHEX where Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Josh Hawley spoke. The 2018 conference was in Moscow. I wonder who went.

[thurmas]

Stefanson hinted yesterday she might call a spring election next year instead of a fall one so she can have it coincide with the budget to give out electoral goodies. The sooner the pcs get kicked out the better. Stefanson seems so afraid of interacting with the public and has zero charisma. Seems only reason she ran for the leadership was to swing that $31 million real estate deal of hers. Seems she really wants out of this job.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Stefanson hinted yesterday she might call a spring election next year instead of a fall one so she can have it coincide with the budget to give out electoral goodies. The sooner the pcs get kicked out the better. Stefanson seems so afraid of interacting with the public and has zero charisma. Seems only reason she ran for the leadership was to swing that $31 million real estate deal of hers. Seems she really wants out of this job.

I see almost weekly news reports of her out in the public? Are you a pathological liar or just someone misinformed about the world around you?

[wags_in_the_peg]

Maybe Glen Murray can run for a seat for Provincial Liberals and bring them back into being worthwhile?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Maybe Glen Murray can run for a seat for Provincial Liberals and bring them back into being worthwhile?

I'd be surprised if Murray went back to politics after this. He looks like he is ready to retire and enjoy life.

[bomberjet]

Stefanson said an early election is not out of the question. But that she will for sure call an election by the mandated date. I would hope so.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Stefanson said an early election is not out of the question. But that she will for sure call an election by the mandated date. I would hope so.

I'm not sure Stefanson could convince her best friend to meet her for coffee let alone lead a coup to install herself as dictator.

[WinCitySparky]

After seeing the 37% municipal turnout, I have no doubt that the PCs will get voted back in by every lazy apathetic cunt that screams loud and never leaves their house to do something about it and vote. No faith at this point.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

Maybe Glen Murray can run for a seat for Provincial Liberals and bring them back into being worthwhile?

Why? To make the Libs relevant west of Thunder Bay Provincially is a multi-generational effort and honestly since the Dippers with experience being in government naturally gravitate to the federal Liberals why would he or anyone else waste their time with that sort of project?

[Chrisforpm]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

After seeing the 37% municipal turnout, I have no doubt that the PCs will get voted back in by every lazy apathetic cunt that screams loud and never leaves their house to do something about it and vote. No faith at this point.

I’ve been thinking about this lately. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. After all, the PC’s are polling well outside of Winnipeg. There are 22 seats they could probably hold on to. They just need to hold 7 in Winnipeg (not impossible, Fort Whyte, Roblin, Tuxedo, Waverley and Lagimodiere are probably safe) and they have a very small majority. A bare majority is still 100% of the power.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by Chrisforpm

I’ve been thinking about this lately. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. After all, the PC’s are polling well outside of Winnipeg. There are 22 seats they could probably hold on to. They just need to hold 7 in Winnipeg (not impossible, Fort Whyte, Roblin, Tuxedo, Waverley and Lagimodiere are probably safe) and they have a very small majority. A bare majority is still 100% of the power.

If the PCs had a more likeable leader I would say that is possible but I just dont see it happening with their current crew.