I haven't posted in a while because I've been busy with my new venture. I've started contracting and the transition from "extended holiday and get rid of burnout" mode to "working for a living" mode has taken much of my emotional energy.
However, I do want to comment on a couple of things that I feel should be addressed.
First of all, I believe I should follow up on Oprah's second town hall meeting with Bill O'Reilly as the guest. Again, I must acknowledge Oprah for being fair and balanced despite, in my personal opinion, her tendency to lean "left". She does a much better job as a talk show host of giving balanced coverage than 99 percent of our news media. I don't alway agree with Bill O'Reilly but he is refreshing compared to other commentators on TV. I didn't understand the whole "culture warrior" thing but I realized, as I was watching, that it is a brilliant move. Although people accuse him of being divisive, and did so on Oprah as well, I think he is making an effort to rephrase the whole left versus right debate in order to move away from the "left" and "right" ingrained beliefs and get people thinking again above the labels. It is an interesting idea and anything but divisive.
On the topic of Oprah, I watched the Al Gore and global warming show. I watched it knowing Al Gore has an agenda and knowing it would not be particularly factual. The whole show was Al and his "documentary" however, I was happy to see that Oprah once again had a dissenting opinion for another expert. When Al Gore "pooh-poohed" the expert's opinion, Oprah did point out that the opinion was from an expert as well and was a valid opinion. Hats off to Oprah even though, in my personal opinion, she believes the hype as well. She is a better woman than I for standing up for an opinion that varies from hers. It was also interesting that the global warming critics are accusing corporations of funding the experts with dissenting opinion on global warming. How does this differ from the agenda of the experts who agree with global warming being funded significantly by governments and environmental organizations. I would state that no matter what the experts on both sides say, money is a significant factor on BOTH sides.
Finally, my comments on Harper and his record as prime minister. Let me preface this by saying that I am heartened by his leadership and it is a pleasure to have a prime minister who actually gets things done and stands by his promises. I tend to put people up on a pedestal and therefore am extremely disillusioned when they fall. I am trying to keep that in mind as I judge his performance but let me say I have been extremely disappointed in a couple of his decisions of late.
The Income Trust decision was made in a much fairer way than that under the liberals. Insiders did not get a "heads up" in order to make massive amounts of money before the public got wind of it, allegedly. However, the conservative government made a promise not to tax income trust. Therefore, people who trusted conservatives (particularly conservatives), heavily invested in income trusts. I know of a retired couple who lost many thousands of dollars in their retirement fund because of this decision and severely impacted their "golden years". For a government that has made good on promises, this was very disheartening. This broken promise had a major negative impact on people I love.
The nation within a nation thing has me bothered as well. I am hoping it is a brilliant political move with aspects that I am not aware of that make it positive. It is not a normally conservative thing to do. I am totally against the idea of any special status given to any segment of a population. I rally against any rights that give any group "special" rights that are not afforded to anyone. I will write one day about how I feel on "special" statuses and the whole SOW thing and how I feel "special" status is divisive, bigoted, inequal, and counter productive. Harper and the conservatives have long been the champions of freedom and recognition for all people and all provinces. I worry about the ramifications of this recognition of "nationhood" and whether we are travelling down the "distinct" (read special" road again.
Okay... so, I have done my duty and blogged and have to go back to motivating myself to make a living again. Personally, let it be noted that being a true conservative, my extended holiday was not taken at the taxpayer's expense. That allotment should be for the needy, not the vacationer.
Have a great weekend!
Friday, December 08, 2006
Some quick thoughts....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although overall I'm not a Harper fan, I actually liked the income trust decision. I don't invest, as a result of being at the bottom of the food chain, but I've always heard you "don't put too many eggs in one basket". So those who did so against good judgement have to ride the wave of uncertainty i guess. One thing I can applaud the government with here is that they are not giving corporations special treatment compared to citizens. I also have very little sympathy for the very rich, so sue me.
About SWC, I don't know enough to comment. Where I would be concerned is if any direct funding to women's shelters or support programs is cut. I am assuming should that happen there would be mass hysteria, and I haven't heard any of that yet. I did the feminism meme to show I appreciate feminism for what it is and appreciate "what it has done for me". I don't believe religious groups should be funded, period. And I guess I have mixed feelings about advocacy groups too, since why would the government give people money in order to change the government's mind on a matter. It doesn't make sense to me.
Anyways, good post. Looking forward to your SWC post.
Hey Procrastinatrix:
Thanks for stopping by. Be careful when judging... Having money in income trusts does not necessarily mean you are rich and income trusts are supposed to be a low risk investment. Hence, many people saving for retirement would sock away money into income trusts which were stable low risk ways to gain dividends in retirement and I'm sure (i don't invest either) are recommended when investment planning. True, at your age, it is not something you can either afford or plan for but as time goes on and you want to set aside savings for your retirement, your income and your priorities will change. For those people who planned and saved for their retirement, I do not consider them rich... just responsible.
I think i consider anyone making more money than me rich. maybe i'm just jealous.
It is quite possibly the poor elderly that held income trusts in their RRSPs.If some poor soles had 200,000.oo in an RSP and were getting 3% that would give them 500 dollars a month to add to their old age pension and put them in the poverty category. If they were getting 10% from their RRSP they would be getting about $1700.oo dollars a month plus their pensions and be self supporting. The less money in the RSP the more likely the financial advisor would direct the elderly to a trust in order to enable them to retire.
The bottom line was the government wanted double taxation; tax the companies first, and then tax the shareholder again on the after tax dividends.
Post a Comment