The following is a copy of an email sent out by my cousin... collected here for ease of reading and image loading. For your reference, Here is the original email that this is in response to. And in case you are interested, here is my response to that email. Please feel free to comment in the Message Boards if you like.
---------------------------------
Hey guys, I've been a little bored here in Kyoto, so I've written a little something on why it's dangerous to vote conservative.
I hope this finds everyone in good health and great spirits!
Enjoy.
A tale of two titles; how the Chrétien Liberals were more conservative than Mulroney's Conservatives, and why voting Conservative in 2004 is bad for Canada, you, your family, and the entire world
If taxes are your primary concern in this election (which they undoubtedly are for most of you who earn over $50,000) then there are several reasons to not vote conservative. The primary reason being that under conservative Brian Mulroney, on average federal taxes increased, while under the even more conservative Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin, the same taxes decreased from the period 1993 to 2002. That's right federal taxes decreased in the 1990s!
In the chart below, we observe that when Mulroney's Conservatives took power in 1984 Canadian families paid about $10,000 on average in federal taxes, but this accelerated to $12,900 by 1990, a staggering increase of nearly 30 per cent.
Now we contrast this with the conservative Liberal Paul Martin. Under his reign as Finance Minister, social discretionary spending was axed to an impressive extent, and the federal take of Canadian taxes actually decreased by a seventh of one per cent.
In sum: Under a Conservative government in the 1980's taxes sharply increased. Under a Liberal government in the 1990's taxed slightly decreased! Holey shit! Translation: Conservatives bad, Liberals bad but slightly less bad!
Chart 1.1 Federal Taxes Paid by Families (1980-2002), Mulroney raised taxes for families while Chrétien lowered them
Source: Statistics Canada
Such tax decreases don't come without a price - to decrease taxes while balancing the budget, we have to reduce spending. While tax receipts for corporations, high income earners and the middle class decreased in the 1990's (and taxes on profits made from the stock market - capital gains tax), federal government expenditures also sharply decreased. In chart 1.2 (below) we see the effect of lowering taxes. The real effects, however, are not shown - increased tuition (about 150%), increased medical expenses (almost $1000/person in Ontario) and an increased wait period for medical services (also lower welfare checks and fewer recipients).
Chart 1.2 Program Expenses as % of GDP decreased steadily in the 1990s
Stephen Harper will perpetuate rising education and health care costs not reverse them
Stephen Harper is even more conservative than Paul Martin. Where Martin understands the balance between the social contract and the citizen, Harper laments every federal dollar spent. Harper is a market fundamentalist - he believes that the market is the best and most efficient way to deliver essential services to Canadians. This is simply wrong.
Under the Liberals, university tuition has risen over 100 per cent. There is reason to believe that with Martin this is as bad as it's going to get. Stephen Harper on the other hand, would like to see the costs of post-secondary education determined by the market - this is a recipe for disaster. We need only look south where only the richest white Americans can afford $40,000 a year tuition for their best universities. If you have three children, can you imagine having to pay that much money for each child for over a decade? The Canadian Alliance, I mean the Reform, damn! I mean the Conservatives are bad for education, thus, bad for society.
The Chrétien (and Martin) legacy: The elimination of the massive deficits built by Trudeau and Mulroney
Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney were the two biggest federal spenders in Canadian history. Brian Mulroney did little to erase the massive deficits he inherited from his Liberal counterpart. Full credit to Chrétien and Martin, for this is what Chrétien will be most remembered for - he inherited an economic nightmare from Brian Mulroney and turned it into a surplus. A massive achievement by any measure.
Now we have people from Alberta sending mass emails full of disinformation and foolhardy lies, trying to convince Canadians that the Liberals are financially irresponsible. The Chrétien Liberals were the most financially responsible administration since World War II, as the chart below proves. Pierre Trudeau was the worst, followed very closely by Brian Mulroney. Although Mulroney didn't rake up the deficit to the extent that Trudeau did, his contribution to our National Dept exceeds the Chrétien Liberals by about 15 million per cent. Also notice that the blue represents Conservative contribution to the debt, a substantial portion, and that Mulroney did nothing, let me repeat that - Mulroney did nothing to eliminate the federal deficit and is just as responsible for today’s national debt as Pierre Trudeau.
The Ad Scandal was just that, a scandal, which was an isolated incident - one even with good intentions. On the eve of a referendum that nearly destroyed this country, the Liberals came up with a propaganda plan to re-enfranchise Quebecers with being Canadian. Citing the re-emergence of the Separatists, it is one that should be refined and reintroduced - at risk of losing Quebec and the rest of the East.
Chart 1.3 (A) The Amazing Legacy of Chrétien: The Elimination of the Trudeau and Mulroney Deficits
 | ||
| 1961 | 1984 | 2002 |
I love this point so let us look at another graph, this one will cement the fact the Mulroney was just as much a spendaholic as Trudeau, observe:
Chart 1.3 (B) Mulroney Sharply Increased the National Debt, Whereas Chrétien reduced it, (the Revelation that Mulroney was a Closet Deficit Loving Trudeauite, OH MY GOD!)
Source: http://www.la-mancha.net/archives/000324.html
"The Liberals are bad for big-business" say the Reform/Alliance (Conservatives)
One thing everyone should know about most conservatives is that they love to lie. The Liberals have been lowering taxes for big-business since the day Paul Martin became Finance Minister. Throughout the 1990s, the top corporate tax rates in the United States have held steady at 40 per cent. Contrast this with corporate taxes in Canada that have been declining steadily since 1996. (CATO Institute http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html#taxes) Today, Canadian Corporations (the few that are left) pay competitive taxes compared to our NAFTA partners - the U.S. and Mexico.
Chart 1.4 Corporate Income Tax: Canada 2000-2008 (keep in mind the top corporate tax in America is 40%)
Canadian federal income taxes are lower than America's at every bracket, except for the poor
In 2003 Canada had lower federal income taxes than the United States. But if you listen to Stephen Harper you would think that Canada circa 2003 was Sweden circa 1980 (where their top earners were forced to pay 87% income tax).
[Canadians probably do, however, pay more income tax than Americans - when you include provincial/state taxes. But this isn't a provincial election]
Income tax rates in any country are mostly determined by what the other countries do with their tax structures. This is because societies compete for the same international capital, and today more than ever the flow of people's money is less restricted (NAFTA). For this reason it is crucial for Canada to have competitive personal and corporate Income tax rates, especially with our (war mongering) neighbour, otherwise rich people will simply spend their money internationally instead of in Canada.
I love charts; they're so pretty and easy to understand, so here is another one refuting the Reform/Alliance/Conservative claim that Canadian federal Income taxes are too high:
Table 1.1 Canadian Federal Income Taxes are Already, in Fact, Lower than Those of the United States
| Canadian Taxes (2004) | U.S. Taxes (single person) (1999) | ||
| Up to CA$35,000 | 22% | Up to US$25,750 | 15% |
| Above CA$70,000 | 26% | Above US$25,750 | 28% |
| Above CA$113,000 | 29% | Above US$62,450 | 31% |
| Above US$130,250 | 36% | ||
| Above US$283,250 | 39.6% |
source: Canadian numbers from Revenue Canada
What do you think, should Income taxes be lowered even more? If you think they should be, then we obviously disagree since lowering these taxes even more would make it necessary to further privatize health care, decrease post-secondary transfers to provinces - increasing tuition, and to further reduce federal discretionary spending (all of which Harper's Alliance and Reform party advocated in the 1990s).
In sum, federal taxes, both income and the top corporate taxes are already lower than that of the United States. Lowering them more would destroy universal access to education at all levels (as it has in Japan), ruin universal health care (as it has already started to do) and increase crime (crime being directly tied to economic well-being). A Stephen Harper Alliance/Reform/Conservative government would perpetuate the aforementioned.
The negative effects of further integrating Canada's society with our war-mongering neighbour
I will not go into the sham we call "the war on terrorism." Instead we should point out the crime disparity between Canada and the U.S., since this has the biggest potential impact on every Canadian. Corporate Canada has repeatedly called for "more integration with the U.S." The reason is simple: In America, corporations have more rights than they do in Canada, have to abide by fewer environmental laws, they have a government that is willing to bomb the shit out of civilian populations until the respective government is forced into subversion by allowing American corporations access to their natural resources, much lower corporate state taxes, and finally and most importantly - American corporations have access to a massive market that does not exist in Canada: Health care services and education services. The consequence, however, of an American-style caste being imposed on Canada system is simple - crime will skyrocket as wealth will become more concentrated.
As far as I'm concerned The United States is a dangerous country in which to live. Guns at banks, guns at Wal-Marts, guns in closets; and a terrified populace that isn't afraid (or restricted) to use them - on the contrary - it's every American's right to shoot thy neighbour.
The Conservatives will eliminate the Federal Gun Registry, but The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has called on the federal government to abandon its plan to cut spending on the country's $1-billion gun registry. The Police association says "We cannot combat the misuse of guns without strong controls."
The Reform Party, I mean the Alliance, damn I did it again! The Conservative Party is bad for Canada because they will allow the use of unregistered guns (all of which come from the south) to swamp Canada.
Stephen Harper, again, will perpetuate the privatization of essential services, raising their costs and reducing their accessibility (even though he says the opposite - we know that since he comes from the Reform/Alliance he is either lying or in denial of what his party stands for). High education and health coasts are bad for any society, again, just look at America.
Stephen Harper will gut the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). He will reduce its oversight of content on Canadian media outlets - which would have a devastating effect for the Canadian Arts industry and Canadians as a whole, since our media and arts community attempt to represent who we are and what we care about.
Harper's Alliance (along with their foot soldiers at the National Post) have also repeatedly called for the partition of the CBC and its privatization. This would make Canada the only industrialized country I can think of without a public media source. Even if you don't watch it, the CBC is another essential service this market fundamentalist would eliminate. The TSN example: Since TSN was bought by ESPN there has been a sharp decrease in Canadian sports coverage; instead we are forced to watch NASCAR and the American National Cheerleaders Championship (which isn't even a sport) and American Dart Tournaments. I don't give a shit about those "sports" and it's likely that none of you do either.
The Re-emergence of French Separatists in Quebec: It's not Martin's Fault
The re-emergence of French separatists in Quebec has little to do with the Ad Scandal, but it's simply a French response to the rise of Western conservative Idealism, and I don't blame them. For over a decade Harper's Reform/Alliance lambasted federal "courting" of French values. A bulk of the The Conservative party doesn't think any distinct people in Canada should have special rights. Albertans would love to do away with the Official Languages Act, for example. The re-emergence of the Block in Quebec is simply a defensive response to the potential rise-of-power by a group that has openly and repeatedly threatened them for the last 10 years.
Further, some Conservatives don't think Native Canadians should be allowed self-governance, or even special tax rights. It's also interesting to wrap you mind on Harper's chief strategist’s views of Native culture. He (Flanagan) writes that "European civilization was several thousand years more advanced than the aboriginal cultures of North America." He dismisses aboriginal treaty rights: "Sovereignty is an attribute of statehood, and aboriginal peoples in Canada had not arrived at the state level of political organization prior to contact with Europeans."
With Harper in power, native people are offered one choice: to cease to be a distinct people with fundamental rights, says disenfranchised Progressive Conservative David Orchard.
Harper's brilliant idea of building a firewall around Alberta, and my incredibly intelligent idea of building a "stupid idea" firewall around Harper
Harper on federalism: "It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
Harper on saying incredibly stupid things: "If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?"
The reasons are these:
Alberta doesn't have a "distinct culture" and a different language than the rest of the country, which is constantly under pressure to integrate and assimilate, one which would surely collapse under the weight of American and Anglo-Canadian pressure if it were not for such "special rights." Harper and his conservative biddies are stupid for not accepting this reality.Quebec's inclusion into Canada requires concessions, both on the part of the rest of Canada and on their part as well. If we lose Quebec, we lose the rest of the East.
Stephen Harper will transfer the responsibility of Canada's foreign policy to George Bush, whom can't even spell foreign policy, has the lowest IQ of any president in history, also hates gays, abortionists, and is a war-time torturer - did I mention that he is a ridiculously stupid ideologue?
Harper on Iraq: "We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our Allies."
Harper on morals: "Martin can't get anything done about softwood lumber and BSE when he goes to the summit because he has been against the war in Iraq"
Stephen Harper, like 80 per cent of conservatives, has absolutely no morals when it comes to business. Harper's comment that we should have helped invade a third world country (where the U.S. sanctions are responsible for over one million deaths) simply because it would have been financially worth-while further uncloaks his big-business moral-free agenda.
For an in-depth analysis on Conservative foreign policy, please point you browser here: http://www.defenselink.mil/ And it's not a link to the U.S. military Web site, I swear!
Sealing the deal: Harper's party hates gays and women's rights
Stephen Harper's Reform/Alliance/Conservative movement also wants to make it okay to discriminate against homosexuals and re-criminalize abortion. Although he hasn't directly made these opinions public he has said that he will do nothing to curtail such private member bills - and if this were to happen, is there any doubt as to how The Leader would vote?
In September 2003, Harper said characterizing gay marriage as a civil-rights issue was "disgusting." Canadian Press reported that Harper said: "... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting." Say again Harps? When the face of discrimination changes, does its definition change with it? No, actually, it doesn't.
Elements in the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party have equated abortion to the execution of innocent civilians. Conservative Party of Canada MP Cheryl Gallant noted that the civilized world was "horrified" at the beheading of young American by terrorists in Iraq. She compared the killing to the abortions performed in Canada over 35 years and said it is "absolutely no different."
Harper's response: "It's their business."
The importance of not voting Conservative
Although the Liberals aren't perfect by any stretch, as the former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark said, "Vote for the devil you know."
I am not advocating voting Liberal, I am simply pointing out the flawed logic of those who may vote Conservative to punish Liberals. If you want to punish the Liberals go right ahead - but think about the party you're voting for, what they stand for and what they will do for all Canadians.
If I missed anything, please add it (and add a graph if you can, conservatives hate graphs!) and forward this to every Canadian you know, especially the conservatives pigs who want to ruin Canada.
Thank you,
Matthew Lamers
St. Catharines, ON
Currently, but temporarily, residing in Kyoto, Japan