Tiffer24, perhaps I didn’t word my post very clearly. I have no intention of moving from Ontario, I have every intention of giving my children the option to easily do so if we continue down this ruinous path. I’m happy to go down with the ship myself, after all we owe everything we have to others.
I was struck however how you suggested essentially that regular people don’t feel they have the luxury to make principled decisions. The possibility that you are correct is my greatest political fear. I just naively don’t want to believe it.
Over the years I've been here @UT, I've had the pleasure of reading many articulate posts by yourself.
Your contributions on any number of threads have been thoughtful and well considered.
This thread is proving an unfortunate exception.
First, you've chosen to wander in the direction of hyperbole.
I have no quibble w/expressing concern over debt-levels, current or proposed, nor an expressed desire to see governments of any or all stripes demonstrate greater consistency of principle and policy not seemingly upended for the utility of reelection.
But I to use words or turns-of-phrase like 'ruinous' and 'going down with the ship' is just too much. It divorces any legitimate concerns over policy direction or electioneering from your post, by drawing the reader's gaze to Sun-worthy Headlines.
Second, I'm also deeply concerned by the notion that your posts express that there is a greater lack of ethics in helping those in need than in not helping them.
If you prefer more conservative-minded forms of help, I think that's entirely defensible, but one would expect you to say so in your posts.
For instance, the complete exemption of low-income earners from paying income tax or sales tax might be a more conservative solution to issues of economic exclusion.
But doing so on even a tax-neutral basis would likely mean large tax hikes for those in the middle and higher income streams.
Focused-spending on self-reliance would be another conservative minded way of directing spending, but that might mean assuring that everyone reached adulthood in excellent health, with an excellent education, including post-secondary, with money being no barrier to same.
That too would not be free, though it might allow someone the luxury of feeling that robust social programs for working-age adults were less a priority (arguably) .
But I have seen no such advocacy in your posts.
Nor have I seen advocacy for a tax-hike dedicated to paying down the debt, and then splitting the proceeds (the savings in interest) on targeted tax cuts for low and lower-middle income earners, along with similar social investments for the neediest.
If those who advocate for a more conservative inclination in politics will not advocate for a version of that that is caring, that shows enlightened self-interest, then who will?
Why would any caring person vote for a party or support a mindset that appears entirely selfish and short-term in its outlook?
I strongly suspect (and hope) you don't fit that latter description, but you have to be aware your recent posts betray only narrow self-interest and not a deep concern for the broader social welfare.
