Thursday, February 03, 2011

U.S Political subsidy.

In the U.S they also have a subsidy for political parties, and in the house they voted for the repal of their political party subsidy. In the U.S this will be more devastating, because there candidates can already get funding from big corporations, and eliminating the subsidy would make politicians not accountable to the voters, but rather there money would be coming from corporations which they will have to stay accountable to in order to get their money. Now there subsidy is different than ours here, but the reason the Republicans are giving to the people are the same. The senate majority leader said that the deficit is so big taxpayers shouldn't have to give welfare to the politicians almost the same thing that Harper said. The truth is that the subsidy is important and without it private corporations will have more power than they already do. The subsidy has to stay in both the U.S and Canada. The U.S must also dramatically reform how candidates can get money.

"These efforts are not about saving taxpayer money, they are about giving corporate donors even more access than they enjoy today. We hope these measures don't advance any further."
Read more here

2 comments:

  1. It’s not subsidy OR oorporation/union donations, it’s public donations only. Parties are responsible to their members so they must draw their support from those members.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harper's never come out against subsidies for political parties. He's come out against one particular subsidy - the per vote subsidy. It is a HUGE subsidy. Nothing in the U.S. compares to it. Just because one believe political subsidies are appropriate does not necessarily mean that this political subsidy is appropriate or that the amount of this subsidy is appropriate. This subsidy should not represent the majority of political party funding. It should only be a means of balancing some things out based on public support. However, in some cases this subsidy represents nearly all of a political parties funding. It is so blatantly obvious that this subsidy needs to be dramatically reduced or eliminated, and the public overwhelmingly supports that. And even if it is eliminated there are still a few other subsidies available to political parties. Liberals better face the reality that with such strong public support this subsidy will be gone or reduced after the next election.

    ReplyDelete

Any highly offensive matter will be deleted whether it be solid, water, gas or plasma. No comments from outsiders represent the opinions of Owner and Doggy or vanillaman. We reserve the right to delete any comments without explanation.