|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 7:18:14 GMT -5
The MacLean's poll particulars as I recall are printed. Every year MacLean's does a hallmark and somewhat famous poll of Canadians on many issues. It's rather a national pulse checking. I believe the results are pretty good for a poll. It showed Quebecers to be the Canadians most tolerant of others and most concerned with the other guy and his of her problems. East coasters came out real well relative to the rest of Canada. That isn't my point regarding the poll. Let's compare Ontario with Newfoundland for example. Ontario has 40% of the population of Canada, Newfoundland has 1%. So if the poll sample Canadians proportionately across the land (lets say 1000 people) than only 10 Newfoundlanders were polled. So on the question of who do you find so be the most socialable tolerable province .... well while some might say another province, the greatest portion of the population will more than likely pick their own. This is why I would like a breakdown. How many people from outside Quebec picked Quebec? And how many people from each province were polled? This is why Newfoundland considers itself to be "Canada's Friendliest" province .... because we know in any poll with our population we could never win such a survey, and yet every day/week in our paper their is a letter to the editor from a mainlander stating how friendly they find people here. Again it doesn't make it true. I found Montreal's to be quite friendly, and I was frightened to death to walk down Younge Street. But that doesn't mean Ontarians are unfriendly. I guess what I am trying to say is why base a vote (I can only assume you put weight to it to bring it up in the first place) on a sampling poll that has absolutley no credence? Well let me try to clarify. No one wants Quebec to leave the country. I would haphazard a guess that given the right circumstances that even the PQ wouldn't leave. There has to be a real rooted problem as to why Quebecers feel alienated. More alienated than the West and the east. So what is it? Every federal party (LIB, Conservative and NDP) think they know the reason, but when they bring out a policy all I hear out of Quebecers is that the policy shows just how much they don't understand Quebec. So, IMO, if Duceppe wasn't going to break up the country than he could show the rest of the country what Quebecers really want from federalism. Now this could be easily shown if the other parties would just listen to Quebec, or other parts of the country for that matter. But blind promises, and insulting the intelligence of people is not the way to go ....... This country could work just as well as 4 or 5 economic partners, and still be called Canada as it can as 10 lone rogues fighting "Big Brother Ottawa" on every issue. Funny how on every issue Ottawa claims it can't be afforded and tries to dictate how the money has to be spent and than at the end of the fiscal year there is billions (11 billion this year I believe) in surplus! Yes and No. The US is federally controlled in so much as the president has the ultimate power. But in the law making each and every state has an equal voice. They each elect 2 senators to the Senate. Canada's Senate is appointed, and our PM is elected by voting for another person? The name Paul Martin doesn't appear on my ballot ..... natural way? How is taking my money and hording it up natural? There is nothing wrong with delegating more powers to the provinces. Ther eis nothing wrong with keeping our social programs in tact. But if you give me millions of dollars and tell me to spend it on MRI's to improve health care ...well that is wrong. Maybe I know my people better and know how that millions of dollars will really improve health care. The federal government has to stop dictating and start listening. Isn't one of Paul Martin's cabinet ministers a former PQ card carrying member? Lapierre I believe. Every political party has had some influence or relationship with the Bloc. There is nothing wrong with working with other parties to achieve a common goal for the good of the country. But don't think for a instant the Liberals are the moral high ground in our political spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 7:23:55 GMT -5
The simple fact is that it is time for a change in this country. A change in the way we look at federalism, a change in how we view what is important to all the regions, and a change in how the provinces play a role in self-determination. We are a vast and diversified nation. Easterners problems are not the same as Westerners. Sure we all care about crime, health care, etc .... but we do to varyiong levels and the solution is different in each region. Why is DFO in Ottawa for instance when the last time I checked only BC, NL, NS, NB, QC, and PEI border an ocean? Most Canadians, two thirds or so, did not in fact think it was time for a change, either electorally or as best I can see from what people are actually saying, constutionally. Most of us, my self inlcuded don't have a particularly deep grasp of constitutional details. We care about our national health plan. We are also concerned about national unity, and given, your inclinations, rightly so. I rather think that our countty runs rather well with all its problems. I don't think we have to have an oil country, a fish country, a pulp, paper and hydro country, a mining country, a wheat country etc. See a fallacy in this? No but Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland needs to have an oil issues addressed, Saskatchewan needs potash concerns addressed, Manitoba and Saskatchewan needs wheat and farming concerns heard, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Quebec need hydro and fisheries concerns dealt with......... We may not be a country depending on one resource .... but we are a collection of regions that is highly dependant on different resources. The fallacy is that Ottawa tries to use blanket policies that handle the concerns right across the country ..... but the concerns of one region are not the same as another even when it comes to the same resource.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 9:23:33 GMT -5
Most Canadians, two thirds or so, did not in fact think it was time for a change, either electorally or as best I can see from what people are actually saying, constutionally. Most of us, my self inlcuded don't have a particularly deep grasp of constitutional details. We care about our national health plan. We are also concerned about national unity, and given, your inclinations, rightly so. I rather think that our countty runs rather well with all its problems. I don't think we have to have an oil country, a fish country, a pulp, paper and hydro country, a mining country, a wheat country etc. See a fallacy in this? No but Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland needs to have an oil issues addressed, Saskatchewan needs potash concerns addressed, Manitoba and Saskatchewan needs wheat and farming concerns heard, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Quebec need hydro and fisheries concerns dealt with......... We may not be a country depending on one resource .... but we are a collection of regions that is highly dependant on different resources. The fallacy is that Ottawa tries to use blanket policies that handle the concerns right across the country ..... but the concerns of one region are not the same as another even when it comes to the same resource. I suppose the US should disband as well as any other large country thta varies geographically. You offered diversity as an insurmountable obstacle. It is rather a terrific blessing to any nation. huge amounts of money have been happily sent East to at least try to balance a little the seasonal nature of much employment there, and now with the cod stock problems...Was it not Stockwell Day, who rather talked about Maritimers' loser mentality by contrast. Diversity of culture and geographical assets is a boon to a nation, not a curse. The ability to trade out various riches was one of the major reasons Quebec embraced confederation and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 10:16:46 GMT -5
Now I see why you question the poll. They didn't ask people who they thought was most tolerant of others, they asked questions to measure the level of tolerance. Quebecers consistently were and are more accepting of and more concerned for their nieghbor down the street. There were dramatic differences across the country. These polls are rather famous in Canada and very widely reported. You can probably find all of them at the macLeans's site.
What you wrote did not clarify anything for me. WHen you say no one wants Quebec to leave the country, which reminds me of one of the most misleading and dishonest questions of recent history, rest assured the separatist group in Quebec and a few intellectually deficient and alienated people in the West do as well.
Rene Levesgue held out for a constitutional veto for Quebec alone, many thought and think that there was no constitutional arrangement that he would have signed. That is definitely my view. And I generally admired rene Levesque while disagreeing with him.
I can make no sense of what you write about blind promises and how Quebec liberals don't understand Quebec. They live there and Quebec has sent liberal governments to Ottaw for mor than a century until relatively recent history, and Bourassa's demise was not over sovereignty as I recall. I challenge your claim that there must actually be something to the separaitist impulse, if by that you mean something substantive.
There is no good reason that comes anywhere near incurring the consequences of the disintegration of Canada. While I can see a certain repugnance for a lot that the ROC stands for and agree with that repugnance at the lack of community and the cruelty of the Mike Harris' of the world for instance, preferring their own more heightened sense of community, I cannot see even the election of a jerk like Stockwell Day as sufficient reason to disband the country. I could certainly understand the temptation however.
While formal trading arrangements will obviously arise, your notion of 4 or 5 little economic groups is a pipedream. Separatists are using the scandal and the results of the inquiry called for quite forthrightly by Martin incidentally, to try to push Quebec out of Canada. The talk of referendum is not idle. Canadians should wake up or they will lose their country. And I am not at all convinced that many Canadians, too many, aren't just prejudiced and stupid enough to let that happen. They might well deserve the Americanized future that awaits them, but I and many others do not. Many wrongly think Canada is a highly centralized federation with huge central powers. Nonsense. Completely inaccurate. The American model is hugely more centralized and invasive. Canads's formation was specifically ordered to allow a huge ammount of provincial autonomy.
A particular beef I have with the mindless Reform Party grouop that runs the so called Conservative party (the one Joe Clark, its' former leader couldn't recognize) is that because the liberal support will just naturally grow as it had already started to following Gomery, they would risk a resurgent Bloc as a fixture in parliament and make deals with them for power. I loathe this and think it treasonous in spirit.
No one of any stature believes Canada would exist if separatists succeed in removing Quebec from Canada, and that is their agenda. It's too obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 11:23:23 GMT -5
Martin called the Gomery Inquiry alright .... but he did it at his leisure. The opposition was calling for the inquiry prior to the last election. The Liberals waited after they were elected again and used the Inquiry as a campaign promise only because the opposition promised it first.
Than this election they want the election in the spring. Why not have it in February as the NDP suggested? I will tell you why, because the Liberals do not want the Gomery Inquiry fresh on the minds of the voters and they would like to spend every cent in their "treasure chest" ... ie yours and my tax dollars and claim it as good government before having to dip into the Liberal party fund.
Dont get me wrong ... I am well aware that you cant trust politicians. But Martin is too blatant in his lies ..... and as of right now I am willing to give Harper a chance. He won't be in there long anyways ..... we will have minority governments lasting a year or so now until someone shows that he is worth keeping in for 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 11:26:11 GMT -5
Was it not Stockwell Day, who rather talked about Maritimers' loser mentality by contrast. He actually said "defeatist attitude". Try to get the quotes right. I said I wasn't going to bite on this .... so *count to ten* ..... hit post ...... serenity now.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 5, 2005 11:34:02 GMT -5
Ok, without typing as much as above: It will be another liberal minority. Calling this election was a total waste of time, effort, and money. No one east of Alberta, or west for that matter, really want Harper. He's transparent. Not enough people want an NDP government, although I think Layton is the best thing to happen to the party in a long time. Martin is no "Liberal", but more Canadians want him in office than any other. By the end of January we'll be in the same position we were before disolution, and it's not entirely bad. With parties having to work together to get things done, and people scratching other's backs, it can benefit Canadians. It can be effective. It can keep them all relatively honest. I'm sure it was not an intended irony with this post in mind that made you choose BetterLuckNextYear as your nom de byte. I think you have nicely encapsulated the situation, a really pointless exercise and colossal waste of energy. Martin and Layton will cut a reasonably ok deal, one reflecting the general Canadian conscience, and we'll all get back to bitching. BetterLuckNextYear was my original handle on Sportsnet's early forums. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 5, 2005 12:17:05 GMT -5
This will be another election that I will not Vote.
Nothing really has changed since the last election, its the same party with the same guest list, and I don't wanna go.
Sure the Liberals are a bunch of crooks, but, so is everyone else, the only difference is that they got caught.
I feel that many Canadians feel the same way I do, confused!! Who do you believe?
The Liberal have screwed everything so badly that it will take years to correct.
The Americans hate us, and believe it or not, we need them more than they need us. We didn't support them in the war in Iraq, which for whatever reason I don't understand. Even Britain was there helping out, our Mother country! We don't have to agree with them, we just need to help out. We didn't need to send troops just supply ships and maybe a "go get em' boys" type of send off. I just don't understand the reasoning on that one.
Missile testing was another mess up. They still won't let our beef across the boarder, and what about our softwood?
How can people expect our country to have any king of growth we we don't even trade with our biggest trading partner?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 12:40:53 GMT -5
Where oh where to begin . . . and end? Conservatives generally don't much believe in government outside of so-called "law and order" issues and "national defence". They tend to resent taxation and view government as an alien intruder, rather than the natural way of mankind creating his life and culture, which is a more liberal view. Boy do I hate the "liberal" and "conservative" tags when it comes to issues. "Liberal" has come to mean openminded and "conservative" closeminded -- wrong, wrong, and more wrong (oops, there's my morality showing). Let's say it is a different view . . . a different perspective of how a country should be run. Or how about if we flip it around: that Liberals tend to believe in taxation and view intervention in private live as acceptable and even necessary (because we don't know anything ourselves, I guess), rather than the natural way of mankind looking out for one another without government intrusion.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 12:41:54 GMT -5
The GST is a regressive tax Franko as from the Wikpedia paste below, "the tax as a percentage of income falls as income rises." They go on to cite income tax as usually progressive. This is consistent with what I was saying about the Reform Party element that runs the so-called Conservative party. Wikipedia? Wikipedia is your best source for rebutting the GST? Wikipedia, the the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? At least quote a reliable financial site -- there are enough of them, some pro-GST and some con-GST. I guess because I'm in a lower income bracket I'd rather see a more equitable share of taxes paid by those who can afford them. An explanation: those in a higher bracket can afford an accountant, someone who knows the Income Tax Act well enough to find loopholes to lower their taxes. Or get their thousands (and more) taxes written off for non-payment. Meanwhile (as an unwritten policy), CRA audits those in the lower-middle and middle income brackets as a matter of course, because it is easier to collect from them. Doesn't happen? My daughter, one year out of university, is audited because she worked as a waitress, and waitresses can't be trusted to report all tips. And this coming year home daycare operators (private and public) will be singled out as possible tax frauds. After all, those who might make $25,000 a year have a lot to be taxed. Meanwhile, Mr. Martin Mr. Martin's sons continue to run Canadian[/us] Steamship Lines out of Bermuda so that they won't have to pay taxes in Canada. But he is a great Canadian and supports our country!
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 12:42:49 GMT -5
The last election and this one will be fought over this too, and anyone who can read knows that the Conservatives have never been committed to our one-tiered, and it is one-tiered, publicly funded system. One reason I'm not in the least happy about having a useless election is that it will interrupt the processes undertaken to set treatment / time requirements. Again, just how committed are the Liberal government and Mr. Martin to a one-tiered system? While there is a huge hue and cry against Alberta talking about private clinics, BC is about to open another one, there are private clinics in Ontario, and Mr. Martin's own doctor operates one! At least the Conservatives are honest about it! Not only that, but there is already privately run medical facilities that many Ontarians use now. GO for a blood test . . . private company paid for by the government. Bone scans? Same. MRI clinic? Can't wait eight months in Ottawa -- go across the bridge and your in in less than a week -- government paid for, of course. If a private company can do something better than the government can, why not let them? In true Liberal fashion, Mr. McGuinty broke an election promise by creating a health tax asking people to pay a health "premium" and throwing money at the problem (and blaming the former government for the need for more money) rather than fixing the problem. Even Mr. Romanov's report suggested the traditional liberal fix of money money money as cure-all. The majority of our tax dollars go to health-care, and it is only going to increase. Without a proper fix of the problem we are going to run into more and more problems. btw, when did more transfer payments come to Ontario for health care?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 12:43:15 GMT -5
And Paul, since I hate to bring a post to a personal level but here goes. You are against abortion and yet the Liberals support that. You are against gay marriages and yet the Liberals support that. So you are not really true to your FUNDAMENTAL MORAL views. You DISMISS them to justify your decision. I won't need to. I'll just suggest that you seem quite inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 12:44:01 GMT -5
A particular beef I have with the mindless Reform Party grouop that runs the so called Conservative party (the one Joe Clark, its' former leader couldn't recognize) is that because the liberal support will just naturally grow as it had already started to following Gomery, they would risk a resurgent Bloc as a fixture in parliament and make deals with them for power. I loathe this and think it treasonous in spirit. Again with the "Reform". You have been utterly brainwashed by Mr. Martin and his minions. I remind you that the Reform Party was disbanded, that the Alliance Party merged with the Progressive Conservative party and are now the Conservative Party. At least be intellectually honest. As to Joe Clark . . . it is sour grapes. He was mad before there was a merger, in that he was kicked out of leadership not once, but twice! He was inept as a leader the first time and allowed Trudeau back into power (opening the door to Mulroney), and he was inept as a leader the second time around, was not able to rally the party as he claimed he could, and so was again pushed aside. He should just join his fellow hypocrites David Orchard and Belinda Stronach and join the Liberals.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 5, 2005 12:54:10 GMT -5
...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc. Why? Frankly by lack of options. Unlike TorontoHAB I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. I can't put back on a government that has no opinion on how to reform the federation. I can't put back on a goverment that has no world wide presence or leadership and that is letting industries like textile and furniture suffocate because of their lack of protection against massive dumping from China or India. The Conservatives continue to completely ignore Quebec up to a point where I wonder if that is not part of their strategy towards ROC. The NDP, as I've said, have lost every bit of credibility in my book when they forced the government to blow millions in order to sleep with them only to back stab them a few months later. The Ontario will probably put back on a government that a majority of provinces don't want. While it seems we have problems in Quebec to get a majority of people with enough cojones to clearly send the message that enough is enough, as Bob Habit's hints, my guess is the West will grow tired of this masquerade of Federation and trigger what should have done decades ago: a break up and a new partnership that does not rely on an uncontrolably huge central government. I can't vote for the Bloc. 1) I don't live in Canada. 2) I still think Canada is a wonderful country with more resources than people and has an excellent future 3) It's like King Solomon cutting the baby in half. Both sides are worse off, even if they win. Politicians are like underware. They have to be changed regularly. It's possible to vote Liberal and send a message, "You made the mess, now you have to clean it up and live with the consequences!" It's possible to vote Bloc and send a message, "I'm pissed off and I'm not going to take it anymore!" It's possible to vote NDP and wear a T-shirt saying "I'm with stupid!" If I had a vote, I would vote Conservative and send a powerful message, "This time do better than Kim Campbell or Brian Mulroney!" Let me know if you want any help with complex voting machines or assistance counting the chad. Good Luck, Bonne Chance.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 5, 2005 13:04:32 GMT -5
It's possible to vote Liberal and send a message, "You made the mess, now you have to clean it up and live with the consequences!" It's possible to vote Bloc and send a message, "I'm pissed off and I'm not going to take it anymore!" It's possible to vote NDP and wear a T-shirt saying "I'm with stupid!" If I had a vote, I would vote Conservative and send a powerful message, "This time do better than Kim Campbell or Brian Mulroney!" LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 13:14:10 GMT -5
And Paul, since I hate to bring a post to a personal level but here goes. You are against abortion and yet the Liberals support that. You are against gay marriages and yet the Liberals support that. So you are not really true to your FUNDAMENTAL MORAL views. You DISMISS them to justify your decision. I won't need to. I'll just suggest that you seem quite inconsistent. The personal level is fine Franko. You are completely reasonable in asking me to account for my supporting the Liberal party when they. like the NDP positively crow about and spread crap on these two issues to which I am utterly opposed. I have a number of other things that are less significant but still important e.g. EI funds gooing to the deficit, and a bunch of other things done badly, wrongly or poorly. When I lived in BC I was a member of the NDP, and was and elected delegate to their convention. I spoke against a motion supportive of abortion, expecting to get stoned, and to my great surprise the motion was defeated. I later resigned form the NDP in a letter to Ed Broadbent citing the fundamental contradicton of claiming to be for social justice while being to cowardly to speak the truth about abortion. He incidentally responded graciously with a hand written note. I can't do a lot on this thought (as I am too wont to do) but you are right to call me on this and demand an account which I will certainly do. There are sizeable numbers of people utterly and irrevocably opposed to the practice abortion in all parties. The seriously misleading phrase "social conservatives' was manufactured dishonestly by libertarian elements to distinguish between the mora issues and the money-focused conservatives. WHen last I rad of the pro-life membership of the US, most members were to the surprise of the President at the time, Democrats. A similar situation is comparable here. Almost all of my friends who oppose abortion are political liberals who share a great number of other concerns, usually for people who needs help. I seriously question the integrity, sincerity and level of concern of the "Moral Majority", which to me seems to use Christianity as a cudgel to be self-righteously wielded on the "godless" as they wait for the rapture. I see a lot of this in the Reform Party faction that holds sway in this "new" Conservative party. I will also respond to your anger that I keep refering to the Reform Party influence. There is no denying it, and it is one of the very worst elements in the Conservative bag of tricks, right up there with corporate toadyism, whidh also afflicts rightish Liberal governments but much less so. Gotta go
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 13:18:01 GMT -5
I see that it was HabsAddict that questionned ? WHOSE ? consistency on abortion. Sorry, I assumed it was and still think it was likely directed to me. Sorry Franko if that is the case. No difference in the response, however.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 13:51:22 GMT -5
I will also respond to your anger that I keep refering to the Reform Party influence. There is no denying it, and it is one of the very worst elements in the Conservative bag of tricks, right up there with corporate toadyism, whidh also afflicts rightish Liberal governments but much less so. Anger? No. Annoyance? Yes. I also was annoyed with teh continual "Trudeau was a communist" schtik that I continually heard when I lived out west. Ya gotta let it go. I'm sure that there are some Reform ideas still floating around in the party, just like there are some Chretien ideas still floating around the Liberal party. The "reform" mantra is nothing more than (and I'll admit, good) election politicking to remind the (generally uninformed) populace how scary the Conservative Party is. I anticipate that if the Liberals actually lose they'll bring down the Conservative government within a year and a half, saying "it had to be done", and pooh-pooh the idea that 2/3 of the people of Canada were sick of elections.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 15:42:38 GMT -5
...Of course, like a great majority of Quebecers, I will vote Bloc. Why? Frankly by lack of options. Unlike TorontoHAB I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. I can't put back on a government that has no opinion on how to reform the federation. I can't put back on a goverment that has no world wide presence or leadership and that is letting industries like textile and furniture suffocate because of their lack of protection against massive dumping from China or India. The Conservatives continue to completely ignore Quebec up to a point where I wonder if that is not part of their strategy towards ROC. The NDP, as I've said, have lost every bit of credibility in my book when they forced the government to blow millions in order to sleep with them only to back stab them a few months later. The Ontario will probably put back on a government that a majority of provinces don't want. While it seems we have problems in Quebec to get a majority of people with enough cojones to clearly send the message that enough is enough, as Bob Habit's hints, my guess is the West will grow tired of this masquerade of Federation and trigger what should have done decades ago: a break up and a new partnership that does not rely on an uncontrolably huge central government. I can't vote for the Bloc. 1) I don't live in Canada. 2) I still think Canada is a wonderful country with more resources than people and has an excellent future 3) It's like King Solomon cutting the baby in half. Both sides are worse off, even if they win. Politicians are like underware. They have to be changed regularly. It's possible to vote Liberal and send a message, "You made the mess, now you have to clean it up and live with the consequences!" It's possible to vote Bloc and send a message, "I'm pissed off and I'm not going to take it anymore!" It's possible to vote NDP and wear a T-shirt saying "I'm with stupid!" If I had a vote, I would vote Conservative and send a powerful message, "This time do better than Kim Campbell or Brian Mulroney!" Let me know if you want any help with complex voting machines or assistance counting the chad. Good Luck, Bonne Chance. Good one HFLA
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 5, 2005 18:35:10 GMT -5
And Paul, since I hate to bring a post to a personal level but here goes. You are against abortion and yet the Liberals support that. You are against gay marriages and yet the Liberals support that. So you are not really true to your FUNDAMENTAL MORAL views. You DISMISS them to justify your decision. I won't need to. I'll just suggest that you seem quite inconsistent. Who's on first, What's on second and I Don't Know is on third.....Shall we do the Abbott and Costello skit? I am not sure to whom you were addressing in that comment. If you were directing it at TorontoHab then he has answered you. If you were directing it at me, then my excuse is that I am old and confused. I am curious, if it was directed at me, how am I inconsistent? Reactive, yes, emotional, yes, Daliesque, yes, but inconsistent? No matter how many unspeakable ways Belinda offers herself to me, I still don't like the Liberals and what the way the conduct themsoelves now. Although...... ......although...... ......if Martin gives me that Shetland pony he promised.....
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 18:40:45 GMT -5
The last election and this one will be fought over this too, and anyone who can read knows that the Conservatives have never been committed to our one-tiered, and it is one-tiered, publicly funded system. One reason I'm not in the least happy about having a useless election is that it will interrupt the processes undertaken to set treatment / time requirements. Again, just how committed are the Liberal government and Mr. Martin to a one-tiered system? While there is a huge hue and cry against Alberta talking about private clinics, BC is about to open another one, there are private clinics in Ontario, and Mr. Martin's own doctor operates one! At least the Conservatives are honest about it! Not only that, but there is already privately run medical facilities that many Ontarians use now. GO for a blood test . . . private company paid for by the government. Bone scans? Same. MRI clinic? Can't wait eight months in Ottawa -- go across the bridge and your in in less than a week -- government paid for, of course. If a private company can do something better than the government can, why not let them? In true Liberal fashion, Mr. McGuinty broke an election promise by creating a health tax asking people to pay a health "premium" and throwing money at the problem (and blaming the former government for the need for more money) rather than fixing the problem. Even Mr. Romanov's report suggested the traditional liberal fix of money money money as cure-all. The majority of our tax dollars go to health-care, and it is only going to increase. Without a proper fix of the problem we are going to run into more and more problems. btw, when did more transfer payments come to Ontario for health care? We have a one-tiered system. Doctors and their clinics are and have always been run privately, like medical labs. This line of argument that the right-wingers and Reformers want who want the US health insurers in, is essentially a lie of theirs assumiong of course that they knew the true to begin with. My brother in law, a Quebec doctor does indeed have his own practice. To suddenly start calling our Nadtional Health Act two-tiered is disingenuous. International comparisons, especially with the monster next door, show that, as occurred in Britain, the introduction of a second tier system worsened the problems of waits and access. The private system in the US, is horribly inefficient, grossly expensive and has dramaticaly higher morbidity rates. But. private medicine, like most conservative inititiatives is about money, not health. That's exactly why Harper who headed one of the most right-wing looney groups in North America --and that ' really saying something-- will never get his hands on the controls, as he pushes Canada to dissolution with his pals from the Bloc. Wake up Canada.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 5, 2005 18:55:22 GMT -5
I just can't convince myslef to put back on a clearly corrupted government who's idea of a political and economical union is something in which you steal from the provinces in order accumulate a treasure that you'll plunder at will on pet projects. Why do you bring it to the Provincial level? Why not the personal level? I pay at 46% taxation rate and half of that lines the Federal coffers and the other half the Provioncial Liberal coffers. When I hear their vote buying spree du jour, it's a slap on the face.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 19:04:22 GMT -5
Most Canadians, two thirds or so, did not in fact think it was time for a change, either electorally or as best I can see from what people are actually saying, constutionally. Most of us, my self inlcuded don't have a particularly deep grasp of constitutional details. We care about our national health plan. We are also concerned about national unity, and given, your inclinations, rightly so. I rather think that our countty runs rather well with all its problems. I don't think we have to have an oil country, a fish country, a pulp, paper and hydro country, a mining country, a wheat country etc. See a fallacy in this? No but Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland needs to have an oil issues addressed, Saskatchewan needs potash concerns addressed, Manitoba and Saskatchewan needs wheat and farming concerns heard, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Quebec need hydro and fisheries concerns dealt with......... We may not be a country depending on one resource .... but we are a collection of regions that is highly dependant on different resources. The fallacy is that Ottawa tries to use blanket policies that handle the concerns right across the country ..... but the concerns of one region are not the same as another even when it comes to the same resource. You may think that I am a Liberal. I am not. On most issues and most certainly NOT on some very fundamental issues, I disagree and sometimes disagree very strongly with this present Liberal government. On most issues and attitudes I do not. Do I think the wheat board perfect, likely not. Do I find our oil policy, whatever it may be perfect, I suspect not: etc.etc.etc You imply that we use the same policy blanket for oil and wheat. I doubt it. And I do remember that you guys DID have to fight to get what you wanted. Martin under Chretien, for whom I have a lot of time as well, and who was the most popular PM in Canadian history or close to it as I recall, is internationally and nationally credited with having rescued the Canadian economy. Today we have one of the stablest of Western democracies. I believe Franko called this luck. Right. If things in all areas are such a mess, why are we ranked so highly as a nation? Incidentally. our level of corruption in comparison to some 150 or so nations is internationally considered to be very low, and the corruption index is not just about governments. I believe we are at the lowest level of unemployment in the last 3o or 40 years and today Buzz Hargrove explained his support of the Liberals on two grounds. One, the bloc stands to pick up 15 or so seats in Quebec. With a Conservative minority, they would hold the balance of power. Therefore, THEY would hold the key to the next election and hold the right-wingers over the fire to further the break-up of Canada. Also, Buzz said, the Liberal support for industtry has been terrific, and Harper had told him they would do nothing to protect CAW jobs, but leave things to the market. He has no sense the situation of Canada. The market is controlled largely by the US in the interests of the US. Harper is clueless. To put right wing Conservatives in power he argued threatens two things, your job and your country and you'd have to be crazy to put that on the line. And for what? A regressive tax.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 19:17:56 GMT -5
The GST is a regressive tax Franko as from the Wikpedia paste below, "the tax as a percentage of income falls as income rises." They go on to cite income tax as usually progressive. This is consistent with what I was saying about the Reform Party element that runs the so-called Conservative party. Wikipedia? Wikipedia is your best source for rebutting the GST? Wikipedia, the the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? At least quote a reliable financial site -- there are enough of them, some pro-GST and some con-GST. I guess because I'm in a lower income bracket I'd rather see a more equitable share of taxes paid by those who can afford them. An explanation: those in a higher bracket can afford an accountant, someone who knows the Income Tax Act well enough to find loopholes to lower their taxes. Or get their thousands (and more) taxes written off for non-payment. Meanwhile (as an unwritten policy), CRA audits those in the lower-middle and middle income brackets as a matter of course, because it is easier to collect from them. Doesn't happen? My daughter, one year out of university, is audited because she worked as a waitress, and waitresses can't be trusted to report all tips. And this coming year home daycare operators (private and public) will be singled out as possible tax frauds. After all, those who might make $25,000 a year have a lot to be taxed. Meanwhile, Mr. Martin Mr. Martin's sons continue to run Canadian[/us] Steamship Lines out of Bermuda so that they won't have to pay taxes in Canada. But he is a great Canadian and supports our country!Hey. Franko. You challenged my use of the word "regressive". It is. I politely brought it to your attention and now you don't like that Wikpedia had a nicely brief treatment ot the matter. These are basic and undisputed terms, the jargon of the industry. It's still correct, so why not just apologize and move on. I would suspect that there is some truth to what you say about lower middle-class workers, especially in cash access jobs. I know they think we're losing billions in the renovation industry through tax cheats, and I suspect they're right about that too. I also think that without industry specific auditing an enormous amount of people woud lie and cheat. don't you? Did they not do exactly the same thing at Revenue Canada during the Mulroney years, or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2005 19:32:46 GMT -5
Martin called the Gomery Inquiry alright .... but he did it at his leisure. The opposition was calling for the inquiry prior to the last election. The Liberals waited after they were elected again and used the Inquiry as a campaign promise only because the opposition promised it first. Than this election they want the election in the spring. Why not have it in February as the NDP suggested? I will tell you why, because the Liberals do not want the Gomery Inquiry fresh on the minds of the voters and they would like to spend every cent in their "treasure chest" ... ie yours and my tax dollars and claim it as good government before having to dip into the Liberal party fund. Dont get me wrong ... I am well aware that you cant trust politicians. But Martin is too blatant in his lies ..... and as of right now I am willing to give Harper a chance. He won't be in there long anyways ..... we will have minority governments lasting a year or so now until someone shows that he is worth keeping in for 4 years. Skilly. Martin called the inquiry. He needn't have and you would have absolutely nothing to talk about today. It would be ancient news. Even Chretien himself called for an investigation and charges as necessary. Like it, don't like it, whatever. Many or most would have let the sleeping dog lie. He didn't. And he didn't have to. Martin promised an election call within ONE MONTH OF THE INQUIRY REPORT. The other guys ignored two/thirds of Canadians and forced an election becasue the liberals were heading back upo in the polls. Right, and Harper's not out there promissing us money every day this week. Give me a break. I don't share your view of politicians. many or most get into it for the best of possible reasons, work and think very hard about how to make everyone's life better, and have to put up with an incredibe number of morons from the press, to the idiot on the street and the big hand of big money. I have found that liberals historically have withstood these pressures better in most instances. So obviously have more Canadians. Now we might be as dumb as you suggest, but I'd like to see some more compelling evidence and more viable alternative. Preferably one that won't advance the break-up of Canada or an illegal phony war in the Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 20:20:11 GMT -5
The GST is a regressive tax Franko as from the Wikpedia paste below, "the tax as a percentage of income falls as income rises." They go on to cite income tax as usually progressive. This is consistent with what I was saying about the Reform Party element that runs the so-called Conservative party. Wikipedia? Wikipedia is your best source for rebutting the GST? Wikipedia, the the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? At least quote a reliable financial site -- there are enough of them, some pro-GST and some con-GST. I guess because I'm in a lower income bracket I'd rather see a more equitable share of taxes paid by those who can afford them. An explanation: those in a higher bracket can afford an accountant, someone who knows the Income Tax Act well enough to find loopholes to lower their taxes. Or get their thousands (and more) taxes written off for non-payment. Meanwhile (as an unwritten policy), CRA audits those in the lower-middle and middle income brackets as a matter of course, because it is easier to collect from them. Doesn't happen? My daughter, one year out of university, is audited because she worked as a waitress, and waitresses can't be trusted to report all tips. And this coming year home daycare operators (private and public) will be singled out as possible tax frauds. After all, those who might make $25,000 a year have a lot to be taxed. Meanwhile, Mr. Martin Mr. Martin's sons continue to run Canadian[/us] Steamship Lines out of Bermuda so that they won't have to pay taxes in Canada. But he is a great Canadian and supports our country!Thanks franko..... *wipes tear from my eye* ...for bringing back all those memories that my therapist helped me deal with. I am in the middle income bracket and had to fork over $5500 dollars in taxes last April ...... I don't have an account and Revenue Canada is no help at all in helping the common man find those loopholes ..... *I am going to have a good cry now*
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 20:36:21 GMT -5
And Paul, since I won't need to. I'll just suggest that you seem quite inconsistent. I am not sure to whom you were addressing in that comment. If you were directing it at TorontoHab then he has answered you. If you were directing it at me, then my excuse is that I am old and confused. I was addressing the fact that you had already addressed THab's inconsistencies. Don't worry about your senility: by the time someone replies to you about it you've forgotten what they wre talking about.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2005 20:42:00 GMT -5
Wikipedia? Wikipedia is your best source for rebutting the GST? Wikipedia, the the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? At least quote a reliable financial site -- there are enough of them, some pro-GST and some con-GST. Hey. Franko. You challenged my use of the word "regressive". It is. I politely brought it to your attention and now you don't like that Wikpedia had a nicely brief treatment ot the matter. These are basic and undisputed terms, the jargon of the industry. It's still correct, so why not just apologize and move on. It is correct as per someone who wrote the opinion piece for Wikipedia. "Regressive tax" has been and is debated by others. That's all. Some truth? You missed the point -- the rules of tax engagmenet favour those with money to buy an accountant and find the legals ways of cheating not paying taxes. Again, like our wonderful Mr. Canada, the right honourable Prime Minister, whose company is registered out of country so he doesn't have to pay. No denying that they did -- it's what CRA does best -- go after the little guy and leave the ones with money and lawyers alone.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 20:50:37 GMT -5
Martin under Chretien, for whom I have a lot of time as well, and who was the most popular PM in Canadian history or close to it as I recall, is internationally and nationally credited with having rescued the Canadian economy. Today we have one of the stablest of Western democracies. I believe Franko called this luck. Right. My purpose in this debate is not to convince anyone to vote for one party or the other .... but to analyze people's thought patterns and impressions to better enhance my own views on the subject. However, I am at a lose as to why you clearly ignore historical facts. Do you know why we have a good Canadian economy today? Chretien and Martin had nothing to do with it. We have a good Canadian economy because the GST was left in place to the point of being grossly onerous on the canadian taxpayer. Chretien and Martin got voted in because they were against this tax ..... they however saw the benefit of this Conservative policy and refused to keep their promise to remove it. When compared to the economic powerhouses of Columbia and Somalia ... yes we are angels. I believe in the corruption index we ranked 14th. Second out of the G8 countries. But we always knew we weren't as bad as the France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, or the USA. But still a ways to go before we are the moral fibre of the world. I believe it is around 6.4%. So we all pay EI, roughly $770 dollars a year, to support 6.4%. I agree with the principle, but again it is the implementation that is baffling. If 93.6% are paying inot it without drawing anything out .... than it doesn't take an accountant or an economist (which incidentally is Harper's vocation) to realize that we are taxed way too much there as well ..... The high EI premiums and the GST are stocking the provincial coffers so they can waste it away on gun-registry, continual bleeding of money into health care, sponsorships....... all they have done to me is shown me they dont know how to handle all that money. Call me crazy then ..... but it is a regressive tax that your Liberals want to keep.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2005 21:01:21 GMT -5
Skilly. Martin called the inquiry. He needn't have and you would have absolutely nothing to talk about today. It would be ancient news. Even Chretien himself called for an investigation and charges as necessary. Like it, don't like it, whatever. Many or most would have let the sleeping dog lie. He didn't. And he didn't have to. Martin promised an election call within ONE MONTH OF THE INQUIRY REPORT. The other guys ignored two/thirds of Canadians and forced an election becasue the liberals were heading back upo in the polls. Right, and Harper's not out there promissing us money every day this week. Give me a break. I don't share your view of politicians. many or most get into it for the best of possible reasons, work and think very hard about how to make everyone's life better, and have to put up with an incredibe number of morons from the press, to the idiot on the street and the big hand of big money. I have found that liberals historically have withstood these pressures better in most instances. So obviously have more Canadians. Now we might be as dumb as you suggest, but I'd like to see some more compelling evidence and more viable alternative. Preferably one that won't advance the break-up of Canada or an illegal phony war in the Iraq. He absolutely had to call the inquiry. The opposition and the Auditor General lambasted the government. The inquiry had to be called to clear the Liberal name .... errr the Paul Martin name. (Is he that incompetent as a finance minister that he really did not know that all that money was being spent ?) Martin promised to call an election one month after the Gomery report. True ...... but lets look atthat a bit further. In Canada an election can not be held until a minimum of 36 days after dissolution of Parliament. So by calling a federal election one month after the Gomery report the earliest we could have went to the polls is April 7th. (around there) And that's minimum .... because a prime minister can put whatever timetable he wants on a election campaign. Martin could have easily said no election until the September 14th and still kept his promise to call an election one month after Gomery's report. . The opposition was not going to trust him since he did not set a specific date. And why wait so long after the Gomery report? Well lets look at history. When the auditor general released her report the Conservative support shot through the roof and then slowly came down after a month. Then when Gomery released his first report, the support for the Conservatives was one or two points ahead of the Liberals ... then faded again after a month. Martin was playing political games waiting for the Gomery reaction to die down with his false promise. If he truly cared about the Gomery report he would have accepted the NDP proposal to have a February election.
|
|