Liberal Majority or Minority?

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

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 because the liberals were heading back up in the polls. Right, and Harper's not out there promising 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 incredible 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 .... error 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 at that 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.

Skilly..I work form memory most of the time. Didn't Chretien call in the RCMP or the initial audit or something on this one?

The sponsorship program, which I thought was a fairly good idea, as I recall . ran out of the PMO, not the finance ministry. Martin and cabinet ministers as was found by Gomery, would not ordinarily have ANYTHING to do with it. To hold Martin, who I'm not crazy about incidentally, accountable, is at best very highly speculative in that Chretien and he weren't talking any more than necessary at the time, and at worst , a gratuitous slander, as castigating him for having a foreign -registered fleet may not be. I say may, because it is I gather a common practice in a very pressured industry with as I again believe I recall, an awful lot of oversupply in tankers.

I believe Martin is a highly competent man with a pretty intelligent and nuanced perspective on Canada. He's a little too right of centre for me, but I vote on as big a picture as I can see, or believe I see.

Chretien, I've heard and it wouldn't surprise me, would NEVER have called the inquiry. He would have taken the heat, and allowed the audit thing to putter on in the background, and not cripple the government for months. If that would have arrived at the truth of the matter, ie, the RCMP and normal channels, then that MAY have been better for the country.

If not then it was good that he called it. For people to use this as a platform to hurl abuse at a lot of completely innocent people is unconscionable.

Thirty days after the report wasn't even necessary. Like 2/3rds of the country, tell me again why I'm having another bloody election in 17 mos??? Only so the Conservatives can try to ride the unhapopiness of this sideshow to victory, because when the fart clears the room, people will be realizing that the liberals who have pessed me off royally, are providing good government in many areas despite the absurdity of homosexual "marriage".

Of course, Martin would seek to mitigate the damage, the noise of Gomery, but he wouldn't use it and risk the future of Canada to get a feeble chance at election with the Bloc another party which people are perhaps crazy enough to support. The self-seeking jerks are doing just that with my country and I resent it deeply. That is a far worse offence than overcharging ad agencies and jobs for politicos.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

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.

I didn't use quotes.

defeatist attitude = loser mentality

Substance please, we can strain the gnats later.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Where oh where to begin . . . and end?

toronthab said:

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.

I share your unhappiness to a large extent. Liberal, really has come to be libertarian in many aspects, a convenient hook for a rather perverse me-ism a lot like what I don't like about money condervatives, but in the Libera party.

[Toronthab]

polarice said:

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?

Vote or don't complain. If you really don't know what to do, then maybe don't, but stop the slandering of MP's. Lots of them could do better in private life. You have no basis for these attitudes, rather have you caught the disease of cynicism. It's a soul killer. Be skeptical: that's healthy, but the anti-democratic sentiment concerning things of the human community and public service in politics ia unhealthy fpr you and your community. Don't be duped into it. What do you want for Canada beyond Olympic Gold and a Montreal Stanley Cup? (Vote Liberal if you want to increase the chances of their being a team Canada)

How about unemployed and elderly people? They are easily ignored, maybe vote for someone who will but rubber on the road for that. Do something positive and ignore cynics. What does a cynic offer? Only a regress into selfishness. A grubby little lilfe.

Vote--and test bombs elsewhere.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

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.

I suppose a little slinging is unavoidable in such a forum , but "intellectually dishonest"??

Where have you been or are you jsut desperate to paint over the view. SEVERAL true conservatives as I recall along with the Honorable Joe Clark, onetime Conservative prime minsiter of Canada and leader of the conservative party.

How many other people viewing the "unite the right" parade to palookaville in and outside the party saw it as a simple takeover and betrayal by McKay who later even got dumped by Belinda Airhead the new Liberal minister.(Choke!)

Intellectual dishonesty??

I mention the core Alberta redneck right wing, Reform Party, commie fearing, populist, ignorant, dukes of haphazard because that is tin fact he political base of Harper, the emotionally challenged, dysfunctiopnal, puritanical corporate sled-dog love child of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day conceived on the back of a SeaDoo sinking in the sea of rationality, not because the media feeds him that way, but because he IS that way. It is dishonest to remove the history from a man or a party. Pshaww!

[Skilly]

toronthab said:

Skilly..I work form memory most of the time. Didn't Chretien call in the RCMP or the initial audit or something on this one?

The sponsorship program, which I thought was a fairly good idea, as I recall . ran out of the PMO, not the finance ministry. Martin and cabinet ministers as was found by Gomery, would not ordinarily have ANYTHING to do with it. To hold Martin, who I'm not crazy about incidentally, accountable, is at best very highly speculative in that Chretien and he weren't talking any more than necessary at the time, and at worst , a gratuitous slander, as castigating him for having a foreign -registered fleet may not be. I say may, because it is I gather a common practice in a very pressured industry with as I again believe I recall, an awful lot of oversupply in tankers.

I believe Martin is a highly competent man with a pretty intelligent and nuanced perspective on Canada. He's a little too right of centre for me, but I vote on as big a picture as I can see, or believe I see.

Chretien, I've heard and it wouldn't surprise me, would NEVER have called the inquiry. He would have taken the heat, and allowed the audit thing to putter on in the background, and not cripple the government for months. If that would have arrived at the truth of the matter, ie, the RCMP and normal channels, then that MAY have been better for the country.

If not then it was good that he called it. For people to use this as a platform to hurl abuse at a lot of completely innocent people is unconscionable.

Thirty days after the report wasn't even necessary. Like 2/3rds of the country, tell me again why I'm having another bloody election in 17 mos??? Only so the Conservatives can try to ride the unhapopiness of this sideshow to victory, because when the fart clears the room, people will be realizing that the liberals who have pessed me off royally, are providing good government in many areas despite the absurdity of homosexual "marriage".

Of course, Martin would seek to mitigate the damage, the noise of Gomery, but he wouldn't use it and risk the future of Canada to get a feeble chance at election with the Bloc another party which people are perhaps crazy enough to support. The self-seeking jerks are doing just that with my country and I resent it deeply. That is a far worse offence than overcharging ad agencies and jobs for politicos.

The finances of a country are not that different from updating your own cheque book or finances. You take the money you earn subtract the money you owe and you either have a deficit or a surplus.

Paul Martin had to give a budget update every year. He had to be aware of what money was going where to give an accounting of the books. Yes, the sponsorship program was run from the PMO, but where do you think the PMO got the money for the program? The money tree out in the backyard of 24 Sussex Drive? No. They got the money from the federal coffers, the federal treasury board which comes under the Department of Finance, the depaertment run by Paul Martin. Even the Prime Minister can't take money out with the approval and an accounting by the Finance Department. Unless you are accusing someone hear of fraud and theft .... which could very well be slanderous.

Why are we having an election after 17 months? Because the government is perceived to be dishonest. If the electorate likes dishonest governments they will get in again. But ask me that question again in 17 months time .... cause you better get used to having elections every 2 years or less. Wonder if you'll be so upset if the Liberals will be toppling a Conservative minority in 17 months from now?

[Skilly]

toronthab said:

skilly said:

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.

I didn't use quotes.

defeatist attitude = loser mentality

Substance please, we can strain the gnats later.

They are apples and oranges. I didn't want to get into this aspect of your post. However if you insist.

Manning and Harper (both have used similar statements) were referring to the alledged mentality that Easterners consider themselves defeated before they start. They therefore rely on EI to get by, and this attitude prevents them from getting out of the hole they put themselves in. They didn't say it the right way .... but they meant that the east had the potential to thrive but the mentality is not there.

You paraphrased the quote with your own views. They never called the east "losers" - that is your word. Typically, paraphrasing is slanted with personal undertones and emotions. This is why I asked you to get the quotes right .... whether you consider Easterners losers or not I don't really care .... but I when I read your post I knew which way your personal view was leaning because you never took the time to research the quote or even write a disclaimer.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

toronthab said:

Vote--and test bombs elsewhere.

Or bomb (and kidnap and murder) as the FLQ did in Montreal, and vote later. Terrorism and the fear resulting from it can be a potent political tool.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

toronthab said:

Vote--and test bombs elsewhere.

Or bomb (and kidnap and murder) as the FLQ did in Montreal, and vote later. Terrorism and the fear resulting from it can be a potent political tool.

I'd have to agree. I remember being warned against mailboxes in Montreal as a really young kid. 27 killed by 2 women in Iraq today. They were police recruits and not searched for body bombs. I cannot even imagine the daily impossible horror of that illegally invaded country.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

I didn't use quotes.

defeatist attitude = loser mentality

Substance please, we can strain the gnats later.

They are apples and oranges. I didn't want to get into this aspect of your post. However if you insist.

Manning and Harper (both have used similar statements) were referring to the alledged mentality that Easterners consider themselves defeated before they start. They therefore rely on EI to get by, and this attitude prevents them from getting out of the hole they put themselves in. They didn't say it the right way .... but they meant that the east had the potential to thrive but the mentality is not there.

You paraphrased the quote with your own views. They never called the east "losers" - that is your word. Typically, paraphrasing is slanted with personal undertones and emotions. This is why I asked you to get the quotes right .... whether you consider Easterners losers or not I don't really care .... but I when I read your post I knew which way your personal view was leaning because you never took the time to research the quote or even write a disclaimer.

Defeatist attitudes toward life to the right wing are indeed and they say it all the time, loser mentality. It is a legitimate paraphrase and that is exactly why Eastern Canadians found it as startlingly offensive as I did.

Character flaw economics has been used by the right to justify institutionalized poverty throughout history.

You are absolutely right that I am ordinarily not going to seek out every exact utterance on this board. I'm not righting a scholarly historical treatise.

Stockwell Day's remarks were deeply offensive, incidentally and unintentionally almost perfectly definining the term "moralistic". I caught that flavour just fine in a legitimate paraphrase. I repeat: that's why it was received as it was .

Parizeau is often paraphrased for his intemporate remarks as well. Oh, and for the record, I'm not a right wing reform supporter and mentionned his remarks in what I hope would be obviously taken given all context in a highly critical manner. I too was offended by his absurd slur.

[BadCompany]

I think I’ve figured out the Conservative strategy. Don’t necessarily agree with it, but I think I’ve figured it out. Everybody is wondering why they are forcing an election now, when they have little chance of winning anything more than a minority government, well, here is what I think they (should) be doing.

They’re going for the outright win. They won’t get it, but that’s okay. They need 55 seats, give or take, to form a majority. They’re going to ignore Quebec (for now), and concentrate on Ontario. They’ll put in just enough effort in the Maritimes to maintain the seats they have, and if they win a couple extra, then bonus. If they can swing 35-40 seats in Ontario their way, and if the Liberals lose another 5-10 to the Bloc, they’ll form a minority government, and that’s fine. Even if they don't form the next government, that's fine too, they can force another election next year, and that's fine too.

For the Conservatives anyways, not so much for Stephen Harper.

If I were the king behind the throne of the Conservative party, as soon as the Conservatives form a minority government, or certainly if they DON'T form a minority government, I’d force Harper to resign. Say something like “I’ve had multiple chances at forming a majority government, and I’ve failed, its time to move aside for the good of the party, and the country.” Sucks to be him, but politics isn’t about being nice.

I’d then have a protracted, drawn-out leadership campaign. Minimum 3 months, if they’re really clever, draw it out to 6 months. Sure, nothing gets done, and the country isn’t being run, but the country isn’t being run now anyways. 6 months buys the Conservatives time to shore up their power base in Ontario, and to start making in-roads to Quebec. The leadership contest will be between Peter Mackay, and Bernard Lord. It would have been nice to have Belinda Stronach in there as well, but Harper blew that one big time. Not because I think Stronach would make a good leader, but she’s easy on the eyes, and that’s always good for PR. Mackay, Stronach and Lord in a leadership contest would have been the sexiest, most interesting leadership campaign in recent memory, and that’s great for the Conservative party.

This is where its dicey. You don’t want your government to fall before you’ve elected a new leader, and those wacky Liberals, you never know what they’ll do. But you need to hang on until the new leader is elected. Then, let the Liberals topple your government, if they are dumb enough to do so. Heck, call your own election, just for fun. This would be around next November, about a year before the PQ sweep Jean Charest and the provincial Liberals out of power. You don’t want to have both the PQ and the Bloc running for election at the same time, that’s just too much press for the separatists. You want to space that out. But you don’t want Quebec to have a provincial election before another federal election, because you need to cut into the Bloc’s hold in Quebec. Even if its only 5-10 seats, the Conservatives need a presence there, to have any sense of legitimacy in the next referendum. So you force an election next November, even though you’re gambling that you might lose the hold on power you already have. But with Mackay as leader, and Lord luring star candidates to Quebec, I think the Conservatives win a majority. They’ll pick up 35-40 more seats in Ontario, 5-10 in Quebec, and a few more throughout the country. It’ll be a very, very small majority, but they can then bribe a few more Bloc MPs to switch houses, with power offers. As a bonus, by cutting into the Bloc’s support in Quebec, they weaken the separatist hold, and maybe, perhaps, conceivably, win the next referendum, and save the country.

It’s a dangerous game of brinkmanship, but it just might work. But they have to dump Harper.

[Skilly]

A recent poll in Newfoundland suggests that the Liberals will win all 7 seats here. I am still going to stick by my prediction that the Liberals get 4 and the Conservatives get 3.

I was thinking who would be best suited to lead the Conservative party the other day. Who ever loses this election, Martin or Harper, will be ousted from the party. And I agree with BC that even with a small minority that Harper's job may still be in jeopardy. So who is left to lead the conservatives? McKay and Lord are the obvious choices. I'd rather Lord than MacKay though ... MacKay has to be duck-taped much like Klein does. The only other candidate I could come up with was ...... Jean Charest. Not sure if he is liked or not in Quebec, but he used to be a PC and quite possibly could pull it off.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Switch sides once and you may be allowed to dodge traffic while getting to the other side. Switch twice and you'll likely get run over.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Duceppe dismisses Martin's warning of 'referendum election'
Last Updated Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:44:50 EST
CBC News

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says Liberal Leader Paul Martin was being ridiculous when he said that, in Quebec, the Jan. 23 election would essentially be a referendum on sovereignty.

Duceppe mocked Martin while speaking Sunday to about 600 Bloc delegates at a special meeting in Longueuil, Que.

Duceppe said that if Martin were correct and if the Bloc were to win the majority of parliamentary seats in Quebec, it would force sovereignty negotiations to begin with the federalist government of Liberal Premier Jean Charest.

The Bloc leader said the election was a kind of referendum – but on a difference question: "Do you want to get rid of Paul Martin's Liberals, yes or no?"

"We're not deciding sovereignty," Duceppe later told reporters. "It's a federal election, Paul Martin should know that."

He was responding to comments made a few days earlier by Martin, who called it a "referendum election."

The Liberals have been trying to capitalize on some Quebecers' fears that a vote for the Bloc would necessarily be a vote for sovereignty.

"The election in Quebec is between ourselves and the Bloc," Martin said on Dec. 2.

"Yesterday, [Parti Québécois Leader] André Boisclair and Gilles Duceppe made it very clear that it is their intention to rip Canada apart, to pit Quebec family against Quebec family. That's not in anybody's interest."

Quebec, where Bloc MPs hold 53 of 75 seats, is seen as a key battle in the campaign. It's where public outrage over the federal sponsorship program scandal has climbed highest, with a resulting plunge in support for the Liberals.

"A lot of federalists in Quebec, people who support a federalism that respects Quebec, feel very uncomfortable supporting the Liberals, who have damaged federalism more than any political party in recent memory," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper predicted Martin's comments would only undermine federalists like Charest.

"We have a federalist government in Quebec, the most federalist prime minister in my lifetime," Harper said. "He wants to make Canada work."

Charest has stayed out of the federal campaign so far. But the federal separatist party has been getting shows of support from provincial political figures, including former PQ leader Bernard Landry.

Boisclair had already shown up at a couple of events and was side-by-side with Duceppe on Sunday.

"They are trying to build a momentum and quite frankly they are trying to surf on Gilles Duceppe's popularity," Vincent Marissal, of Montreal's La Presse newspaper, told CBC News Sunday.

- www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/04/election-bloc-051204.html

[Skilly]

mrbozo said:

Switch sides once and you may be allowed to dodge traffic while getting to the other side. Switch twice and you'll likely get run over.

Yeah I figure as much also ...... but who else?. It can't be a Westerner, and an Easterner would have an uphill climb (although Lord would have the best shot) .... so who in Quebec do Quebecers trust that leans to the right and not a member of the PQ?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

skilly said:

mrbozo said:

Switch sides once and you may be allowed to dodge traffic while getting to the other side. Switch twice and you'll likely get run over.

Yeah I figure as much also ...... but who else?. It can't be a Westerner, and an Easterner would have an uphill climb (although Lord would have the best shot) .... so who in Quebec do Quebecers trust that leans to the right and not a member of the PQ?

Good Lord, will we have our very own St-Bernard?

A right-wing federalist with popular support in Québec? Such a creature does not exist.

The moribund system will grind its gears as it has done for decades, and the populace will remain alternately apoplectic and apathetic. It seems that one can even become inured to the stink of dead meat.

We need an American television network to venture north and begin shooting a pseudo-reality show along the lines of "The Great Canadian Political Makeover". Watch the ratings soar! Watch Bush reach for his gun! Watch the people stay home and watch TV!

[Doc Holliday]

skilly said:

Not sure if he is liked or not in Quebec, but he used to be a PC and quite possibly could pull it off.

The following should answer you question:

mrbozo said:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper predicted Martin's comments would only undermine federalists like Charest.

"We have a federalist government in Quebec, the most federalist prime minister in my lifetime," Harper said. "He wants to make Canada work."

Charest's current popularity is the lowest that's been seen in ages. I wouldn't be surprised if the Quebec Liberals don't even make it as official opposition in the next election.

Duceppe said, this is not a referendum, it's a Federal election...

...but Federalists have no more cards to play and Duceppe knows it.

If the PQ grabs the power in Quebec in the next Provincial, a referendum will quickly follow. It is out of context I know, but I ask anyway just who , from the Federal side, will have a minimum of credibility to talk to Quebecers and convince them that they have their best interest at hearth...

<crickets>
<crickets>

[razor]

One of the many reasons I will not vote Liberal.

www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030401_csl/introduction.html

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Conservative website ranks last

For blog readers who do fit into the "tech savvy" stereotype, Michael Watkins offers technical critiques of the parties' official websites. Himself a Conservative, he blasts the party's website for its dependence on Flash, its lack of accessibility for blind users and lack of security.

In fact, as Michael points out, if you attempt to donate money to the CPC, the site will tell you the site is secure when it's not. Your credit card information will go over an insecure web connection.

"There are no excuses for this lack of care," writes Michael.

- www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/blogreport.html#dec01

*

Who can you trust with your money?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

docholliday said:

If the PQ grabs the power in Quebec in the next Provincial, a referendum will quickly follow. It is out of context I know, but I ask anyway just who , from the Federal side, will have a minimum of credibility to talk to Quebecers and convince them that they have their best interest at hearth...

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were. - Richard Bach

[Toronthab]

razor said:

One of the many reasons I will not vote Liberal.

www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030401_csl/introduction.html

A good and informative post on CSL and world shipping. The professor studying world shipping confirms that western democracies can no longer afford to be in the shipping game. And don't we, myself included drink (lots) of coffee, and eat from crops picked by migrant workers and seldom ask who is really paying the price of our comforts? Swetshops undrlie NIKE's swoosh and WalMart closes Quebec stores on the ballsy Quebec workers. The businessmen did not rush to their defence.

As was pointed out. businessmen don't care ordinarily. So we? we should support internaitonal labbour agreements through the united nations. We then have only to agree to pay more for our goods and services in the interests of justice.

On the political note, voting for laissez-faire capitalists is being part of the problem. It won't change if we don't. It is the labour movement, the NDP and Liberals who are generally supportive of worker's rights, and that's another reason why I tend to identify, at least in my imagination with the left wing of the liberal spectrum and not, incidentally, Martin's. It's also one of the key area why I have nerver voted for and likely never will vote for right wing parties, like the one Harper leads.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

Switch sides once and you may be allowed to dodge traffic while getting to the other side. Switch twice and you'll likely get run over.

Thump.

[Cranky]

franko said:

toronthab said:

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!

There are no loopholes and it's not that easy to cheat on your taxes unless you receive cash for your services/products. There are ways to structure companies to lessen the tax burden but in the end, legitimate businesses ALWAYS pay their taxes......to a greater or lesser degree.

Here is an example from memory...

If you have a company that makes less then $200,000 profit, you are taxed at 22%. So if you have an arms length company, or reason to have a company, you pay pay rent/services to it. If you are in manufacturing, one company own the building, another own the equipment and a third one can be the manufacturing/sales arm. If any of them earn less then $200,000 then they pay the 22% tax rate. Above that, 43% corporate tax rate.

There's more......

Before some one says that a small companies "only" pays 22% corporate tax for an enormous sum of profit, well that's not true. A company is a separate entity so the owner can not legally pocket that money. If he wants to pocket the profits, then he has to pay ADDITIONAL personal taxes. Thus if he is a high bracket earner, he pays 46% on TOP of the 22% corporate tax. Otherwise the owner can strip the company profits as a bonus and pay personal taxes (46%) on the entire lot.

Sooo...what am I getting to.

Small and medium businesses and owners that play by the rules are heavily taxed and are far from getting a free ride on the backs of the "poor". The "legitimate" cheating/stealing comes when companies that are large enough to be multinationals.

Here is how it works.....

Company A who is registered outside Canada buys/manufactures the widgets for $1.00. It then sells the widgets to to Company B that is IN Canada for $10. Company B then sells that product for $11, or just enough to cover their expenses. All the companies are owned by the same person/group/conglomerate. All the profits stay offshore while the company that we see "struggles" to survive. It is not illegal if the company is at arms length. It just happens that the arm are only long enough to avoid taxes..

Martin company is a PRIME example of how to cheat on taxes. He can distance himself all he wants but the reality of the situation is that his SONS are not going to be paying Candian taxes.

Soooo......

The very rich and multinationals have built in ways to avoid paying taxes. So do people who work for cash. It would be hypocritical to say that a person who "only" earns an extra $100 cash should not be targeted for audit. Sure, they are not earning enough money to buy a Ferrari but where does one draw the line. If it's "only" $100, then why not a $1,000? Why not $10,000? Why differentiate on the degree of tax avoidance? Cheating is cheating.

Let's not forget one reality. If everyone decided tomorrow not to pay taxes, then the goverment could not do anything about it. In fact, no one is cheating if all decided not to pay. The only reason people pay their taxes is because they FEAR the penalties on not paying.....on the other hand, the very rich and multinationals fear no one.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

There are no loopholes

Wrong word, perhaps . . . there are ways to lessen your taxes is you know how. Some are more legitimate than others.

Small and medium businesses and owners that play by the rules are heavily taxed and are far from getting a free ride on the backs of the "poor". The "legitimate" cheating/stealing comes when companies that are large enough to be multinationals.

Actually (and obviously I wasn't clear about it) I was referring not to small and medium sized companies but to individuals who . . . let's say . . . make quite a bit more than the national average.

The very rich and multinationals have built in ways to avoid paying taxes. So do people who work for cash. It would be hypocritical to say that a person who "only" earns an extra $100 cash should not be targeted for audit. Sure, they are not earning enough money to buy a Ferrari but where does one draw the line. If it's "only" $100, then why not a $1,000? Why not $10,000? Why differentiate on the degree of tax avoidance? Cheating is cheating.

Agreed -- cheating is cheating. But CRA has decided that it is easier to go after the little guy than the bigger guy. It is easier to go after my daughter and check up on her three years in a row than it is to look at someone who makes 10 or 50 times as much as her. She'll bag and moan about the assessment but pay; the one with mega-bucks will call his phalanx of accountants in and drag things out long enough that he might agree to pay a minute portion of what he should have paid in the first place.

the very rich and multinationals fear no one.

And that . . . is that.

[Cranky]

franko said:

Agreed -- cheating is cheating. But CRA has decided that it is easier to go after the little guy than the bigger guy. It is easier to go after my daughter and check up on her three years in a row than it is to look at someone who makes 10 or 50 times as much as her. She'll bag and moan about the assessment but pay; the one with mega-bucks will call his phalanx of accountants in and drag things out long enough that he might agree to pay a minute portion of what he should have paid in the first place.

.

I am sure that you that they are going after her because she works in a cash business. The intent is two fold. Collect and deter. Collect what THEY think is fair and make sure that she id detered from any "cheating". The first part will aggravate and the second part just makes people more determined and crafty.

As for going after businesses. They DO! If you do any business with companies/trades that deal in cash, then you get audited to death. Furniture companies, smaller kitchen companies, thong retailers, in fact, any company that has the potential to deal in cash is a target.

As for the loopholes, tax advantages, etc. There are no LEGAL ones. Believe me, if I could find any, I would, but there is precious little to cheat on other then the occcasional expense padding or two. The "loophole", "tax advantage" is a red herring from the left to create an illusion that anyone who makes a dime somehow does it by stealing/cheating. The enemy of fair taxation are the multinationals, the very rich and the cash busineses/trades.

Speaking of money....

Today, another six BILLION dollars promised away by our buddy King Martin. By the time we go to the polls, he should have bought every vote in Canada....China, India, Kazakhstan and four other 'stans of your choosing. Fear not......there is still hope we can flush him....

[Toronthab]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

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!

There are no loopholes and it's not that easy to cheat on your taxes unless you receive cash for your services/products. There are ways to structure companies to lessen the tax burden but in the end, legitimate businesses ALWAYS pay their taxes......to a greater or lesser degree.

Here is an example from memory...

If you have a company that makes less then $200,000 profit, you are taxed at 22%. So if you have an arms length company, or reason to have a company, you pay pay rent/services to it. If you are in manufacturing, one company own the building, another own the equipment and a third one can be the manufacturing/sales arm. If any of them earn less then $200,000 then they pay the 22% tax rate. Above that, 43% tax rate.

There's more......

Before some one says that a small companies "only" pays 22% corporate tax for an enormous sum of profit, well that's not true. A company is a separate entity so the owner can not legally pocket that money. If he wants to pocket the profits, then he has to pay ADDITIONAL personal taxes. Thus if he is a high bracket earner, he pays 46% on TOP of the 22% corporate tax. Otherwise the owner can strip the company profits as a bonus and pay personal taxes on the entire lot.

Sooo...what am I getting to.

Small and medium businesses and owners that play by the rules are heavily taxed and are far from getting a free ride on the backs of the "poor". The "legitimate" cheating/stealing comes when companies that are large enough to be multinationals.

Here is how it works.....

Company A who is registered outside Canada buys/manufactures the widgets for $1.00. It then sells the widgets to to Company B that is IN Canada for $10. Company B then sells that product for $11, or just enough to cover their expenses. All the companies are owned by the same person/group/conglomerate. All the profits stay offshore while the company that we see "struggles" to survive. It is not illegal if the company is at arms length. It just happens that the arm are only long enough to avoid taxes..

Martin company is a PRIME example of how to cheat on taxes. He can distance himself all he wants but the reality of the situation is that his SONS are not going to be paying Candian taxes.

Soooo......

The very rich and multinationals have built in ways to avoid paying taxes. So do people who work for cash. It would be hypocritical to say that a person who "only" earns an extra $100 cash should not be targeted for audit. Sure, they are not earning enough money to buy a Ferrari but where does one draw the line. If it's "only" $100, then why not a $1,000? Why not $10,000? Why differentiate on the degree of tax avoidance? Cheating is cheating.

Let's not forget one reality. If everyone decided tomorrow not to pay taxes, then the goverment could not do anything about it. In fact, no one is cheating if all decided not to pay. The only reason people pay their taxes is because they FEAR the penalties on not paying.....on the other hand, the very rich and multinationals fear no one.

Good piece O Craven one. I didn't know a fair bit of that. Thanks

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

Skilly..I work form memory most of the time. Didn't Chretien call in the RCMP or the initial audit or something on this one?

The sponsorship program, which I thought was a fairly good idea, as I recall . ran out of the PMO, not the finance ministry. Martin and cabinet ministers as was found by Gomery, would not ordinarily have ANYTHING to do with it. To hold Martin, who I'm not crazy about incidentally, accountable, is at best very highly speculative in that Chretien and he weren't talking any more than necessary at the time, and at worst , a gratuitous slander, as castigating him for having a foreign -registered fleet may not be. I say may, because it is I gather a common practice in a very pressured industry with as I again believe I recall, an awful lot of oversupply in tankers.

I believe Martin is a highly competent man with a pretty intelligent and nuanced perspective on Canada. He's a little too right of centre for me, but I vote on as big a picture as I can see, or believe I see.

Chretien, I've heard and it wouldn't surprise me, would NEVER have called the inquiry. He would have taken the heat, and allowed the audit thing to putter on in the background, and not cripple the government for months. If that would have arrived at the truth of the matter, ie, the RCMP and normal channels, then that MAY have been better for the country.

If not then it was good that he called it. For people to use this as a platform to hurl abuse at a lot of completely innocent people is unconscionable.

Thirty days after the report wasn't even necessary. Like 2/3rds of the country, tell me again why I'm having another bloody election in 17 mos??? Only so the Conservatives can try to ride the unhapopiness of this sideshow to victory, because when the fart clears the room, people will be realizing that the liberals who have pessed me off royally, are providing good government in many areas despite the absurdity of homosexual "marriage".

Of course, Martin would seek to mitigate the damage, the noise of Gomery, but he wouldn't use it and risk the future of Canada to get a feeble chance at election with the Bloc another party which people are perhaps crazy enough to support. The self-seeking jerks are doing just that with my country and I resent it deeply. That is a far worse offence than overcharging ad agencies and jobs for politicos.

The finances of a country are not that different from updating your own cheque book or finances. You take the money you earn subtract the money you owe and you either have a deficit or a surplus.

Paul Martin had to give a budget update every year. He had to be aware of what money was going where to give an accounting of the books. Yes, the sponsorship program was run from the PMO, but where do you think the PMO got the money for the program? The money tree out in the backyard of 24 Sussex Drive? No. They got the money from the federal coffers, the federal treasury board which comes under the Department of Finance, the depaertment run by Paul Martin. Even the Prime Minister can't take money out with the approval and an accounting by the Finance Department. Unless you are accusing someone hear of fraud and theft .... which could very well be slanderous.

Why are we having an election after 17 months? Because the government is perceived to be dishonest. If the electorate likes dishonest governments they will get in again. But ask me that question again in 17 months time .... cause you better get used to having elections every 2 years or less. Wonder if you'll be so upset if the Liberals will be toppling a Conservative minority in 17 months from now?

As I understand it, the Minister of Finance would have ZIP to do with minutely auditing the PMO budget. I would hope to God not, as there must be a policy or other fairly serious matter, like bank mergers et al, to devote his time to. You have no grounds whatever for impugning Martin in this. Some real critiques would be preferrable.

I think the mishandling of EI, is a far more serious issue than the Gomery junk, and I have some real problems with that along with my human life issues. I have no problems with the Liberals fihally making us a nation with our own constitution, and no problems with patraition without dear Rene who wouldn't have signed anything, but I have very real concerns about the role played by the group of judges who now have the power to tell us what's what whenever. And I don't just beef that on abortion and supposed "rights' as if they exist in nature. It is rather the fundamental concept, though mitigated by thge notwithstanding clause.

The great majority of Canadians did not want, and do not want an election. Why don't you guys concede the obvious. Martin's fiscal record. The dangerous alliance with the Bloc.

I no doubt would be less bothered if the Liberals dumped Harper et al, of course, but I would be horrified to see such self-serving stuff when the Bloc stands to gain so much.

Martin provided somehat good government by some criteria, perhaps many, I'm not brilliant on these matters. I really do question the right's commitment to Canada, and not simply due to the "alienated" condition of a lot of its Western rump, but because of its very emphasis of individualism. It has always seemed to lack human empathy, whether it be in economic policy or the death penalty. Governing Canada requires a compassionate sense of the other. I don't get a lot of that from Martin, but I do obviously from liberals in many areas. Most Canadians feel the same way.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

Duceppe dismisses Martin's warning of 'referendum election'
Last Updated Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:44:50 EST
CBC News

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says Liberal Leader Paul Martin was being ridiculous when he said that, in Quebec, the Jan. 23 election would essentially be a referendum on sovereignty.

Duceppe mocked Martin while speaking Sunday to about 600 Bloc delegates at a special meeting in Longueuil, Que.

Duceppe said that if Martin were correct and if the Bloc were to win the majority of parliamentary seats in Quebec, it would force sovereignty negotiations to begin with the federalist government of Liberal Premier Jean Charest.

The Bloc leader said the election was a kind of referendum – but on a difference question: "Do you want to get rid of Paul Martin's Liberals, yes or no?"

"We're not deciding sovereignty," Duceppe later told reporters. "It's a federal election, Paul Martin should know that."

He was responding to comments made a few days earlier by Martin, who called it a "referendum election."

The Liberals have been trying to capitalize on some Quebecers' fears that a vote for the Bloc would necessarily be a vote for sovereignty.

"The election in Quebec is between ourselves and the Bloc," Martin said on Dec. 2.

"Yesterday, [Parti Québécois Leader] André Boisclair and Gilles Duceppe made it very clear that it is their intention to rip Canada apart, to pit Quebec family against Quebec family. That's not in anybody's interest."

Quebec, where Bloc MPs hold 53 of 75 seats, is seen as a key battle in the campaign. It's where public outrage over the federal sponsorship program scandal has climbed highest, with a resulting plunge in support for the Liberals.

"A lot of federalists in Quebec, people who support a federalism that respects Quebec, feel very uncomfortable supporting the Liberals, who have damaged federalism more than any political party in recent memory," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper predicted Martin's comments would only undermine federalists like Charest.

"We have a federalist government in Quebec, the most federalist prime minister in my lifetime," Harper said. "He wants to make Canada work."

Charest has stayed out of the federal campaign so far. But the federal separatist party has been getting shows of support from provincial political figures, including former PQ leader Bernard Landry.

Boisclair had already shown up at a couple of events and was side-by-side with Duceppe on Sunday.

"They are trying to build a momentum and quite frankly they are trying to surf on Gilles Duceppe's popularity," Vincent Marissal, of Montreal's La Presse newspaper, told CBC News Sunday.

- www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/04/election-bloc-051204.html

Martin is obviously correct in the general effect of having an election now, and Doucette will use his balance of power over the Conservatives who are a bit of a joke in Quebec to move towards a referendum. And the effect of the scandal which will be more strongly felt in the short term will remove the voices for Canada and make the loss of Canada much more likely. The situation and the decisions we make at this time are critical. Doucette obviously is playing down the obvious before a federal election.

[Skilly]

OK ... I need clarification on something. Daycare. This is probably going to be the deciding factor in determing my vote (along with accountability and fisheries issues). I have one child that is 2 and another on the way ....... but listening to the Liberals and Conservatives last night on CBC talk about their daycare plans told me a whole pile of nothing.

Conservatives
Will give $100 a month ($1200 per year) that will be taxable to parents to use as they see fit every year the child is under the age of six. Ok I understand that. Pretty simple.

Liberals
Will pump 11 billion dollars into a National Daycare Program over the next 10 years in an attempt to set up a "Medicare" style system for daycare.

Can anyone tell me what that means? Let's neglect that the Liberals have been promising this for 12 years. I want to know what does that mean to my bottom line. I get the impression that Martin is going to let the provinces use it as subsidies or to create more space. Well that tells me nothing as to how much it is going to cost me for daycare. More space does not necessarily equal less cost. And subsidies? Well that works fine in Ontario I will assume, but in Newfoundland? Typically money is allocated in Canada based on percentage of population. So 11 billion / 10 years = 1.1 billion per year. Newfoundland has 1% of the population of Canada, so it is safe to assume that Newfoundland will receive $11 million dollars a year roughly. If they use the entire $11 million as subsidies than every person is allocated $22 a year. Now I realize that it would be done on a family basis, so assuming that there are 4 people to every family that is still only $88 dollars a year. What am i missing? How is this 1.1 billion a year going to be allocated and spent in daycare?

EDIT: hmmmm maybe if they only consider the population of children under 5? Now I don't know what that population is in Newfoundland. But that makes more sense. Assuming that population to be 20% of the population than 11 million / 100,000 = $110 a year. This is why I hate Martin's policies ... he uses big ol numbers but never really explains how it is going to be implemented so Joe Q. Public can umderstand.

[Skilly]

And another thing.

The GST. Martin was here in Newfoundland this week and someone asked him about the GST reduction. His reply "It will only save you 50 cents on the cost of a toaster." Then he boasted about how reducing personal income taxes will save hundreds of dollars for Canadians. People look at 50 cents and say "That's all" .... Well I'd have too spens an awful lot to save money that way." Yes you would .... but do you realize how much you spend a year?

A part of me really wants to vote Liberal, but at every turn the man seems to be insulting my intelligence. I want to buy a minivan (I know not every Canadian is considering a big purchase, but this is my vote I am condsidering) and a 2% reduction in GST will save me roughly $700+ dollars ...... will the Liberals reduction in income taxes save me that much? I am not sure .... but I don't see them putting concrete numbers to their policies.