JerrySeinfeld

The WINNER: Stephen Harper is a member of a Political Party. One that is NOT the Liberals. They want to be the government. That's right. Another party. In government. In Canada. We did not make this up.

No they weren't. The 5 year GIC rate in 1990 was 12% Martin didn't gain power until 1993 You can't use the interest rate of the day. The interest on the debt would be at whatever rate was in effect when the debt was incurred for however long the term of the loan. If a ten year bond was sold at 15%, we would be paying 15% interest on it for ten years even if rates dropped to 5% after five years. We should be pounding away at our debt while rates are low, because if they go up substantially it will suck the blood out of our economy. I know what it was like to renew a mortgage at 18%. I was lucky because I was able to handle it. I know people who couldn't. I don't give either party particularly high marks on this one. It's more complex than that but you're kind of right. That said, as rates dropped from the mid80's to 1998, bonds matured and were refinanced at lower rates. And long term bonds were issued less and less frequently throughout that period. So the "debt servicing charge"- ie portion of the budget that went to service debt went WAY down from the late 80's to the late 90's. And we can certainly thank Michael Wilson and Brian Mulroney for the GST which, while unpopular at the time, was a great cash cow for bringing down the deficit - not anything of Paul Martin's doing.

If you would cite clear examples instead of old hollywood tales about meanie neocons I'd be happy to.

HEY! You watched "Farenheit 911" too! Here's a thought: the appetite for OIL goes far beyond "being an oilman". America needs oil, and wants to push the longterm price of Oil DOWN. And I'd bet they're willing to suffer a short term spike if it means they can turn the Iraq taps on, undermine OPEC and push prices down long term. Also, if you honestly think that terrorism and Iraq are two separate and completely different issues, you're living in a lefty wonderland. This is about more than Saddam. This is about a serious, long term western presence in the Middle East. It's about a base of operations to push for reforms in those backward countries. Since the US took action, the woman hating Taliban is history, Syria has pulled COMPLETELY out of occupying Lebanon, the Egyptians have forgone their weapons programs, women are on the verge of having voting rights in Saudi and Iran is on the verge of UN action on nuclear weapons Make no mistake, friend. If you think this is a short term stunt for profits you are mistaken. This is bordering on an all out, multi decade religious war about freedom and values and yes...control of resources.

I would change your response to say: If you value each person independently working in their own best interests, regardless of how that impacts their fellow Canadians; if you value punitive actions taken when someone doesn't follow the predetermined "correct" lifestyle (think single parents in need of child care); if you value the Eagle over the Beaver; vote Conservative. ah yes. the Hollywood, feel good view of thinking conservatives: they don't CARE about anyone. it has to be simple, feel good and not be difficult, otherwise its wrong. great logic, lefties!

I COMPLETELY believe these companies will benefit. And so will democracy and the push for human rights and order in a part of the world that is plagued by hatred for freedom, women's rights and the western way of life. I'm not so naive to think Oil isn't ONE motive, but don't be so naive as to think its the ONLY one.

Huh?

STephen Harper is from Alberta. Alberta is a strange place. With low taxes. And man-woman couples. In Canada. We're not making this up.

Well, the UN, like I said, did not sanction Bush's invasion. But if there was agreement from the security council, of course Canada would have gone. Thank God saner minds recognized the illegality of Bush's plunder for oil and prevailed that day. If you're going to trash the Americans' decision at least be informed. 95% of the oil is still under contract to the French, Germans and Russians. A link?? This is about more than just oil. It's about radical islamists who hate the western way of life.

This is roughly true - although I would add that only small amounts of conservatives are not in favor of abortion or gay marriage. Most don't care one way or the other. To simplify your choice, think this way: If you are poor, in a union or a student and need some help to keep your head above water,you'll like the LIBS and the NDP. If you have moved up in the world and are starting to make some real money and think for yourself, you'll like the conservatives because they'll let you keep more of that income for yourself and your big house, nice cars and fancy vacations. So if you like cars, houses and vacations and would rather take care of yourself, vote conservative.

Here, let me help you: 5-year benchmark rate for Canada bonds in 1998 (first year of surplus): 5% see for yourself: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/cgi-bin/famecgi_fdps

That's Canada's problem - we compare ourselves to South America and feel good. Per Capita income, 2004: USA $40,100 Canada $31,100

Wow! That was unpartisan. I would suggest strongly not to be swayed by anyone on this forum. Do your own research. All the leaders have fairly clear websites when you can get a very good understanding of the issues. It's all true.

No they weren't. The 5 year GIC rate in 1990 was 12% Martin didn't gain power until 1993

Let's keep it simple: 1. NDP believes GOVERNMENT is the solution to all issues. Got kids need daycare? The GOVERNMENT will make a program. Want medical care? The GOVERNMENT will take care of you. Lose your job? The GOVERNMENT will take care of you until you get another one. This is all paid for by HIGH TAXES. So if you plan on being low income, poor or unemployed, you'll like the NDP alot. 2. LIBERALS think similar to the NDP on the GOVERNMENT taking care of everyone. But they also have lots of friends in big business in Toronto, so they occasionaly take private initiative into account. BOTH OF THE ABOVE: believe that CANADA as a country should change its identity to accomodate new lifestyles (gay) or cultures (immigrants) 3. Conservatives believe we are an economically ADVANCED society which can get past depending on the GOVERNMENT to do things for us. They believe in setting out the proper CONDITIONS for businesses and individuals to flourish under a low tax environment. Conservatives also have a sense of what they BELIEVE in. They don't CHANGE their beliefs everytime a new special interest group makes noise. They believe in GAY RIGHTS but not in GAY MARRIAGE, for example.

Wake up and take econ 101. Paul Martin didn't eliminate deficits...low interest rates did.

Is it just me, or was it not even a year ago when private health care was a bad word in this country? How far we have come: 1. The supreme court has ruled it's uncontitutional to deny private service. 2. Jack Layton uses a private clinic. 3. Not one of the leaders in the debates would unequivically promise to ban private care. 4. Even the lefty nitwits in this forum are opening up their minds to the concept. How things have changed! Hopefully in many other areas the pendulum will begin to swing more conservative- as it has in most parts of the world. Hey, it's either that or we take the next logical lefy step: legalize polygamy in the interest of "multiculturalism"!!!

Martin will be remembered as the Liberal Kim Campbell.

I have only this to say: I believe media tend to lean in one direction or another. Canada's key problem is that most of the media we hear about NATIONALLY comes out of Toronto. As a result, many national stories about Health Care or social programs tend to begin with the assumption that our social programs are all good and to be cherished and protected. This is the prevailing attitude in Toronto and accepted as a truism. This is why the Libs have such a stronghold in Toronto and therefore Canada. The Liberals identify themselves with Canada's social programs more so than any other party (Trudeau anyone?).

The Liberals have done their best to create a 2nd tier welfare state with a defeatist attitude, but thanks to voters it looks like Canada may again be on track to achieve greatness.

Yes, and it has happened under the Liberal's watch though they try to say that they are staunch defenders of public healthcare. Hospitals will push for the highest price they can get...it's often about the money and the greed that is the result of it...pure and simple. For example, it's a common practice for dental clinics to charge more to patients with insurance (insurance companies pay for it and may even charge higher premiums to recoup some of the money) than if the patient paid directly with cash. Look - you're trying to make this into a debate of public versus private. I like our public system. But I think an additional of some private elements wouldn't hurt. Sur there are some drawbacks and pitfalls, but when I think about the privatization experience in general, it had been a good one. I lived in Alberta when they privatized many industries...telephones, power, liqour stores etc. And before everyone one happened, you always heard the naysaying and nitpicking of the lefties who swore it would be the death of us all. But it wasn't. In every case it resulted in more competition, choice, better service and more convenience. All I am saying it - give it a chance. I think a blend is at least better than a system that has obviously begun to fail us.

The Liberals time is up. They stole federal funds from Canadian taxpayers in a elaborate multi million dollar kickback scheme. They count on Toronto cronies to stay in power and keep the scams going. They exaggerate and outright lie to Canadians about their opponents to scare voters away from alternatives. They rely on the left wing Toronto star and CBC to prop up their distortions of the truth. In many ways the indoctrination of Ontarians resembles methods of dictatorship. In cities. Across Canada. We did not make this up.

I AGree. WHich brings to mind another issue: Keep in mind we already have a two tiered system of health. When people wish to pay out of their own pocket - they simply go south. I think alot of us know someone personally who has done this. Now why not keep those dollars in Canada and those DOCTORS in Canada?

Precisely, provided that fee charged by the private clinic met the fee list of the provincial health insurance scheme.Few if anyone buys health services the way they buy milk or eggs. Health servicves are almost always bought through an insurance scheme. In the US, these schemes are private. In Canada, we have managed to create provincial government schemes that offer universal coverage. Who actually provides the health service is another story completely. I believe almost all abortion clinics in Canada are private for-profit. To my knowledge, and I suspect for obvious reasons, there is no problem with waiting lists. ROVIK you seem confused (as are many Canadians) between the concept of "private providers" versus "private INSURERS" The real issue of privatization that I think most Canadians are worried about is the de-listing of services (ie no longer covered by public medicare. But you need not look any further than your yellow pages to see that private PROVIDERS are rampantly growing across this country. And we should have no problem with this. Whats wrong with a hospital that is run privately, but bills the public system? I know if I ran a hospital I'd prefer to keep my fees in line with public mandate - allowing me access to a much larger market than simply the affluent.

The Supreme Court said that the long waiting times were a violation of rights and then gave time to the Quebec government to come up with a solution.There is no reason why a government health insurance scheme is incompatible with private provision of health services provided in a timely fashion. The Conservative proposal for health care aims to this possibility, and sets in place the incentives to achieve it. Read setions 64-66 of the ruling. It clearly states the "slippery slope" argument of the public system deteriorating is baseless.