drummindiver

Bill C-51 infringes upon our privacy. Accolades for the long form census, which you are required to fill out or go to jail. The hypocrisy is strong.

If you say so. If you don't want to save and be responsible, I shouldn't have to suffer.

Sorry Smallc, I couldn't find any legit cites one way or another, but I have to disagree with you. Do you have a cite? http://www.moneygeek.ca/weblog/2014/06/23/how-big-ontarios-debt-problem/

"How many middle income earners are using their full TFSA? Right now, I have $5000 in mine total. I can't put much more into it, as I've decided, as low as interest rates are, I'm going to use this opportunity to eliminate the rest of my non car debt." "I spend most of my money paying off debt and traveling the world. I feel I should travel now while I'm young and healthy rather than waiting for a time when i might not be able to do so." I feel I should max my TFSA. I'm glad you feel your needs more important than mine. I feel they are equal. If I want to save, give me the room in my TFSA. If I want to travel, I won't save, no harm no foul.

Uh, no, they aren't. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/05/wynnes-drowned-us-in-reckless-debt

So if your argument is no one is using it, why are they bothering to change it? btw, I do max mine, and I am nowhere near rich.

No, I wasn't. "Just because I'm not Liberal, hoping Justin fails means Canada fails, and clearly that is not in anybody's best interests." I am commenting on what Justin does. Any comment on your indiscriminate ad hom?

Sorry, I thought over 89 and under 200 stayed the same?

What? Those were to things he had already done. I didn't like them. I also clearly stated that I wished him success. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. I voted against him for a reason. And WCR, the last couple of your posts you are bitching at ppl for slagging for no reason, then you throw this incredible curve when I am commenting on the original OP. Are you ok?

Sorry if I've missed this or it's been mentioned elsewhere. but apparently the changes to taxation are one of the first items on the agenda. As I make over $89,000 but under $200,000, the changes don't affect me. I would like to say I applaud them for doing it, as it was clearly one of the campaign promises that resonated with ppl. I also like his pick of finance. That said, I hate they are getting rid of income splitting and reducing the TFSA contribution. I use the TFSAs, and was looking forward to more room. Clearly I am not rich, but work hard and am looking to the future. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bill-morneau-finance-1.3303873

Please. He's been pm for a day. I met Harper.He was intelligent and welcoming. Nice propaganda though. You really should change that small c to a capital L.

Someone else doesn't know what prolific means. There are many, many writers who are very productive toiling in obscurity.

Just because I'm not Liberal, hoping Justin fails means Canada fails, and clearly that is not in anybody's best interests. Having said that, I don't agree with his first moves. So far, Justin Trudeau's first steps for government after winning the election have been the following: 1. A massive taxpayer funded renovation of the house he will be moving into, that will cost more than it would to knock it down and build a new one from scratch. 2. Taking away the freedom of people to keep the government out of their daily lives to gather information on trivial things like "What kind of toilet do you have in your household?" by reinstating the mandatory long-form census, 3. And now we are already talking about a bailout for Bombardier, since it can't make money off things like leer jets in an era where CEOs of companies are actually willing to tighten their belts by downgrading to 1st class. Wasting taxpayer money, declaring war on simple freedoms, and already preparing for a bailout for the incompetent. What a great start to a liberal government. Do you agree or disagree with his first day? What do you think he will do next?

He has certainly given me some very questionable warnings.

Sorry, but you are wrong. I don't have a team to do research, but here's a short list of things the Liberals did that Harper fixed. -decimated the military -did nothing to help Rwanda during genocide. Chretien said others should look after it. (In 2010, the Canadian government apologized to the people of Rwanda for indifference to the genocide of 1994...) -deep cuts to health care transfers -deep cuts to social assistance transfers -deep cuts to veteran affairs -deep cuts to EI. Less than 40% of ppl who needed EI were deemed eligilble. -gave Quebec distinct society standing. (this still has not been rectified.) -failed to repeal GST or even lower it -limited the number of Canadians stricken with Hepatitis C through government negligence who could collect compensation for their suffering. -not only did they deny compensation to people affected with Hep C through government negligence, they spent $57 million fighting legitimate claims in court. Money that should have gone to people suffering due to government negligence. - Trudeau, is hostile to the western provinces. On November 22, 2000, Chrétien gave a speech in New Brunswick which in which he implied that people from Alberta were not quite normal, saying: "I like to do politics with people from the East. Joe Clark and Stockwell Day are from Alberta. They are a different type" Clearly this does not promote unity. Harper is clearly not hostile to the west.

Clearly, you have no evidence and are spewing unsubstantiated rhetoric. Again. Still.

Should we do a list of what the last two Liberal regimes did to Canada? The list would be much longer and would entail a lot more damage. So please, give it a break for once.

Clear why May is a less than fringe player.

I like Harper. Makes him seem kind of movie icon cool.

"Darth Harper" ? Really? We are not allowed terms like "con", but you are allowed this? I enjoy debating with you MH, but honestly, you should also be held to the same standard as the other posters here. Thanks.

I have to agree. As a person who works for a very large corporation that Unifor has been trying to get into, one of my main arguements against is the fact I don't want to help fund Unifors' partisan politics. I have to accept that the person who wants the union may not want the same party elected as the company who may contribute to xyz. I'm sure both unions and big business will find their way around any loop holes unfortunately.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/28/we-are-non-partisan-oecta-insists The OECTA have claimed they are non partisan. This after distributing attack ads against the conservatives on behalf of the Liberals, then collecting huge amounts of money from these same Liberals. If this is not partisanship, what is it? Do you feel this should be legal? If so, why?

http://i.imgur.com/SA3dtVk.gif Personally, I see her more like this.

Everyone thinks so many big corporations, including auto, are moving to Mexico because of low wages. Partly true. Free trade agreements are the main reason. Canada should get on board with TPP, and then some. We need all the help we can get re manufacturing. http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-auto-makers-are-building-new-factories-in-mexico-not-the-u-s-1426645802