Civis Romanus sum

So here is the policy I would like to see implemented. We legalize marijuana, tax it, and put all the money gained into addiction treatment.

Not sure why it was necessary to start a new topic on this...

What's your point? That picture could have been taken in Syria or Iraq or Iran or Israel, for that matter. I looked it up and Turkey has no desert. I didn't mean to suggest they were living high off the hog, especially by western standards. But are they living significantly worse than Palestinians in refugee camps? They'e safe, they're sheltered, they're being fed, is what I meant. What rest? Do you need a cite that Palestinians are still considered refugees seventy years on? All I'm pointing out is that when they're fleeing north into Europe they're fleeing poverty, and are economic migrants. There is a substantial difference between fleeing poverty and fleeing death and torture.

I agree, but only up to a point. The Americans spent years in Iraq trying to 'fix' it. They poured money and blood into the place trying to set up a representative democracy. They were frustrated time and again by defiant local tribalism and unrelenting religious bigotry. If you want to look to external parties most responsible for that failure that would probably be the Iranians and Saudis, who funded opposing religious sides and helped fan the flames of internal discord.

It's not safe to live in Turkey??

That's not true except in western countries.

Turkey has no desert. That they're being sheltered near the border is besides the point. The UN estimates a total of about 3.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian war in total. So a lot of the 'registered refugees' in those countries are actually Palestinians who fled the original war of 1948 with Israel, and their children and grandchildren. They are still considered officially refugees since none of the host countries will grant them citizenship. My point is they're economic migrants. They're not people fleeing death and persecution but poverty.

Seventy five million people manage to live quite comfortably in Turkey, so not sure where you get this 'living in the desert' business. Turkey seems more stable and better run than any of the countries around it save Israel. I see no reason why Syrians can't live there, at least until the war is over. We must remember, also, that these people are not fleeing to places like Egypt, where they'll not only be safe but where they speak the same language and have the same religion. So mere safety is clearly not their primary goal. Whatever money we want to spend on bringing people here would be far better put to use, helping ten times more people, in resettling refugees in countries near where they lived before, such as Turkey and Egypt. Not only could you help far more people but they'd be better positioned to return home once the fighting is done.

Canada had nothing to do with the instability there. That can be laid at the doorstep of the local combatants.

It's all a political game. All a government can realistically do is provide a stable background for industries to flourish. If it keeps taxes reasonably low, and the red tape reasonably scarce, then it's doing an okay job. If it's not actively getting in the way of job creation by business, then it can claim some small amount of credit. But as you say, much of it is beyond their control, especially with regard to the international demand for our products. That doesn't stop governments from taking credit when times are good, nor the opposition for blaming them when times are bad. There is no real honesty taking place in either case. If a government can actually point to something it did, and show with reasonable certainty this had a good impact on the economy, on jobs, on business, then okay, they can take some credit. The Conservatives did do a few things, such as lowering business taxes and cutting some red tape, to create a business friendly environment. So they can claim some credit, but mostly it's an international thing, especially since 2008.

I would put Pierre Trudeau in that chair, though my knowledge of the inadequacies of Prime Ministers is kind of shaky going further back. Certainly Trudeau was the worst in my lifetime by any realistic judgement.

The Conservatives, like every government in Canadian history, have done their best to encourage all industries, including all natural resource industries. I'm not aware of any change in that regard between them and the Liberals who preceded them. I'm also unaware of any country on Earth which has not done its best to develop its oil industry.

This was exactly, precisely Harper's plan, wasn't it? For which you are now roundly criticizing him. Moreover, it was a plan which was not only agreed to by both the Liberals and New Democrats, but demanded by them.

Neither Mr. Trudeau, in his emotional demand that Canada take in 25,000 Syrian refugees immediately, nor Mr. Mulcair, in his more restrained but similar demand, have mentioned costs. In money terms is likely to be at least $2 billion as well as the ongoing maintenance for some years. I reach this figure by considering the cost of transporting an individual from Turkey, or Europe, where most of the migrants are, to Canada, processing them, sheltering, feeding, clothing them, teaching them a language, and then in most cases, trying to teach them some sort of job skill. . In addition, most will be unlikely to be economically successful in Canada to the extent they will earn large salaries and pay back more to the government than the government must spend on them each year for their health care, their children's education, etc. I think a second cost will be to discredit our existing immigration system, where people from the same general areas have applied and are patiently waiting as they are assessed. These migrants are jumping the queue and we would be rewarding them for doing so. Let us not forget that these are not people fleeing danger and war and persecution as Mr. Trudeau would have you believe. The great majority of the Syrians flee to Turkey, and are now, as we see on television, taking great risks to get across to Europe, and then up from Greece, where they don't want to stay, through Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary, to the richer northern states where they want to live. By definition, they are economic migrants. They were perfectly safe in Turkey. They are actually risking death to get out of Turkey where they're safe, to Europe, where they hope to live in a wealthier state with more generous benefits. The more people who are accepted, the more who will come. Which brings us to a third cost. For they bring the instability which caused war with them. Every European state which has taken in a sizable number of Muslims has had ongoing problems with rioting and crime. In France, every Jewish temple, school and institution now requires armed guards for safety. Bringing tens of thousands more Muslims to Canada is not a good idea, particularly Muslims who have not been screened in any way for education, skills and other abilities.

They say they are Liberals. They vote in concert with the wishes of the party. There is no earthly reason for Muclair to appoint people to the senate who will not be NDP supporters and will not vote in favour of his legislation.

I fail to see how that response gibes with your evident support for Trudeau increasing the deficit.

And Trudeau's saying Liberal senators are not Liberals is also dishonest. They will do as they are told and act in concert with the party and for the party's benefit. Of course the votes will e whipped! It would be naive to think otherwise. Why do you suppose he would appoint senators who wouldn't vote for his legislation?

Even at historically low interest levels the federal government spends the entire proceeds of the GST on servicing our debt. You have to be careful when interest rates are low. If interest rates are at 7% and they increase a point, the increase in debt servicing is fairly manageable. If interest rates are at 2% and interest rates go up a point your costs just went up by 50%. If interest rates go up 2%, which they almost certainly will, your service costs just doubled. And I have heard a number of economists express fears of inflation, given the enormous amount of debt various governments have built up, especially the Americans with their bond buying. What happens when the cost to service our existing debt goes from about $30 billion to $60 billion? That comes directly from money which could be spent on programs, or on cutting taxes, or it comes by borrowing more money, which becomes a vicious spiral.

My understanding of the term is that it's a standard economic definition. At least, that is what I have been seeing a number of economists discuss. None said it was defined by the federal government. I am fairly sure the definition is the same in the US, for example. I simply don't see how Harper can be blamed for us being in a technical recession given the causes are external to Canada.

You don't think that's more than slightly dishonest?

Well that's a question. According to the Conservatives the budget is balanced. The PBO suggested we had a 1.5 billion deficit. So he would be significantly increasing the deficit several years running. That presumes he would actually then produce a balanced budget after three years.

Interest rates are subject to change without notice, and there seems little doubt they are going up in the coming years. The tens of billions borrowed by Trudeau will be owed ten and twenty and likely thirty years from now. You have no idea what the interest rates will be then. And he most definitely is proposing increasing the deficit.

This seems a bewildering claim. Harper legislated a recession? Could you explain when that happened? As far as I'm aware the technical recession is due to a slowdown in China and elsewhere, resulting in a lower demand and lower prices for our commodities. I don't understand how Harper can be blamed for that.

Historically, when a party has been in power long enough for the Senate to be mostly filled with its supporters, the incoming party has had difficulties. I expect this to be even worse given there would be, for the first time, zero supporters of the new party in the senate. I would not expect them to simply 'rubber stamp' legislation. Why should they? They sometimes don't do that now. Even with their own supporters in there the Conservatives have had to deal with senate opposition at times. There is no constitutional crisis. The Senate has a legal role under the constitution, whether the new party likes it or not.