CPCFTW

Oh hai Stalin

Haha no one posted for a whole hour haha. I guess you showed us haha!

I wonder when Hilary's gonna take credit for Osama? Or does she only get Benghazi? What a raw deal.

Regarding the Crowley debate, I don't know how anyone could listen to that question regarding Bush, and know that the moderator vetted the questions, and not believe Crowley was biased. The question was something like "I believe Bush's policies were responsible for the financial crises of the past 4yrs. How do you differentiate yourself from Bush who caused this mess?" The question basically forces Romney to align himself with Bush, who is not exactly popular among most undecided voters, or to tacitly admit that Bush, not Obama is responsible for the slow US recovery. How can such a blatantly loaded question filter through an "unbiased" moderator?

http://www.cpac.ca/eng/videos/66687 Flaherty sums it up nicely starting at 10:49.

Yup. The bill quadruples the contribution made by MPs to their pensions: http://www.ctvnews.c...ments-1.1000693 Getting things done!! My respect for Harper as a leader has gone up and I didn't even think it could get any higher.

Guys, this is a simple argument: Currently 142,974,000 employed Americans. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10052012.pdf 142,099,000 Americans were employed in January 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf There are about 875,000 more Americans employed since 4 years ago. Problem is there are 7,700,000 more people not in the labour force, and the labour force is also 1.4M larger. So there are 875,000 new jobs for 9.1M more people. Only reason unemployment rate is unchanged is because of the 7.7M people who left the labour force. AFAIK that was Romney's argument. Also there are now 111.4M private non-farm employees vs 112.0M in Jan 2009. A net loss of private sector jobs. Finally, the US needs to average over 100,000 jobs/mo just to break even on employment. Most the jobs that Obama supposedly created are just jobs created by natural growth. The US "civilian non-institutional population" (people over 15 and not in jail) has grown by 9M. We have 875,000 more jobs for those 9M people. That is not even close to enough job growth. Just ask PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/04/mind-the-gap-why-adding-120000.html

Speaking of derangement syndromes...

This is almost as bad as Bush orchestrating 9-11 to start a war in Iraq to please his financial backers in the weapons industry. Those damn evil kitten-eating conservatives! Vote NDP!

Can you guys stop saying "the elites" please? This is the 21st century.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php watch out for rosaleen wallace!

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Look it up. Violent crime in Canada is largely isolated to immigrants and natives.

No they aren't, most of the criminals and especially violent criminals in toronto are immigrants. The reason western cities are so high is because of native americans who have been completely failed by socialist policies that fail to integrate them into society. Michael knows this but is being dishonest.

It's not stealing anything. If the government said the tax rate was 99% and you hid your income because of that, would you say you were stealing from other taxpayers, or that the government was ripping you off? Romney pays millions in taxes, just because lefties have some weird obsession with effective tax rates, doesn't mean he is stealing from them. He probably pays more to the government in one year than all the members of this forum combined will pay for the next decade.

That video of sound bites hardly makes any sense. If you bothered to watch the full debate you would see how out of context they try to frame Romney's comments. Even if Romney dodged taxes, which I doubt, I don't blame him when he's already paying millions of dollars in taxes, and donates millions more to charities. Dodging taxes isn't an affront to humanity IMO... there was a time when people didn't cheer on the taxman.

After the Obama debate, everyone said Obama lost. Not so for Ryan in this case. The polls are split, Republicans say Ryan won, and Democrats say biden won. This was a VP debate and was fairly evenly matched. It should have no impact on Romney's momentum. Romney is surging and the next debate could be pretty decisive. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

No one needs to explain anything about what they did in 1978 for an election in 2012..

While we're talking about supply-side economics, let's talk about what the laffer curve doesn't address: spending. As we increase taxes, growth/employment is slowed, necessitating greater government expenditures. While the tax increase may still raise government revenues prior to the peak of the laffer curve, the point at which increased expenditures exceeds increased revenue is much earlier along the laffer curve. Have we reached/passed that point? How does globalization impact the laffer curve? Multinationals make it plausible to think that the curve would peak much earlier now and in the future.

Sounds about right. Had to start his own business to get an employer interested in him.

Sure they are. If you knew anything about corporate finance, you would know that corporate investment decisions are based on after-tax returns. Companies hold onto cash when the incremental after-tax returns from a project do not justify the risk. If after-tax returns are improved through lower taxation, then companies can accept more risk for investing their free cash. It's pretty simple stuff really.

Haha 100M.. Sounds very "independent"

So if you're prepared to admit that lowering taxes is a means to raise government revenues (keeping in mind that the government under discussion was the current Canadian government), please do tell why supply side economics is fundamentally flawed. Within the context of the discussion about paying for public sector employee wages, one would reasonably conclude that you believe that the Canadian government can raise revenues by lowering taxes. Please review the relevant posts and explain how one would conclude otherwise (or you can admit that you support Harper's economics, the very subject of this thread).

Yes that is an important difference. An important difference that you would dispute in any other thread. In fact, you didn't address this important difference in your OP: How about cutting taxes (TFSA, corp taxes, GST, countless tax credits, raising basic personal exemption, etc.) Or are supply side economics not a subtle, but important difference, when you have your harper bashing cap on instead of your public sector union cheerleader pom poms out?

Your link has nothing to do with what Peeves wrote. We aren't talking about reducing unemployment by restricting the amount of hours worked in the public sector. We are talking about paying less (preferably for more hours worked, in fact). Furthermore, the majority of public sector employment is not a demand of the market, which makes your post, as usual, irrelevant.

Well there's your answer to a pretty simple question. Not sure why you would bother asking it.