Yaro

I am fairly confident in saying that the majority of Canadians in general don't have a very positive view of GW Bush. Ipsos Ried Not that it really matters.

The primary problem with providing public health care is that it is largely used to subsidize the US. Unfortunately for a very long time a great many Canadians have been getting a heavily subsidized education in Canada then moving to the US to earn more money (not knocking anyone for doing this). This lead to a circumstance where Canada was paying the bills and our neighbors were getting the benefits. My solution to the problem is simple, every person should have a choice upon entering university they can either A) pay 130% of cost to get an education (recovery plus profit) or sign a contract that stipulates they will not be charged for there education so long as they remain in Canada, if they should chose to leave the country they will owe the Canadian government 200% of the cost of education (150% + 50% bounty hunter overhead for recovery). This would result in a situation where people could get an education but the public would not put up any money unless the individual used there education for the benefit of Canada as a whole.

Does anyone have a link to what exactly the general said that made her go off?

Well... That’s pretty substantial. I will try to summarize as best I can. PNAC is an organization/set of guiding principles for the current US administration. It is in essence an outline of the principles of creating a world that is dominated economically and militarily by the US. A initiative started under the auspices of the New Citizenship Project, it is a clearing house of papers on how the US can obtain and maintain economic superiority and how to undermine potential competitors including Europe and Canada (as outlined in Dick Cheney's 1991 brief on US foreign policy). The Following is a list of the primary members/contributors to the doctrine: Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz But essentially they are the holders of the central neo conservative doctrine in the US. They as a group hold more influence on US foriegn policy then any other group.

So nobody has an opinion on maybe the most important institution of the 21st century? (thus far) I find that very interesting, and it raises a question as to what place do you think an independent Canada has in the future or whether people think there should be a merger with the US?

Water supplies as air supplies are shared; you don't own a water supply. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you wouldn't know that. Were talking about social law, try to keep up. Not that it matters because Singapore has a very heavily controlled economy regardless. Yes, because I am the one that has lied constantly, representing a limited knowledge base as if it were somehow coming from above. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised ideologues don't need to do research, they have "intuition". As for the rather silly comparison to cars, that really holds no weight until 1. Someone argues for the right to park an idling car in the middle of a bar 2. Cars become pointless 3. We lose our very heavy restrictions of vehicle emissions. Further to your idea that your not drawing a line... I guess I will just have to spell it out for you My line Vehicle Emissions ---------------------------------------- <-- My line for assault Smoking in a confined environment Punching someone in the face Your Line Vehicle Emissions Smoking in a confined environment ---------------------------------------- <-- Your line for assault Punching someone in the face Get it now?

You are ignoring the essential point and that is that you are drawing a line, there is no absolute standard to which your line is any more reasonable, justifiable or fair then mine and thus it becomes the providence of government as a representative of the people. I don't know where the general population stands on smoking but considering the declining number of smokers I would think that most would be in favor (although that is just conjecture). 50 years ago people died at a much earlier age, they were also often not diagnosed as to the cause of death and if they were diagnosed then it was often not attributed to anything. Although you are right living in an urban setting is the equivalent of smoking between 10 and 40 cigarettes a day which would more then make up for the differences (if they can be trusted).

My having to move because of the action another person is taking is an assault. If someone is punching the air where I am standing it is not my responsibility to move in order to avoid getting hit. Your right to smoke stops where that right interferes with my right to breathe. If someone takes an action that physically harms me then I should have the right to defend myself with all nessecary force in order to prevent the continuance of that harm.

I am curious as to how well understood PNAC is among the posters, and for those that do understand the nature of PNAC what there opinions are of it? PNAC Website

What communism didn't survive wasn't there education it was the formation of an aristocracy, and I am hardly a communist so please don't put me in the position of defending communism.

I don't understand this, shouldn't I have the right to punch someone in the face if they are smoking near me? Why should the government interfere with that? What if someone is pooring posion into my water supply? should I just avoid drinking it? WTH are you talking about? The same Singapore that gives you lashs for spitting your gum on the sidewalk? Personally I love free speech, there’s nothing better to separate the loud mouth no nothings from the intelligent productive members’ then free speech. For example, a loud mouth no nothing might say something along the lines of Socialists are basically communists who live in a country with to good an education system to convince enough people to help put communism in place, were as an intelligent productive member might actually do some research and learn that communist countries were among the most highly educated on the planet, and that indeed among first world nations the more conservative the country generally the lower the education level. Yes free speech is a wonderful thing.

It has significance in that future water way disputes could be affected.

If you’re going to ask for a more in-depth explanation, please be more specific. Clearly you didn't actually take any time at all to actually consider what I had said. Corporate welfare whether to Bombardier or GM is necessary to the extent that we need to compete with foreign jurisdictions which provide those competitive advantages. Free trade creates an environment where the government has no other means to fight this competition. Tariffs allow a government to create a circumstance where a company gains an advantage throws access to local markets; this is just one more tool, and a valuable one taken away by free trade. If as part of a free trade pact we had agreed to provide no subsidize to private industry then your argument might have validity but as the world stands, it does not. This is hardly a complex issue and I suggest that before you make another post you do some thinking about what I say, I generally use my words sparingly because I assume a certain level of intelligence on the part of the reader. As an aside, your ignorant attack on what you assume to be unfair subsides to Bombardier show fairly clearly you have no comprehension of the aircraft industry which is subsidized the world over. If you want to see what would happen to Canada's aviation industry were we to stop subsidizing it to a lesser extent then virtually every other plane building nation does just look at our ship building industry which was once one of the strongest in the world.

So your position is anarchic in nature? Thats interesting, how, in your opinion, do stop the eventuallity of anarchy not turning into fascism? I have always had a fascination with those who prefer the "no system" solution, perhaps having a section of the nation cornered off where no taxs are collected and no services are provided... perhaps one of our islands. I think you misunderstand me, by living in a society where others alter society to your benifit through acts of generosity that you chose not to take part in you are recieving a benifit.

Does that include the military and police? Who decides where the line gets drawn? Isn't that a function of a democracy? There is a point at which welfare has positive returns, so why should some a voluntary system provides benefits to those that don't want to pay? Whether your greedy or not is irrelevant, there is no doubt that your position is that of extreme social Darwinism or extreme self interest if you prefer. Just because you don't like the label doesn't mean that it isn't accurate based upon your argument. Not that I have a problem with self interest, I accept it as the baseline human condition but I don't believe that encouraging it necessarily brings about a better society and it is a certainty that it doesn't bring about a more efficient one.

Property rights are a completely separate animal from capitalism. There is little to evidence that death taxes provide for disincentives, and considering that the economic mobility of a society is directly inverse of the extent to which an aristocracy has formed your thinking fairly backwards on this. Also consider that with the elimination of generational wealth you could expect a significant increase in the skilled workforce as well it becomes clear that the aggregate production of society would undoubtedly increase. This is of course before you consider any social or political impacts which would almost exclusively be beneficial. Clearly you two need to do more research because there are very few things (if any) that are done by the Canadian government that would be more efficiently handled by private corporations. If you would care to bring up an example I would be willing to debate it but it’s clear to me that you’re stating on unsubstantiated opinion as fact. While I agree with you on the topic of corporate welfare being a serious problem worldwide, that will not change until we drop free trade. As to Sask Tels infrastructure, all telecommunications infrastructure is publicly funded, everywhere and that since private competitors receive the exact same access to this network your argument holds no weight. No private company is going to be cost competitive with a public one after you factor in the kind of additional costs for advertising, increased administration costs, and above all else profit which will in there entirety push the difference in cost between the two to in excess of 60-70% average. This is why you simply will never see private companies successfully competing. Instead they take the tack of doing there best to get the government to shut down public operations. Air Canada as a national carrier was required to service areas at a loss, this is fact. Air Canada is also considered (well was considered) the safest carrier in the world where as West Jet is running old planes that will soon need to be replaced, they have a significantly inferior service record in almost every way. Oh and just so you know West Jet won't go directly up against Air Canada, they actually actively avoid it. As for Petro Canada, I don't know why you would possibly bring this up, this operation is a classic example of the government running a company better then any corporation. Petro Canada could have and should have been used to provide Canada with a domestic edge by selling gas to citizens and companies at a discount. Instead that money is lining the pockets of people using our own oil for minimal cost. Canada's oil policy in its entirety is asinine, its actually something that Alberta (who actually only lease out the oil fields) handles in an effective way but not very consistent with your theories. I don't disagree with the idea of private competition for all publicly run companies but what I don't want to see is the public companies hampered simply for the sake of making those private companies competitive. If a private company can't compete then that’s no different then the virtual monopoly in almost every major industry that exists.

Keeping your money is not a privilege, entitlement, the idea that you are owed something you didn't earn is most definitely not a cornerstone of the capitalist system, in fact most of the great capitalist thinkers, at one time or another, have written of the dangers of generational wealth.

I am in no way morally opposed to private health care, my personal interest are in the most effective system. Unfortunately to a large extent we are being deceived by a large lobby that is pushing private health care for there own economic benefit. I have no problem with the notion of people making a buck where they can but a few interesting facts about our health care system. 1. We spend a little over half as much as the US does per capita in total (public + private money) 2. Our critical care outcomes are in most cases BETTER then theirs. 3. A study done by the US government in 1998 found that Canada's health care administrative overhead was at just about 2%, while the US administrative overhead was almost 12%. Although our overhead has risen to 5.5% in the last 7 years. 4. We pay our health care professionals almost twice as much as they would earn in Europe, and still a little less then they would earn in the US. 5. The US leaves a total of almost 80 million people (including illegal immigrants*) uncovered by medical care. I am of the opinion that public or private isn't really relevant, what is relevant is the fact that all of the world’s top systems are 90%+ public. It’s unfortunately a circumstance where the voice of self interest dominates, and in this case those with the most to gain are on the side of the generally less efficient private care facilities. It should be noted though that to a great extent even a private system in Canada would be far better then the US because of our limits on insurance premiums.

Essentially yes. I don't understand why this is brought up in this way though, Canada should do what’s in its own best interest (baring contradicting moral arguments) and if that matches the actions of the US then that’s kind of irrelevant.

First off this statement is so stupid and betrays such an obvious lack of understanding that I wouldn't even bother to comment if I didn't want to point out that I am not an NDPer. You assume that my 30 second spiel is the complete unabridged version of what I am saying? ok... And technically no, those children don't "deserve" those assets, what they deserve is the opportunity to grow up in a fair and just society that provides them the equal opportunity to EARN assets of there own. Once again I reiterate that the 30 second byte that I put up before was hardly the complete idea of heavy death taxes. In this situation the child would have to do what anyone else would have to do in this circumstance (buy the farm on credit and actually EARN the asset). Canada is what we have made it, we have the highest resource valuation per capita in the world. Foreign investment has done little but create an economy that is a leaf in the wind to the US. We could just have easily gone the other way with internalized manufacturing and consumption and be just as wealthy. I would also suggest that what is good for our companies isn't really relevant unless what is good for them is aligned with what is good for Canada as a whole which in the case of foreign investment is pretty much never the case. In the end its interesting to note that a man who has argued against a sense of entitlment for the poor is apparently so in strongly opposed to removing immoral entitlements for the wealthy.

Absolutely, thus increasing the liquidity of the market, reduceing the generational debt load and a whole basket of other good side effects. That is entirely besides the fact that you earned it, damnit you should be the one to enjoy it.

What does personal responsibilty have to do with social policy exactly? What exactly offended you about what I said? Do you think that companies should still be able to put arsneic in food? they used to you know. You have something against an informed population maybe? Perhaps its the idea of shifting the balance between the economic viability of healthy foods for less the cost that would be returned in savings on healthcare?

Took a whole 10 seconds to think on it huh. First off a death tax could fairly easily be made unavoidable, you can't simply "give your money away" in most districts regardless, and in any case any significant sum could very easily be traced. 7.67 deaths/1000 last year = 237770 deaths last year Even if you take the miniscule value of 250 000 average value on death that comes out to 59 442 500 000. Secondly a 100% death tax would provide a tax income near the current income tax, is far fairer then any other form of taxation as only the person that earned the income is due it and in absence of that person then the remainder should rightfully be redistributed. Thirdly it would result in a rebalancing in the value of goods to a more reasonable level, housing prices would fall dramatically for one. Liquidity would rise dramatically in the long run and a large group of people who do nothing but subsist off the work of there ancestors would have to actually start contributing to society as a whole. There are also a whole host of social issues that would be solved by a 100% death tax, they could be found in any of the many books on the formation of aristocracies and the problems of generational wealth but aren't within the scope of this thread so I won't "go there". This would however require (of course) a great deal managing (restrictions of foreign investment) so that foreign nationals don't control the land/resource markets. I would also point out that the "good" of foreign investment has never actually gotten out of the theory stage. There really is no good example of a nation being helped in a significant way by foreign market investments (but there sure are allot of examples of nations being hurt by them).

This is true to an extent, imo what is the governments roll is the following: 1. Ban trans fats, this stuff is posion as defined by the head of the AMA and the head of the Harvard med school who both agreed that trans fats do more damage to a persons body then many substances that we require warning labels for. 2. Provide HONEST evaluation of food, for instance diet pops; while it is true that diet pops don't have any calories the nature of several chemicals and the nature of any carbonated drink period is that they reduce the bodies ability to burn fat. 3. Subsidize healthy foods with a tax on poor food. One of the primary reasons that so many people are fat is that they eat fast food because of the cost, that sacrifice can easily be made up for in reduced health care costs.

Actually all of this rediculous notion of taxation fairness could easily be down away with (along with many other problems) if there was a 100% death tax and severe limits on foriegn investment.