tweedledee

Disagree with what? How does that make it any different than welfare? I suppose its not, it just sounds better. Mebbe people should have to pay into it witha separate tax like in the U.S. OH no, not like the U.S....people with very low incomes still get it tho.

Just exactly what does Bush have to do with this, oh I know, mindless Bush/Harper bashing. thanks to Stephie Canada's on the right track for a while.

Well, CPP is based on employee/employer contributions, therefore lazy people who don't work, won't receive it will they ! Old age pension is a different matter, but if we eliminate that then there should be a drop in taxes to compensate, or maybe people should be required to pay into that too ? If you look at the rate of return, CPP is a poor investment. CPP was great for those who retired in the earlier years of the program because they had low levels of contribution yet collected far more than they contributed upon retirement. The demographics have changed all that. The contribution rates have been jacked up and as a result contributors today would be better off if the scheme was collapsed and their premiums returned (with interest). A much better scheme would be if the employer & employeee contributions were mandatory, but invested in the fund of your choice (kind of a forced RRSP). OAS is nothing but a disguised welfare scheme. In my view it should be collapsed into the welfare program to avoid the duplication of overhead, or eliminated altogether. Disagree with that, OAS is needed by an awful lot of pensioners, no problem with it being clawed back based on income tho.

Right on its refreshing ain't it to see someone finally take a stand against corruption and all that. Way to go Stephie and Stockie

Oh gee, here we go again sour grapes cos Harper beat out ole Stockie live with it hiti old girl we is gonna get a majority that ole dog don't hunt anymore LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The scary so-con attacks don't work anymore people are seeing through that one. Now its this Canadian thing, ya know, only liberals can love Canada. Bite me on that one.

Good reply, Bubba, the liberals have the corner on intolerance these days. Talking about moral authorithy, the liberals lost that one a long time ago. I was beginning to buy into that liberal propaganda too but it doesnt fly. I did some checking and talking to people, Harper is NOT a so-con and ya know what, neither are the majority of conservatrives. Simpy erroneous propaganda, Lenin would be proud of his useful idiots.

It probably would eliminate that need, but really isn't strategic voting just a tad on the hypocritical side. Mind you, Layton's starting to bribe seniors now, hes announced a big package for them, and hes promised not to raise taxes. guess Jacko smells the writing on the wall.

It sure is since and its not an announcement like be says, its a campaign promise, they are still pretending they are the government. You can't make an illegal gun illegaller (okay not a word)., Anyway, its a trap for Harper, just a trick to make the tories look like 'right wing gun lovers' most people will see throught that one. Like rebanning illeal weapons will suddenly bring peace and goodwill among ganstas. Duck people its a TRAP.

Not surprised to hear that. The conservative plan is far more democratic and cost effectiive anyway. Would we trust the liberals with another scam, just think how much they could skim off the top of this one. enough I say.

I see that too, I'm a bit one sided but will try not to spam the forums too much LOL otherwise these are very nice forums.

How is marijuana a moral issue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It isn't, but I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to.

So true, thanks for saying that not just gays with that knee jerk attitude tho, wouldn't you say liberals are zealots when it comes to bashing people who disagree with it?

I agree, the BQ would find it advantagous. The CPC has a good chance of getting a minority, Harper has done well in uniting a party, bringing the more radicals into line and modifiying his and the party's position. Good forum here by the way, diverse and not too many rude posters. Good stuff.

Your right it the scare tactics and the demographics partly.

My friend you are over stating your case and doing it in the wrong section. This topic is about polls. This morning Ispo had nationally Libs 33 and Cons 31. If you take into account a more efficient vote. (Unfortunatly the Tories are still not gaining ground in Quebec)The Conservatives are in the lead. Feels good to back a winner. Now before the Chicken Littles starts to say the sky is falling realize the practical reality. Harper is acting with integrity and being consistent with party policy. This policy would only change the title and not any associated rights. We would be like England or many of the other European countries. To do this in a minority government would mean the majority of the house would have to vote for this debate to continue. Considering the positions of the other parties (30 of Libs were not in favour) this is still very unlikely. The Conservatives are democrats and they didn’t see the party whip behaviour as a good sign for our democracy. If the house votes to move on they will. Willy’s Back <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whipped votes are never democratic. Yup, I sure agree that Harper is acting with integrity etc. He's making a good start.

I don't undertand how anybody could trust the Liberals on health care. They've had sole custody of the issue for 12 years, and have made a complete mess of it. The country has not even had a full and reasoned debate on the subject yet under their 'leadership'. Truly, a pathetic performance on a critical issue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like Harper's moderate stand and emulationg of liberal health care policy is getting to some people. They can't knock it cos it follows liberal style policy so they attack Harper instead.

I get a sense of that too, gosh I'm surprised that old strawman argument about the CPC is still going on.

I think he has too, you sure can't accuse him of wanting U.S. style healthcare, and he's sticking to his guns on it. But think he's wimped out with no substantive changes to ensure that timely health care is available in Canada. We will just spend money to send people to the United States if the wait times are too long in Canada. Why should our tax dollars be spent in U.S. clinics? Why should our sick be forced to go to hospitals hundreds of miles from home? How will this fix our health care system? Time guarantees are fine, but they must provide the right for Canadians to choose to go to private clinics in Canada if the public system cannot meet their needs. Hi by the way, new here.