Wilber

Who determined that? Is all the information available under the Freedom of Information Act? Was he being paid? Was his work being funded? Was he protected under ambassadorial status when he travelled rather than Parliamentary status? These were but a few of the questions I wanted answered. It is one thing to give advice and another to be an adviser. And now we are hearing from Conservatives that this was a long time coming. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/khan_newsmaker The reason that is coming up is because there have been Conservatives calling radio talk shows today and saying they are mad that Khan doesn't sit as as independent first. Among other things we have troops fighting in that region. Their safety cannot be compromised so some things probably had to be kept confidential. I don't think any politician is required to make public all the advice they are given, whether by an official advisor or not. Whether Khan was transmitting confidential party information in either direction is another matter entirely and would be unethical. My own feeling is that a person crossing the floor should sit as an independent. It doesn't stop them from voting with whomever they choose but I guess that is a matter between them and their conscience. With a minority government, I certainly don't blame Harper for taking him, he would be an idiot not to. At least he didn't give him a cabinet position as a reward. Not yet at least.

That which was secret was secret but anything shared with the Tory caucus should have been shared with the Liberal caucus.

The British have many things not to be proud of and some of those they can be were definitely self serving. But: The "crimes" in Basra consisted of Iraqis killing Iraqis. The recent Irish crisis consisted mostly of Irishmen killing Irishmen and Irishmen placing bombs in British cities, although the Brits have much to apologize for during their long history in Ireland. Britain was also the first country to abolish the slave trade and used its navy to try and prevent the exportation of slaves from Africa. Apartheid was the result of South Africa's Boer heritage, not British. Their legacy in India also consisted of the worlds largest democracy and among other things, the worlds largest rail system at the time they left. No country can be particularly proud of its treatment of aboriginals. WW2 was a total war between civilizations. In hindsight, it is easy to be critical of those who were there. If you want to know a little more about the history of fire bombing I suggest you do a little reading up on the bombing of London, particularly the night of May10/11, 1941. The difference in destruction between it and German cities was only due to the German's incapacity to inflict more. The British Museum is a wonderful place but it is not the only one which includes a lot of ill gotten gain. I daresay we have some in a few of ours. If there is an upside, it is that anyone from anywhere can go and see it for free. It's easy to focus on the negative but there is often some sort of balance. The US is no different.

Why would Dion want to prevent him from serving his country in a matter which he has some expertise? Perhaps Khan just came to realize that Harper's views are more in line with his than Dion's. He would be in Harpers new Cabinet if it was for immediate reward.

Sounds like an exercise in futility, ultimately the Great Wall of China and the Iron Curtain didn't work either. I only use official crossings so I have no problem as long as I don't have to pay for it. I wonder how far this bunker mentality will go.

Interesting question and the answer is probably, partly. A Canadian regiment from Winnipeg did form part of the garrison of Hong Kong which fell to the Japanese on Christmas Day 1941. So did Canada join after that happened then?-- It wasn't right after Pearl Harbor, when we declared war? Yes, on Dec 8th the Canadian government declared that Canada was at war with Japan as of the 7th.

I don't know how you can say that when you have no idea what it costs to educate a child for a year. You say that one should not use private school rates but a system that is totally user funded amounts to a private school. No matter, you and I have fundamentally different philosophies. I have enjoyed all the benefits of growing up and living in a first world country. One thing common to all first world countries is a good public school system that is equally assessable to all. They don't exist without one. I have benefited from such a society all my life and my obligation to that society exists as long as I enjoy those benefits. It didn't end when I got mine. Of course there are lots of countries where only people who can afford to pay are educated, or have less than marginal public systems but the great majority are third world s---holes run by autocrats who had to come to a country like Canada to get a decent education, if they have one at all. That should tell you something.

Good point, I've wondered the same thing. Interesting question and the answer is probably, partly. A Canadian regiment from Winnipeg did form part of the garrison of Hong Kong which fell to the Japanese on Christmas Day 1941.

Now you are finally on to a good idea. Sorry if I made the wrong interpretation but I still haven't figured out the correct one. Yes, with someone else's money because you didn't contribute to it and say you have no obligation to do so in the future unless it is for your own blood. Let's look at your model. Because you do not want any of your taxes going to education someone will have to invest in building a school system and recoup that investment. I assume that means you as well if you contribute to building the system. What would be the difference between a public and private system under those conditions. That is where your sense of entitlement comes from. Society gave you what you needed, now that you have yours, you want the option of opting out on your responsibility to future generations. Because the cost will be spread between far fewer people, it will cost parents far more than the present system to educate a child. Ergo, lower birth rates and an aging population. Also with fewer students being educated, fewer schools will be required so many will either have to drive their kids long distances or pony up for other transportation. Problem, how do we renew our population with skilled, educated young people? We could take more immigrants but what intelligent, well educated young person who has received a good public education is going to move to a country where the middle class (if there still is one) has to go into hock to give their kids any kind of education at all? Seems to me that many young Canadians might be looking in the other direction. After all, isn't our education system one of the big things that attract people to this country? One more thing. If your parents were unable to afford to educate you, or were unable or unwilling to go into debt to do so, you wouldn't exist.

Possibly. In my view, parents would have to pay for the education of their kids whether sent to private or public instituions. Kids who couldn't afford it, would be granted loans, which would be repayed on employment. How do you grant a six year old a loan and when are you going to pay back yours? Who is going to build and maintain this mythical public institution for you and those like you, to rent for the time you feel you need it?

Well so far you have told me you have no obligation other than to your own kids so you will have to explain how education would be financed for those who can't afford it. Would you send them all to private school?

If you have no obligation except to pay for your own kids, should you have them, someone else will have to pay for the public system otherwise there will be no public system, therefore there could only be a user pay private system. What if your parents for some reason beyond their control couldn't provide for your education, should you have been denied one?

I read what you said. Do you feel entitled to have others pay to build and maintain a public school system on the off chance you might want to use it? If not, I can only assume you believe all education should be private and user pay. You have said in previous posts that you want to get rid of all welfare and you have said that you are only willing to contribute to any school system while and if your children use it therefore education will only available to those who are able to pay for it. Doesn't matter, you got something you didn't pay for. Getting something now and paying for it later, like your education. As in credit. Don't you pay your bills? Whoever built and maintained the school system when you used it. You do that by maintaining the present school system. Insurance is a deferred benefit. You pay now for what you may need later. What's so hard to understand?

I think you are probably correct. Although I don't have many years to go before I am eligible, I won't be surprised if I never see it.

So you believe all education should be private and only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it. The disabled, those who cannot afford the education to improve themselves in your private user pay system. Of course there will be many more of those if education and health care are only available to the affluent. No, you got your education on the differed payment concept. Someone else paid for your education and the advantages that come with it. You feel entitled to what others provided for you during your childhood but those who weren't so fortunate are entitled to nothing. To me you are just another of those who feel entitled to something for nothing and now that you have got it, screw everyone else. How so? Any time you pay for something that you don't presently use on the possibility that you may have to in the future is form of insurance.

What I am saying is that if you increase the maximum income a person can have and still receive a full benefit and cut off those above, there is a point where they will out number those who now receive no benefit at all. I don't know what that point is, I just picked 30K because I thought it might be in the ball park. I'm not advocating anything, just that changing the program without affecting its total cost is likely a far more complicated process than we might think.

The total for OAS a year plus GIS is Between $10 thousand and $11 thousand a year. It would be nice if the threshold was $30,000, dream on. The point I was trying to make is that now there is no GIS if your income is less than 20K and the OAS starts to be clawed back at about 60K. If the full OAS and GIS benefit was given to people with combined incomes of 30K or less and nothing above that, there might be enough people in that group to make it more expensive than the present program. I don't know if it is 30K, that is just an arbitrary number but there is a point where this would happen.

If you did decide to have kids one day, how would you educate them? Only for those who can save, anyone who cannot, will starve. So Canada owes you because you went to private school in a foreign country? Now there is a sense of entitlement. Why should Canada give a fat fig? If you get sick, where will you get treatment? Again, you want to buy insurance from a private company that you may never collect on but you want a guaranty that you will get your money back from a public system. What if your contributions were tracked and once you used them up they wheeled you out of the hospital and left you on the curb? True, I was referring to medicare which is the same but somewhat more essential..

Fine, lets make everything user pay and what isn't profitable, won't exist. Your only responsibility is to yourself. Your idea of paradise but not mine.

Do you want people to save for retirement or pay them welfare? It will be one or the other. No more contradictory than you wanting something for nothing. Did you pay for your primary education or did your parents through their taxes? You want to be reimbursed for something you never paid for or in effect have your children educated for nothing. Of course, since they were educated here, they will have to pay for their children. What makes you special? Yes it is rationed but it is rationed equally according to the capacity of the system, not by the ability to pay. If we can build the facilities and find the personnel for both systems to operate satisfactorily, I don't have a problem with a parallel system. It is true, there are plenty of studies to back it up. The more affluent are also generally better educated which is also a factor in their better general health but also a big reason they are more affluent. What do you care, that's their problem and that of the country they went to, not Canada's. You pay into a system that you don't use for years but when you do use it, you are taking out at a rate far greater than you are putting in. You can call it a differed benefit or an insurance policy you collected on, I don't care..

Like Myata said, it does get you thinking. It is hard to make a case for OAS for seniors who already have good incomes but what is the alternative. If you tie it to CPP and make it part of a pension plan, you exclude the people who were not in a position to contribute to CPP, the ones who need it most. Do you tie it to the GIS and up the combined income threshold for those who receive it and if so to what? I don't know what the average seniors combined income is. Upping the threshold to say $30,000 for a full benefit and no benefit above that might be as, or more expensive than a universal system. Methinks it is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface.

[ I didn't say it had to be CPP, just a requirement to put a minimum part of ones income toward retirement. No, but you might want to reimburse the country that gave it to you. [ If you got it and didn't pay for it at the time, it is a deferred payment. You will pay anyway or people will die. . We decided some time ago that all Canadians would have access to health care. I don't think that sentiment has changed. Your income level is definitely relevant. It is an established fact that more affluent people are generally healthier because they are financially able to eat better and lead a healthier lifestyle Those that enter the country may get more than they paid for, those that leave will transfer the burden from our system to someone else's. Why do you somehow think you will get more value from a private plan if you don't take as much out as you put in. Most will, the great majority of a persons medical expenses are in the last two years of their life, right when rates would be sky high with a private plan because you would be the biggest risk, hence a differed benefit.

If you received a primary education in this country, someone else paid for it. Now that you pay taxes, you are paying for it. It is deferred payment. We purchase medical insurance in the form of taxes. I don't see the difference, the same people will pay. Most of us don't need it when we are young but do when we get older. For most people it is a deferred benefit. I guess it depends on your circumstances as to how useful they are but in the case of the CPP we need some sort of enforced pension system because one way or another you will be looking after those who can't look after themselves in old age.

I don't know what assets you have and you don't know anything about mine but what the hell do you think I was doing all my working life while my parents and their friends enjoyed their retirement? So far I haven't spent a winter down south but I hope to. The hell I would. Then get your facts straight before you accuse people of dishonesty.

Actually there are few things that are more inclusive, only those who die young are exempt, but if you want to play that game, any discounts given to children are also discriminatory. That is true of any social program and as good a reason as any to make our existing ones work, instead of dreaming up new ones. Should those seniors who aren't in dire need receive benefits? Perhaps not and perhaps that will have to change but how far do you want to take that philosophy? Should those who can afford to pay for their own medical treatment be excluded from using the public system but still be forced to finance it? So you want guarantees for the future, something no other generation in history has had. That's not a sense of entitlement?