Wilber

Private business is entitled to charge what they want. I assume they give discounts for business reasons. I have a ways to go to get senior discounts but I do use BC campgrounds. Seniors pay half except for the busiest months when they pay the same as everyone else. It will always be a point of contention as to who is entitled to what. We have segments of every age group who feel they are entitled to public money and segments of every age group who cheat public programs. Anyone who asks for money from government is asking for someone else's money. Seniors have no monopoly on entitlement. Seniors who cannot take care of themselves will be taken care of by someones children if not their own, just like anyone else who can't take care of themselves and is looked after by public programs. There was no public Medicare in Canada until I was nearly in my teens, my parents payed their own way. We pay into the system for all our working lives but most of us only really have to start collecting during the last few years of our lives. Our whole life is a series of advance or deferred payments. We didn't pay for our own basic education when we were children so by paying for our children's, we are in effect paying for our own. We rarely use the medical system when we are younger and paying the most into it through taxes but need it when we get older. Much of the infrastructure we use was built by those who came before us. We look after seniors in need, it follows that we will be looked after if we are in need.

If you sell assets, any gain you made on them except for your residence is taxable. When you bought you those assets you did it with after tax money unless it was in the form of a pension plan which is taxable at the normal rate when you collect it. I don't dispute that OAS is based on anything other than age but nothing is free. The person who has more retirement income probably payed more taxes when they were working. Do they need OAS? Maybe not and maybe it should be clawed back at a lower combined income level but don't give us this BS about it being tax free and people collecting GIS with incomes of 100K.

Since WW2 the Americans have been pro active but for many they can't get that right either so why should they care what anyone thinks.

Before you tell me to buzz off again, here is the link. Table

If your combined income is over $19727.99 you don't get GIS.

I don't mind fixed election dates, but trust me, they're no panacea. The US is already in election mode, for 2008! As far as legislation that dies when Commons prorogues, the same situation applies in the US. In fact, with fixed election dates, more legislation dies, since there is a clock staring at you, and the opponents of legislation can easily keep the parliamentary procedure shuffle going until the next "session" of Congress begins. Then it's back to square one, as it is in Canada. I don't say they are a panacea but of the two, I prefer fixed dates. You guys have elections of one kind or another every fall so you are always in election mode.

It ain't tax free. Recovery It is tax-free if your income is under $63,000. I specifically said "You have $60K and your wife has $40K in income (or $50K/$50K if you prefer, $60K/$60K works too)". I also said that you should read the rules. I hate to break this to you but nothing is tax free. They just don't start clawing back the principal until your income reaches 63K. By the time you hit around 100K you get nothing. It is all taxable.

You'll have to let me in on that one. How does that work? Very simple. You have $60K and your wife has $40K in income (or $50K/$50K if you prefer, $60K/$60K works too) and you are 65+. Read this and apply. You will receive monthly cheques totaling $11,800/yr - all tax-free. Then you go to Florida in the winter and spend it. It ain't tax free. Recovery

So the Government definitely should not have a say in election dates? Only the opposition party's in a minority siutation? Under the current situation. Yes, because it takes more than one party to do so. Being in government and having the ability to call an election whenever you want is like having home ice advantage and always getting the last change.

The guy was a scumbag and hanging was too good for him but it was all the law allowed.

But no other way under the current system? Only if they lose the confidence of the house, then they have no choice.

It might be more appropriate to give credit for what was done not when. Russia also entered the war because it was attacked, only six months before Pear Harbour. They lost 20 million people and were responsible for defeating the bulk of the German army in the field. Do they get less credit because they only came in the end of June 1941? Without their victories in the East an invasion of western Europe would have been impossible and the Germans would still be there. With the exception of Southeast Asia, almost the entire war against Japan was fought by the US. Take credit when it is due but also give it.

Around here it is just as likely to be someone of Asian descent in a $80,000 Porsche, BMW or rice rocket terrorizing the neighbourhood streets.

Yes, stick to fixed dates regardless of their political fortunes.

Not really, governments have readily waited five years when they were sure they would lose. That is self serving and for political advantage (or at least to stave off disaster) so why not wait five all the time? Still, a fixed four is better than on a whim.

Thank you and take care.

I stand corrected, Martin did lose a confidence vote 2006 but he called an election in 2004 with a majority, as Chretien called elections in 1997 and 2000 with majorities. Four years may be the benchmark but five years is the legal maximum between elections.

The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates. Wilber, very good points but... You are wasting your effort. The Liberals know that part of the reason they lost last January was their fiscal irresponsibility and blatant theft via Adscam. So the less-analytical types, like Topaz, turn into *attack on money* mode. Your logic and reason are lost on them. Since 1993 we have had four elections. If fixed dates had been in effect we would have had two with the third not due till 2008. Every one of those mandates was cut short by the party in power to try and secure a political advantage, not due to losing a confidence vote in Parliament. This is not a partisan comment, until Harper committed himself to a fixed date, it has been the policy of both Liberals and Conservatives.

I don't want cabinet ministers flying economy when they are on official business. I want them in good shape when they get there. How important the business and the size of the entourage is open to debate. MP's and Senators have always flown business class between their homes and Ottawa. Out west, Chretien was criticized for spending twice as much time in Florida and the Caribbean during his mandate, than he did west of the Ontario border. The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates.

There were no Canadian troops at Dunkirk. The evacuation was carried out by the British and all those evacuated were either British or French forces.

Europe was invaded in the spring of 1944 over two years after the Americans entered the war. I don't know the breakdown between European and Pacific theaters but the US lost just over 400,000 killed and Canada 45,000. As a percentage of population, the number of Canadian military personel killed was not much higher than the US.

Why just libertarians? That's everyones dillema. Some people thing more government is better, some think less is better but I doubt any of them know the answer as to how much.

You'll have to let me in on that one. How does that work?

This applies to anyone. If you do nothing, all you can be critisized for is doing nothing and you can never make a mistake, but what good are you?

Like Russia used to be? Where are the millions disappearing into gulags on the Bearing Sea? Pure nonsense. I've lived in the US, own property there and cross the border several times a month. Pure paranoia on you and your friends part but if you don't want to go that's your decision and your loss. Foreigners have far too many rights in Canada. They have the same rights as citizens and it is very difficult to get rid of them no matter how much they abuse our hospitality. Americans just kick you out if they don't like you. That's the way it should be.