Hicksey

Geez, you disgust me! Call a spade, a spade. You claim to have principals and screamed at the top of you lungs when the Liberals violated any of them, but now that the Conservatives are doing it, you suddenly have forgotten that you had principals. That's eigher really short memory on your behalf or just hypocrisy! You read selectively around here, don't you? I am struggling from within to explain such a move and having a discussion on that merit. I was probably the first to come out and call Emerson a whore as I did Stronach. Why don't you save such rants for times when you know what you are talking about!?! The post where I did this is located here.

I didn't think that was what was said. What we said was that families with two incomes are the ones that would obstensibly be able to afford daycare and as such poor single imcome families would be the best place to allocate funds if that's how we're going to do it. What people like me have been trying to get people to recognize is that staying home with your children is a form of daycare as well, and with the economy geared to the dual income family--a costly one. As such they should gain some recognition and help instead of just being forgotten and left to struggle on their own. Creating daycare spaces like the Liberals and the NDP suggest, helps almost singularly dual income families--the highest income earners. If we're going to help people we should be helping the poorer end first or everyone equally.

I think you mean illegal...and yes I agree with that. I think you both missed the point. I think the original poster meant that in order get abortions anyway women would claim rape.

I'm a Leaf fan and between the two I have to agree. Jerome, Kiprusoff, Phaneuf ... lots to like there.

I agree although I think the Bloc has the right to only run in Quebec if that is what they want. If the people vote, they should have as many choices as possible, this is democracy after all. BTW: I did not vote Bloc. Gotta love how they whine about everything Quebec. Please, how many other provinces have their own political party at the federal level?

And when the mandate is weak, go poaching and bring over the unethical from the other side.... Point made. Harper can be as unscrupulous as Martin.

This move is kind of interesting. I say this because unless the Liberals and NDP plan to block Harper's attempt at making the Senate an elected body, Fortier's appointment should not be an issue because he will have to stand and be judged by Canadians as soon as the legislation passes. Could it be this appoinment kills two birds with one stone? It gets him representation in Montreal and serves as political posturing ahead of the debate on making the Senate an elected body. By blocking the bill to do that, the Liberals and NDP will end up making the Fortier appointment permanent. Posturing?

Just one more way Martin shot himself in the foot.

By the 'flat tax', I assume you mean consumption tax. It's an extreme and drastic experiment. It would reduce consumer spending drastically, which is what drives about 2/3 of the economy and would dry up government revenues at the same time. Stephen Harper is pretty right-wing, fiscally, for Canada. Watch his government to see how carefully he moves on these matters, and you'll understand why these things are done as slowly as they are. Not really. All it does is take all we pay to taxation and do it at the point of purchase. No taxes off our paychques, just at the register. It would certainly be a culture shock, but once people caught on things would proceed as normal.

Read geoffrey's post. In order to replace income taxes, you'd need a huge consumption tax. And the wealthiest in Canada would see a huge tax cut. Is that what you're talking about ? Well the short answer is that the flat tax would be at 48% to cover current expenditures. That's on 1.077 trillion in GDP, and 518.4 billion of government spending. What can I say? Socialist policies are expensive. But my program replaces all. No more property taxes, no gasoline excise taxes ... no taxes except the flat tax.

Under the system that I talked about, there are no tax breaks. Zero, none. If you want a tax break, you buy used goods. If not you pay tax.

That sounds more like a flat tax. Do you mean the same percentage, or the same amount ? Either way, the rich would pay less. That means you need to increase taxes for low/middle income earners to keep revenues the same. Basically a flat tax on new goods--not used--with necessities exempt from taxation. Everyone pays the same percentage of tax. The percentage would be the result of taking our GDP and figuring out how what percentage of the GDP that government spending turns out to be.

Duly noted. Sorry about that.

Please, let's not try to turn this into a feminist battle cry. What the Conservatives plan is telling is that, you women who would like to stay at home with your children can freely do so. You have a choice. The $6 a day may not be that much...but it is a symbolical gesture that we acknowledge your effort in homemaking and considere it as important to this nation. Why do we look down on women who choose to stay at home to look after their own children? You want me to ask myself where businesses would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. IMO the answer is simple: Those businesses would still be there! ------------------------ "Pushing for choice Other parents and experts stress the positives of care outside the home. The environment can be more educationally and socially stimulating, some argue, and professionally trained caregivers may be up on the latest research. But providing money to people in the form of a guaranteed income would allow them to make choices like staying home with their kids. "It's really sad that the only people who're talking about families are right wing," says L'Hirondelle. "I'm not sure why there's such a focus on 'women's liberation means a job'." We need to give people the option of caring for their own kids, if that's what they want to do, says L'Hirondelle. If we are going to encourage "attachment parenting," we need to make it economically possible for women to do that, she adds. "I think that's one of the reasons a lot of mothers might be alienated from feminism in a way, because we haven't talked about this enough." http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/ I thought that's what feminism was all about--giving women choices. Before, women didn't have the choice to work most of the time, it was just expected she should stay home and take care of the kids. What I thought feminism did was give them the chance to work outside the home, and if they so chose to work in the home it would be their own choice to do so.

Your take?

Your Welcome. Us conservative folks are just asses to everyone equally. Part of being conservative is an intense distrust of government. Who is in power doesn't really matter. Besides, who's going to hold my party to its promises if I don't? The Liberals, NDP or BQ? Hardly. The other parties and their supporters obviously don't want what I do from our government or they would have voted for them in the first place. Its up to conservatives to hold conservatives to their promises.

Limiting it to the first month is a quite unreasonable. Many teens with irregular periods would not realize they were pregnant for up to three months. I can live with abortion in the first 16 weeks, though you would never catch me endorsing it. I think that it is also acceptable in rape/incest situations where the woman never gave consent. We can't expect her to pay for actions she made no decision to portake in. And obviously when medically necessary, of course. If there comes a point where life of the mother comes into question, we need to save the mother without a doubt. All other abortion IMO is wrong and should not be allowed.

You mean to replace income tax ? Consumption taxes tend to be regressive, as in the more you make the less you pay as a percentage. In order for a consumption tax to replace income tax, the lower/middle income people would probably pay more. Besides, consumer spending is generally something that governments want to encourage. I'm saying that no matter how much you buy you pay the same taxes. That's not regressive. There are many people talking up hybrids of this system that are so geared, but I think we should replace all taxation with the system I propose.

Obviously that's a simplification. Today's three parties are much closer in philosophy than you suspect. The NDP is no more interested in legislating equality than the Conservatives are in abolishing all taxes. I think we need a consumption tax on all new goods. Everyone pays equally when they buy. If you can't afford the tax, you buy used. Of course certin necessities would have to be exempted, but I think overall it could work. You are the master of how much taxes you paym, but the more you buy the more you pay.

I know. Every time he kept talking about getting results I kept laughing to myself. I can get people to get me all kinds of things that they know I'll never get and they know that they either won't be around to say no to or will be in a position to quash it and I'll be powerless to do anything about it. Jack Layton is the guy in the experiment that is given a placebo and still acts the part and thinks he drunk.

It was the likes Teddy Kennedy, Jane Fonda and John Kerry that went in and negotiated with the enemy and gave them the strength and reason to continue fighting at a time they were ready to lay down their weapons and give up to the Americans. Many more soldiers died as a result of their actions than were saved. They're much closer to being guilty of treason than to worthy of sainthood.

Lets look at this from a different point of view. Is it telling that he didn't think there was anybody better in his own party that he thought he could tap the shoulder of?

I said it elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. I think he's banking on Emerson solving the softwood lumber dispute. Maybe its part of his master plan to get a majority next time around. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only time will tell but I doubt it...Harper is no fool. I don't think he is either, but as frustrated as Canadians are with all the political shenanigns in Ottawa, he'd better have a solid gold rabbit under that hat.

I think Harper's banking on it. Maybe they see something on the horizon that we don't. I think that Harper thinks that this is the key that opens the greater Vancouver area electorate to the conservatives.

That it is. Let hope its all up from here. Although day one has us all wondering if that will be the case.