sideshow

yes i do make less than 100k, and the line is an arbitrary number. make it 80k, make it 60k, make it 120k, whatever. it was just a number i threw out. if you make 100k plus, you can afford more tax. if not, boo hoo, quit crying and budget better.

How about just eliminating taxes all together for the first 25k, then double them after 100k? across the board for everyone all the time. sounds easy and fair.

Patience. Radical change cannot happen overnight. Politicians that try are usually eviscerated by the special interests they take on. Furthermore, many Canadians simply do not want the radical downsizing of gov't that some on the right want. Harper must take these views into account because he is now the leader of all Canadians and not just the 30-35% that voted for him. Well said. But did anyone really believe Harper in the first place? When do/have we ever seen the politicians we elect (ed) do what they say-from any political stripe? The reality is, is that there are barriers to getting things done, and nobody is able to get their agenda 100% completed.

I think you offer some interesting choices. I cant really decide 100% to be honest. I prefer answer number one at lets say a 51% ratio though, so I will go with it.

i dont know what all the to do is about. i dont watch cbc or fox. and really, it doesnt matter what they broadcast-just change the channel.

this is out there, but, being a health conscience person, there could be some sort of incentives, via taxes, or whatever for people that work to stay healthy. as someone who eats right, exercises, and doesnt go to the doctor unless it is necessary (and i might add i dont miss work unless i cant physically drag my butt in the door), i find it frustrating to watch others smoke, drink to excess, get very overweight, and then spend all the time in the doctors office looking for the "fix" to get better. not every cold needs a visit to the doctor (caveat being if its children with their underdeveloped systems, parents should be safe rather than sorry). im not ideologically against private medicine as a whole (i mean we pay to go to the dentist, eye doctor, etc.), but i do think it is a VERY slippery slope to go down.

A lot of great thoughts and intelligent comments here. I am undecided on this issue. I see the pro and cons, but at immediate glance i would have to say not a good idea. I just think about the gun registry (and i am not pro gun by the way) and i think that this could/would be another big expenditure without built in checks and balances that would cost more than its savings/worth.

I'm unclear of the issue with private clinics. If someone has the money, can they not just go to the United States or elsewhere (which provide for pay for use services) and receive their healthcare instantly if they want to anyways? Why such an ache for private (or i should say MORE private healthcare) here in Canada? If I want to go to Disney land, I head south-but Im not too worried about Canada not having one here. I think the issue that people on the con side of private medicine have is that there will be leeching (and I am very sure of the fact that this will happen as can be seen by the tax dollars given to TONS of other private industries) of dollars from the public system to the private one. I dont think that anyone truly cares if the rich spend money and receive their healthcare instantly-it would just seem that the inevitable result of allowing the two systems to operate side by side would be the general decline of one (the public that provides for the many that cant afford to purchase their own) because of the other (the private that would provide for the priveleged few that could afford it). I feel quite confident that the private medical industry would be looking for tax breaks, free water waste services, a portion of tax dollars, etc. to provide their system-which inevitably would be subsidized by all tax payers, but used by the few. As a side note, I think that business as a whole (and this is my opinion mind you) may not be too pleased with a change in system. Because inevitably, their costs will rise as employees push for expenses to be paid by the employer (see US of A), but (also predictably), the current amount of taxes they pay will NOT decrease (our political parties of all stripes will find alternate uses for the money-see child care, military, scandals , etc.). Hopefully, someone in charge (who exactly IS running this country anyways? ) will figure these things out. Unfortunately, nobody has yet.

Hello Willy. I really cant answer your question as I am not knowledgeable enough in the matter to debate the issue. I can give you my opinion though. I dont believe that privatized, for purchase healthcare is the answer. In order to have private care, you have to have someone willing to provide the service at a profit. For example (and im just picking numbers out of the air), if it costs 1000 dollars to do an MRI (make payments on the equipment, pay the staff to operate, pay a portion of building costs/rent, etc.), then a private provider would have to charge more (for this example lets say 1100 dollars). That means the cost of the MRI is an inflated cost. Now if a public system provided the same procedure at cost, it would be only the original 1000 dollars. Because the public system is meant as a non profit. Either way, people are going to pay for their healthcare. Either pay now, or pay later, but you will pay. I have had many a discussion with my grandmother about this issue, and she tells me stories about how people, prior to our current public system, would either a) not receive healthcare when it was needed, or have to go on payment plans to pay off medical bills with their doctor. The problem is not with the system itself in my opinion-i truly believe it is the best system overall. I think that some abuse it (seeking medical attention for every minor ache and pain), and that it is mismanaged in many respects. I think that some of the administration staff (which remember is a public service) are paid much too richly (and i am not talking about doctors, nurses, technicians, etc. who i believe deserve every penny that they make), purchases for equipment are not made properly (why not buy things nationally, in bulk and end the provincial splitting), and i think that perhaps some specialty services should be centralized in a portion of the country and all major tests for certain things could be done under one roof to ensure speedy access (rather than having to wait 6 months between tests). Another issue (and i am sure this one will receive flak) is that i think the government should create, purchase or nationalize a drug company. The costs are going up, due to ridiculous profits to drug manufacturers. If the government had a drug company operating not for profit, but for the people, perhaps it could create drugs at a reasonable cost to the tax payers. And to be perfectly honest, i would pay MORE taxes to ensure a public, not for profit, fully accessable healthcare system was in place-but i would need assurances that the extra money was 100% dedicated to healthcare-which i dont believe any of the current political parties could/would do. Thats just my two cents.

abolish the senate perhaps?

ive never had a problem with the health care system. i got in to see a specialist within a month of seeing my doctor for my illness, and was diagnosed and continue to receive excellent treatment. my mother was properly diagnosed with her terminal illness within a short time and is receiving the best care available under the circumstances. and neither of us have paid a dime out of pocket. i understand this isnt everyones experience, but i believe that the system can work- unfortunately not all the time.

i think rae is as much an error for the liberals as harper is for the conservatives. i dont think either has any credibility. anyone has to be better for the liberals, and in my opinion, mckay would have been better for the conservatives.

that is flawed thinking. the amount we pay in taxes is partially related to the amount the government has to pay in debt reduction each year (along with running itself and social programs, etc.). so by reducing debt, we will (though it may be a longer term goal) end up paying less in taxes. much like paying down your mortgage quicker will eventually result in you paying less interest-which longer term means more money in your pocket.

i think they should raise the bottom limit for tax exemption to lets say 15k a year. everyone pays NO tax on the first 15k. this does several things-treats everyone equally (for at least the first 15k), raises the disposable income of everyone, and raises the disposable income percentagly (i know, its not a word) most for the lowest wage earners. everything else should go to debt reduction. forget both childcare programs. forget the gst. forget any other tax reductions. just pay the debt. evenually (lets think longer term people) the interest that we pay can/could/will/would be used to fund all these cherry programs (which are all good ideas with various benefits for various people-we just cant afford everything and cut taxes, la la la).

He hugged Paul. Will he cuddle Steven? Stevie said he was against appointed Senators-and then appointed one. But really, who could be disappointed? Same old, same old. Different party, different leader, same hypocrisy. So I say Buzz should cuddle and hug, maybe give a jacket or two and get himself a new job when he goes!

remember Bev? seems harper wont even allow his mps the charter right of freedom of speach-or the press rights its right either.

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations. Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

i love rabble. its a great left cartoon much like fox is one for the right.

cpc = tories. nothing new here other than a paint job and a decade and a half.

Want a high? Press iron in the gym till your nose bleeds. Run till you puke. Stay natural. Drugs are a waste of time. :angry:

im not a conservative, and dont support the majority of their agenda, but i do believe that the cpc will get a small majority next time. at the expense of all three other parties. just an opinion, but i think the bloc have kind of plateaued and will slowly die out, much like the reform, alliance did. they might stick around, but in a smaller capacity. as far as the ndp, they will be eternal-but ineffective. the liberals need to someone that is untouchable as a leader, and a strong player in the party-not some just came along and have a name kind of leader.

perhaps the criminals could be put to work and the money used to pay off their debt to society. example. federalize the garment industry. i know, i know. whatever. all the jobs are going or are gone overseas to people making 5 bucks a day anyways. and then shipped back in to walmart for sale to us. so why not take over an industry (any dying one really) and have these cons (instead of pumping up with weights, smoking drugs and humping eachother all day) work to create a product. sell it cheap to suppliers (a government store, a tender, whatever-i m not in sales so i cant give details) and pass the savings on to the public. profits could go to victims of crime, paying for room and board of the criminals, etc. just a thought.

I agree with your assessment. People dont want the "strong survive, weak die" attitude of hard core conservatives, nor the "tax anyone that makes more than poverty wages to death and spend them like a drunken sailor" attitude of hard core NDPers. This is why liberals become so popular-they can steal the middle road, and borrow a couple of the rights ideas, a couple of the lefts ideas, and sneak inside the hearts and minds of the electorate within the warmth of their wooden horse. And then we all get taken for the ride.

I dont think that the majority of the voting electorate even KNOWS what the platforms are of any of the political parties. Most of their information comes watered down from external sources with bias ( in all regards). So do you think they even know what the promises of various politicians are? How many voters actually take the time to call their candidates? Surf their websites in any meaningful way? Rome wasnt built in a day-and Stephen wont tear Canada down in a day either.

LOL! Are we prepared to walk away from the oil, cheap labour, and other exploited resources as well?