sideshow

Thanks Greg. I dont know how i missed that one.

I think it is positively hilarious that the conservatives bring in the gst, liberals say they will scrap it, 13 years later conservatives want to lower the gst, liberals want to keep it. and the ndp just wants to spend it. but then with the floor crossing and such if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

I think Mr. Klein made the right decision for his party and for the province. His legacy is made. He can spend his time on the golf course with a light heart.

Good bye The Liberal - You've been suspended for one month. I suggest you take a look at the rules and guidelines of this forum before posting again. Greg, could you tell me specifically which rule that The Liberal broke with his post? I read the rules and guidelines, and didnt personally find anything in his post that was "over the top". Thank you sir.

the point is exactly that-who cares if people smoke pot. as for mulroney, phooey. his love in with america was killing canada-and the people voted him out-and the people are never wrong. as for harper, same conservatives, just different leader. i can put a different wrapper on the can of beans-but they will still be beans.

Would it be interesting democratic exercise, if as part of completing your tax return, you were able to assign what categories your tax dollars are allocated to. Perhaps a certain portion is mandatiorially allocated to fixed costs, but the rest can be left to the taxpayer to decide. Then it can form the basis of the following years budget which the governmetn would be obligated to follow. thats a very novel and interesting idea. im going to digest that and think on.

You do remember the recession? And the 18% mortgage rates? There was a reason the conservates were decimated to two seats. And it cant be blamed on Kim.

I am thinking: Healthcare Education Law and Order Public infastructure in no particular order. Are you satisfied when (not how) your tax dollars are used for the above purposes? Your thoughts?

Mimas, your ignorance is astounding. The benefit to the community, the economy, and to society of having a caregiver at home rearing children has been shown time and time again. It is not "living off of the working" when someone stays at home with children. Look at it more as an investment into the generation of tomorrow. Less latchkey kids, less children roaming the streets, more parental supervision equals more productive, moral citizens. Stay at home parents DO make sacrifices. The amount they receive in tax benefits, ctb, etc. is minimal compared to the lost income. please try and see the big picture and dont by into the cnn view of things.

I think the liberals are the lesser of the two evils as a whole. The liberals were corrupt and arrogant. People forget that the conservatives were killing the country prior to 93, and the liberals cleaned things up though (economically). I think Harper will play his cards tight and carefull though. I think if he can keep from (and i think he will) pulling another gaff (like his emerson and company HUGE BONER), he will form a majority next time around. If he is smart, he wont touch gay marriage, and he will leave the decriminalization of marijuana alone. If he could keep his hands off of those two hotpotatoes and stick to his fiscal policy, he will garner more youth votes, and keep from seeming so extreme. He wont please his religious right group, but they wouldnt vote for liberal or ndp anyways, so he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. now if he could just get a personality.....

Why would the police in Alberta (or elsewhere) keep arresting this fellow if his warrant is only 200k radius. 495 of CCC gives powers of arrest authority to police-but can they not use their discretion? if the cpic report comes up with a 200 k radius, that means the warrant is only valid within that 200k. knowing this, why would the police bother? would there not be a notation in cpic after the first time this fellow is stopped and dropped? theft and fraud under being dual (indictable or summary) offences, this guy might see little to no jail time if sent to provincial court anyways. the law should be revised to either a-provide for automatic transfer and payment for such, or b-dropping of the charges outside of the radius. maybe they could bill the offender?

LOL! Somebody has a lot of growing up to do before they understand the world. I have found that it is a lot more work to be home with children than going to work all day. Very tiring. If you think someone that stays home to raise children rather than working is lazy, you need to open your eyes.

A lion can be replaced. Or taken down by a pack of jackals. But I guess we kind of got sidetracked on the thread topic. Personally, I would allow guest workers. Provide with charter rights. Allow unionization. They break the law-get the boot. They lose their job-allow them an adequate time frame to find another. If they do not (notice i didnt say cannot)-get the boot. Its just like any other organization-you offer the positions internally, and if there are no takers, you head hunt outside the company (or country as the case may be).

I think a lot of people simply dont understand the concept of unionization. Just because you are unionized, doesnt mean you cant be fired. It just means you cant be fired without just cause. Just because you are unionized doesnt mean your ability is not rewarded. There are generally some sort of "point" or "merit" system when ascertaining who is successfull in job bids in (especially) the professional fields. Seniority (i know some think it is a dirty word) is only a piece of the equation. One professional is easily replaced. A thousand are not. Safety in numbers. Corporations, financial institutes, etc. all pool their respective "assets" to maximize their power. Why would workers, professional or otherwise be any different?

Link Hugo and I are one in thought until his last paragraph in that thread. thanks for the necromancy with that thread.

So what is your thinking on the reason for the higher unionization rate in the public vs. private sector? My thoughts (and I have to confess, I did take some of this at university) on this are several. The government lacks the will to fight the unions. The government simply cant win-so much of the voting population are public sector workers (or retirees from such). As well, people sympathize with these individuals (yes i know not everyone does, but the majority does). This is why teachers for example will wrap their demands (not passing judgement here) for higher wages with small classroom size-it gets public support. These public occupations are necessary. The appeasement of the government comes like this. They give higher than average wages to public sector workers, public sector workers stay happy, and they pass legislation taking away right to strike, but no real backlash-because these workers know they are being paid better than other occupations. I mean a waiter can make more money (with tips) in cuba than a doctor, so why be a doctor when you can stay away from blood and guts and serve gin and tonic to hot american women. supply and demand. you cant just bring in a temp agency if a doctor or teacher went out on strike. thus the government pays higher to these people. and all of this is because divided, these workers know they can be crushed, but with a union and/or an association, they know that there is more safety-just like penguins at the edge of the berg.

correct me if i am wrong, but did preston manning not leave politics due to health (prostate cancer?) reasons? personally, i think his shelf life is past due. obviously an intelligent, driven man. but hes yesterdays news. time for fresh, new, young ideas.

Can we see a report on that statistic first ? How we measure Standard of living: linkMeasured in US Dollars the GDP/capta has gone from $10,503 in 1960 to $25,496 in 1998. 14 Nations: Gross Domestic Product Per Capita I don't have statistics for the union membership for Canada, but for the US: link as to your first link, it is a bit deceiving. it doesnt represent the true amount that each person has-it simply takes the gross wealth and divides by population. i dont know if a true, unbiased figure could be found-so many variables, and so many ways to look at the stats. suffice it to say, 50 years ago, a man (yes, a man, and no i am not sexist) could go to work and have his wife stay at home and raise 4 kids. one house, a car, and they had modest savings. nowadays, both work, 2 kids-caveat being, everyone has a cottage, 2-3 cars, bigger home, 4 tvs, a computer, all kinds of fancy furniture, trips to mexico, etc.-and a whole lot more debt. are our eyes bigger than our stomachs? when will rumplestiltskin come for our children? 2nd link was really good for those that dont understand such things.

Riverview, that is unforgiveable example of zero-sum thinking. You should know better.One person's rise in income need not come at the expense of another's - and in the case of Americans and Canadians, it doesn't. Trade is mutually beneficial and most of our high incomes come from the simple expedient of allowing ourselves to trade freely. If other countries had done as we, the world would be a far richer place. Put this into another perspective. Does that mean that if the entire world was one country and trade was unrestricted, we would all be as rich as bill gates? Who would we trade with to increase our wealth? Mars? Before discovering the new world, was europe all "rich"? Our borders are imaginary lines. The ability of goods to flow through them is really of little consequence. If Canada were the ONLY country in the world, would we all live better or worse than we do? Just some rhetorical (and idiotic maybe) thoughts to kick around.

I would dispute that association is the same objective as a union. The vast majority of the examples you have pointed to are public service. Tell you anything? What exactly do you dispute? Do you (and I am by no means meaning to belittle your experience or knowledge in this or any other matter) have any experience with a union and/or an association? I merely speak from experience. I was a member of a union for years. And I was a union representative (not on staff) in many different positions for a decade. In the private sector. I am currently a member of a professional association (not a representative though) in the public sector. From my experience the objectives are the same. The legislation is different though, so this affects the union/associations ability to represent the membership. I am not saying positively or negatively, just different. The tactics used are different. But the objectives are in fact the same-to affect the members of the union/association in a positive way (read financial compensation and/or working conditions). We all want more for less. As for the public service, what is your point? I truly do not understand. There is a higher rate of organized people in the public sector than the private-partially because it is harder for the government to replace these "skilled and educated" workers than it is for a private corporation to replace its workforce. And the public workforce is generally considered "essential" compared to the general workforce. I can always wait to get my wigit-i cant wait for my doctor, police officer, paramedic, nurse, etc. And if some had their way, these public workers would be private-and then you would start to see your police force, fire people, doctors, etc. go on strike-i dont think anyone wants that sort of thing.

Traditional Canadian values? Who can we blame but ourselves?

There can be no doubt that Ralph is a great politician. Until recently anyways. Alberta is out of debt. Conservatives are still in power. Although Ralph has made some major faux pas as of late (i mean getting drunk and berating homeless men is quite uncouth) he did a service to MUCH of the province. The problem is, is that those that needed the help the most, did not benefit from KING RALPH. I personally think the whole $400 cheque thing was a waste of money. That money could have been put to a collective purpose to create an even BETTER province-whether its capital expenditure on health care equipment, cheaper public transportation, upgraded schools, computers in libraries, whatever. I think the C convention felt the pulse of the general Alberta pop and decided that the emperor had no clothes-and they told him to put his pants on.

Education and skills don't mean much anymore. White collar jobs are being outsourced more and more. If you want to earn a good wage, get in a union or a job protected by a professional association. Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down? True, that still unions provide job protection to the unskilled and uneducated, but as you can see by many examples where unions once dominated, union protection is disappearing as it is forced to deal with globalization. Examples of "unskilled and uneducated" employment that is union (or association, which has the same objective-setting wages and working conditions): Doctors Nurses Police Officers Fire personel Paramedics Teachers University Profs Engineers Trades people and the list goes on and on and on.

The median income is rising in real terms or with inflation ? What about the mean ? Whether or not Krugman or Marx say something doesn't make it true - the facts do. The facts Krugman quotes show that economic policy is doing a great job for the top .01 %. Get an education, and you can increase your income almost 1% a year. Inherit a few billion and you can increase it 500%. I couldnt have said it better.

Canada's median income is rising.The common fallacy that capitalism leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor is Marxist claptrap. Karl Marx made the argument about 150 years ago and we're still waiting for the revolution. I dont believe that is so. First off, capitalism DOES work. And has worked well. It has made many people rich, and brought up the standard of living of many others. Capitalism is basically a system whereas people attempt to amass wealth in their direction. Not really so broad, but you get the point. What is missing from the thoughts of so many capitalist proponents is the rest of the picture. Many hate unions. But unions are capitalist instruments. The people pool their resources to amass the wealth in their direction. Henry Ford did not like unions. But he saw the wisdom in paying his workers an above average wage as they then could afford to purchase his product. This made him richer, and his workers as well. Very symbiotic. As for FREE TRADE? Well free trade is based on the premise of removing restrictions to the flow of goods between countries. What restrictions? Welllllll, labour costs, national protectionism, environmental concerns, etc. So these agreements remove the host countries abilities to restrict the corporations from willy nilly putting goods into and out of them. example. the auto pact. worked well for decades. created jobs in canada. made northamerican corporations wealthy. workers made a bundle. symbiotic. now with the loss of the auto pact, the big three are going to the toilet, the workers are becoming unemployed (which is affecting their ability to "donate" their taxes and wages back into the communities ) and the asian auto makers are making a bundle-for the workers in THEIR countries. free trade has hurt our economy in this way. is it all bad? well, no. it works both ways in many instances. but i believe the hurt is worse than the healing. as for Marx, labelling anyone with a social conscience a marxist, is small minded. I am not a communist, socialist, etc. Not a member of a political party either. I can simply see the trees and the forest. And they come in all shapes and sizes.