blueblood

Not as much as a policy set by the govt when people with 30k incomes buying 300k homes. What could go wrong with that? Any logical business not bound by that govt policy would tell those bozos wanting a house at 10x earnings to pound sand.

That depends on what kind of a farmer you are. In the farming community there is a big debate in the farm media concerning left/right issues. If you are a farmer and are doing well, your not going to qualify. Given that all industries receive subsidies in one form or another, which I don't necessarily agree with. Personally I think the subsidies are a waste of tax money unless there is a healthy return to the govt, but the farm lobby which is comprised of a lot of leftist farmers demands a lot of govt intervention. It has been far more beneficial to me to incorporate, drive truck from time to time in the winter, dust crops, and do custom work to pad my income than to wait around the mailbox looking for a govt check. Those checks don't offset anything and piss off the city people. Those subsidies have been slashed and are going down. It could be worse, we could be europeans. Unless your wanting to talk about govt farm insurance. Or is it ontario chicken, egg, dairy farmers and that gong show.

And the usa's recession was caused by the govt policy of everyone should own a house and bozos who buy a house at more than 5x earnings and not being able to pay. That's central canada's problem not ours. Good thing for me my business is in an industry that was one of the first to diversify from usa and european customers.

Canada doesn't have to reduce its level to a third world state. The cost of freight to and from china allows for some improved wages. However workers can't be paid at these levels and expect gdp growth of 4-5%. That and canada has a resource sector to compete with manufacturing. The govt does let immigrant workers into the patch all the time and quite often they do work for less. They need all the low cost workers they can get. Once the worker pool fills up, wages will fall out on the patch as well. Alberta has to compete with other jurisdictions for oil production, hence its competitive royalty rates. What alberta does is produce things people want and at a reasonable price. The car and manufacturing companies of ontario and usa did not. the rest of the world is getting richer. China is much richer than before. Once china's cost of labor gets too high and its population consumes more finished goods, the manufacturing jobs either return to the usa or go to the next low cost jurisdiction.

Except those "third world" countries have 6-8% gdp growth and a rapidly improving quality of life. More and more chinese are car owners. For someone who wants improved conditions for workers, I find it funny that you want the third world impoverished so that north american workers can live high on the hog. If kevin making leo gerrard cry is whipping him in an argument then I guess he whipped him. Ontario workers have two choices they can take a pay cut and keep their jobs or have no job and no income. Businesses are for making money, not for wiping a workers ass. Albertan workers can compete, why can't ontario workers? Do yourself a favor go to a bookstore and buy as much books on management, commerce, and economics as you can. You are too economically illiterate to reason with. Workers are a dime a dozen, north america is finding that out the hard way.

It was good for india, china, brazil, chile, and indonesia. They have a growing middle class. It was also good for sask, alberta, nfld, bc, manitoba. If central canada is too ignorant to deal with emerging markets and refusing to innovate/compete they deserve what they get. You guys priced yourselves out of jobs deal with it.

China, india, brazil, indonesia, chile buy into uncle kevin's style of economic policy and are much richer because of it. Fareed zakaria says it best "the usa is not slowing down, the rest of the world is catching up!"

They are a VAT tax away from putting a dent in their deficit, however they might be worried about suffering the same fate as the PC party. The only way that they will smarten up is when the bond vultures start circling. Ask bill clinton how that worked out. James carville said it best "if I could be reincarnated I would come back as the bond market, everyone fears the bond market"

This is why management, economics, and commerce classes should be mandatory for high school graduation. I smell a lecture about the sun, moon, and light coming from august... I'm going to enjoy this

The top 1% earn that money because they bloody well earned it, they risk far more money than you can imagine and get to reap the rewards of that risk. Also they have succession plans stretching back decades ensuring the next generation is better off than the first. Not only that the top 1% spends and invests their money which provides jobs and improves the lives of other people. Hugo chavez tried going after wealthy people and they all bailed out of the country taking their wealth and talents with them. Canada does well when commodity prices rise. Its why the deficit is smaller than predicted and why paul martin and stephen harper were both able to reduce taxes. The common people in canada are doing well, just the top tier is doing better. Its posts like that which tells me that commerce, economics, and management classes should be mandatory for high school graduation.

The 2004 is the liberals only "defence" against the tories hammering them with the coalition of 2008. When the entire theme of the liberal's election campaign of ethics accountablity and transparency is shot full of holes because of the coalition of 2008 which canadians didn't find ethical, accountable, and transparent. I don't know why centre left posters keep bringing up the 2004 coalition here though. Its been ripped apart here ad nauseum, and greg weston on the cbc this morning on the first reality check ripped it apart as well.

What billions to the banks? If cpc policies so bad why is obama and cameron copying his policy of corporate tax cuts? By great kleptocracy do you mean people in the us thinking they can afford houses at more than 5 times earnings?

The issues you are talking about aren't gaining traction because people either support them or they aren't a big enough deal to get blasted on. Harper owns the economy, there's rising gdp, falling unemployment, and a rise in commodities which canada exports to the world - which helped lower thr deficit projections for this year. Also there are numerous studies which show lower corporate taxes are a benefit to the economy; the USA, england are lowering theirs and ireland which made the steepest cuts of all didn't touch their rock boTtom rate. A political scientist from carleton university on ctv said he was putting out a paper on the benefits of corporate tax cuts. The prisons aren't needed? The prisons are overcrowded and the population of canada has been growing. The crime rate has fallen (mostly due to the age demographics and the "pig in the python" demographic phenomenon), but with a larger population that is still a fair amt of people committing crime. Rehab programs are successful, but only when the addict/criminal truely wants to be rehabilitated, forcing people to go through rehab programs doesn't work either(ie charlie sheen). There is a prison overcrowding problem and this is one way of helping to fix that. Also it creates jobs. The fighter jets are needed the group of countries in the f35 program went over a bunch of designs and picked that one. The liberals want to spend money on committees and red tape. Its like driving around the city all day to look for the cheapest gas. It ends up costing more in the end. As for healthcare and spending money on seniors I urge you to google fareed zakaria :ow to restore america back to number 1. Fareed is a dead centrist and he believes that govt is spending too much on consumption ie healthcare and seniors and not enough for the future. Its time for north americans to be more responsible with their money, because I don't know if our economy could handle the baby boomers during their geriatric years, the bond vigilantes would blow a gasket like they did in the mid nineties, simply put the boomers took too much. Its harsh, but its the lesser of two evils. As for ignatieff changing the channel, your absolutely right. Every day the cpc talks about the coalition and the journalists talk about it in the media, that's an extra day the liberals have to react and not talk about the issues. Ignatieff's campaign is based primarliy on ethics and trust and transparency according to the talking heads, this coalition business as legal as it is didn't come across as ethical, trustworthy, and transparent the last time around. The cpc and media have made the liberal party apear to be hypocrites. The liberals would have been far better off to let harper govern in the minority use that time to formulate policy and build support and go at harper when there has to be an election as outlined in the constitution. We have a saying in the business world, pigs get slaughtered. It appears that this is happening to the liberals with their bad greedy strategy.

Bob rae on the cbc talking about how harper is using scare tactics as a campaign strategy and how bad of an idea it is. Appears its fine for chretien and martin to use them but not harper...

Prorogation is an option the gg can bring up with pmpm. As unlikely a scenario as it is, it is still a scenario. Ill go with the talking heads on the ctv. Ignatieff grilled on day one, nobody having a bad weekend.

Liberals think there is only one option in the letter. Prorgation is another. As for implementing it, that's a risk that would have to be taken. Harper is 1-1 with the proroging score. The myth of the coalition being the only option has been busted, thank you nicky! As for the letter of 2004 it has been discussed ad nauseum here and toadbrother sums it up best with his sex analogy and how the tories used protection and the libs didn't. Also hashed and rehashed on tv. If liberals think that ignatieff being skewered by the media about the coalition on day 1, and not talking about their ideas is a good start, I'm looking forward to another dionesque disaster.

I give a pass depending on which documents are withheld. If its a matter of national security/crisis, I wouldn't feel comfortable with the gong show we have now blabbing about secret documents that could put the country's security at risk. If there is no security there could potentially be no parliament to breech privelege of (very unlikely). Its the lesser of two evils. Parliamentary privilege is second banana compared to the mandatory election the govt has to win. If he can sell that minority govts are not in the publics best interest, then that's his prerogative. At the end of the day its all about not upsetting the voters parliamentary rules or not. Look what happened in 2008.

Do you really think the cpc was going to get a fair committee ruling with a majority of the committee being from other parties? C'mon man! And since harpers poll numbers held up during that brew ha ha, I'd say the public is giving him a pass. I answered your question, legally no. However due to the circumstances I give him a pass on it. In other words, the govt can try, but parliament can find out and then air it out in public. If parliament wants to stack the committee, then they have to wear the kangaroo court label just as the govt wears the crooked bastard label.

Wrong the ctv I'd say is centrist. If anything craig oliver is left leaning. Is msnbc right leaning because its privately owned?

Opposition outnumbering the govt on the committee, that's stacked in my books. My point isn't about parliamentary tradition or royal pomp or all that jazz. Its about harper performing in the court of public opinion (election). According to the court of public opinion harper is getting a pass on this and can say to the public "well jeez look at this stacked committee trying the party" At the end of the day public opinion trumps parliamentary tradition, the failure of the 2008 coalition is proof of that. There is a world outside of the house of commons. Your just not seeing the forest for the trees.

I'm not being an ass here, in 04 did parliament sit before harper,duceppe, and layton. I forget

Or prorogue parliament. That could be an option and harper pulled that little ace out of his sleeve afterwards

To answer your question, legally no. However when the parliamentary system was set up I don't think there was the idea of giant political parties floating around, it seems that it was initially for independents. That said, I don't blame harper for keeping mum about the documents because of the toxic nature of the current parliament we have and the sensitive nature of some of the documents. According to poll numbers a lot of canadians are giving harper a pass on this as well. I still don't understand why this is relevant to my point. My point is that there is a stacked committee hiding behind parliamentary rules for political gain. Had there been only independents on the committee, then I would agree with you 100%. I don't know what's worse the hiding of the documents or having a kangaroo court of a committee overseeing it. In all fairness that goes for the tory committee members blindingly siding with the govt. We can sit here and bicker about parliamentary procedure all you want, at the end of the day, its about optics. Ill ask you again, was the committee stacked? The actions of the committee provide proof of the coalition's motives and tactics. How are they going to look canadians in the eye and dismiss the coalition when in fact they banded together using every legal trick in the book to oust the govt and expect canadians to believe them. The opposition can cry foul all they want, all harper has to say is "look who's trying me". Its that simple point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Since I'm not a party member, whether harper hides documents or not is his problem not mine. I'm not talking about hiding documents. if I can quote alta, he said the liberals were funny with the gun registry among others. As much as you care about this issue, its not what I'm talking about. Ill ask you again was the committee stacked or was it not? Ill ask you again why was sponsorship such an issue whereas inserting a word not much of an iSsue? It doesn't matter if harper alledgedly took a million dollars and bought a yacht, my point is that if the committee prosecuting him or his party is full of partisan hacks (literally), don't you think there is a credibility issue? You can cite new westminster protocol all you want, but if you think committee members who belong to parties using any means to remove the cpc from govt are magically unbiased and fair, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

If you get to glorify bob rae's policy, I get to glorify reality. Politicians throughout the 70s to the mid nineties throughout canada thought they could get away with massive deficits, the bond vigilantes said otherwise. The chretien govt, clinton administration, among others discovered this reality the hard way! Just for you ---> :D