blueblood

nicolas sarkozy?

US energy independance is good news for Canada. There is no way the US can be totally energy independant. If they want to cut the knees out from the middle east, that's fine for us because we still will be selling them oil, we will still be supplying them with Uranium, grain prices will rise, and we will still be supplying them with hydro, and maybe moreso. It also makes sense for any PM of any country to make nice with a politician as immensley popular as Obama.

Harper's policy on detainees - "it's your mess you clean it up, NIMBY, etc." Foreign policy - both are gung ho about afghanistan except now Harper wants out. The Middle East - both kept their traps shut concerning Gaza, and when they did open them they gave the same dodgy answers. And then there is Obama's cutting off the nutbars from the American money by making their own energy, well Canada is open for business. The more the Americans want energy independance, the better it is for Canada and Harper, Harper is laughing. Then the two want to work together on enviro policy. Oh yes, those two are going to hate each other...

At the end of the day in spite of bad customers, at the end of the day they know how best to spend their money and what they want. It's the same with government and voters. If some customers of yours don't like your methods they will go elsewhere, same with political parties. However, the success of a business determines how well they satisfy their customers needs, in your case just like with political parties, they will cater to what the biggest piece of the pie wants. You aren't wrong, your describing how governments and business's cater to the majority of their clients. Customers and voters know what to do with their votes and money. Parties and business's of course assume they aren't all things to all people and will take losses. Lots of people wanted extremely low cost shopping with a favorable refund policy, they got Walmart. Others want to drop 400 dollars on pants to be fashionable and say they're wearing 400 dollar pants, they got Harry Rosen.

And 50% of the populace with momentum agreed with that, so did the gov't. Had it been 5% with no momentum, well I don't think we'd be seeing Gay Marriage anytime soon. The gov'ts listen to the public whether you believe it or not. There was also a lot of public support for the civil rights movement as well. If a government does not listen to the people it will not get elected or keep power, it is as simple as that. The governments are the ones that come around, not the people. Kennedy is the one who I quoted as saying we should not punish ourselves, and that the government does what it's citizen's want. Kennedy was suggesting that everyone step up, not screw over people in order to benefit somebody else. Your definition of helping the poor means screwing over people who succeed, my definition of helping the poor is providing opportunity for them to get ahead without punishing those who succeed - everyone wins. As being involved in the exporting business, it is in my best interests to have as much customers who can afford my products as possible. How do we do that, by forcing corporations to hand over forkloads of money? or by letting them on their own invest in poor countries making both the corporation and the citizen of that poor country both richer? In a free society, people are free to help the poor or not to help the poor. However, by helping the poor by providing employment saves the few that are rich, instead of punishing them. Punishing the rich by just throwing money at the poor is the evil that is socialism and why it is a failure.

And management provides the opportunity for there to even be workes... Even in the factories.

Harper was listening to the electorate in that they want tax dollars spent more wisely. He thought party funding was an area that could be cut, guess what the people of the country agree with him. That I can assure you will not go away due to the fact that it's popular with the electorate. Once again the people are always right. The same goes for the coalition, Ignatieff at first tried to distance himself from it, now that 50% of the people want it, Ignatieff might look at that option. People are a lot smarter than you give them credit for

And again look at your source, almost 50-50 and based along age lines. One politician took one side and another the other. The Liberals looked at the age demographic and based on a large amount of support over younger people, they felt and rightfully so that this was an appropriate time to change the law. The people have spoken again. Gay marriage was coming and there was no stopping it as public support for it kept growing and growing, the Liberals had the foresight to see that. Laws do last longer than politicians are in power and are changed by public opinion trends and momentum. It was popular enough in 2003, and in 2006 there was talk of exit strategies and the like. Also remember in the US, a second term president has free reign to do whatever he wants because he isn't accountable to anyone because of no third election. Had there been a third election, I think the war in Iraq would have been done by now. Due to Obama's victory, it shows that he is listening to the American people and putting a stop to the war. Truman had to contend with people wanting the war to end and the American's being sick of their own men dying, hence the A bomb. Diefenbaker was listening to Canadians wanting action concerning rights and listening to popular opinion concerning medicare. It was George Bush's second term that he didn't listen to the people, he didn't have to he was on his way out anyway, his first term however had him keeping his finger on the pulse of the nation so he could get back in the President's chair. A government owes nothing to its weakest and everything to its voters/people it represents. Kennedy said it best, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" A government in one way or another always looks to what the people want. If the people want to protect the weakest, then they get protected. In Canada that occurs due to our numerous social programs that people wanted put in place.

Every Canadian believes in basic human rights. Any gov't that doesn't accept that will either be thrown out of office or won't get elected. Why would Harper who is an elected politician in one of the most stable democracies in the world with an iron clad constitution, implement some shock doctrine when the people will just toss him out. Revolutions get started because of shock doctrines. Elections are lost because of shock doctrines. The Canadian people this day and age behave a certain way and the LPC and the CPC are constantly adjusting to accomodate their needs to get themselves elected. Jack Layton the fool that he is will not accomodate the people's needs and as a result will not ever be elected.

They can say "no" and lose that customer then. Have you seen how a vegas casino works? Their high rollers are never told no. You and I have a different view of where true power lies...

Public opinion wanted gay marriage. They got it. hell even harper put that issue to rest with his sham of a vote. Gay marriage in canada is here to stay. Slavery was abolished because of public opinion. Same with the civil rights movement. Public opinion got the troops in and out of vietnam, and sent the troops to iraq and is bringing them home. Government can try and influence public opinion, key in on that influence public opinion, that means they are trying to sell their message and hope the people buy it, if they don't it's bye bye gov't. At the end of the day the government is accountable to the people and in a democracy the people are always right. This is also why Jack Layton will never see his butt sit on the Prime Minister's chair.

The Soviets looked at their system as a shared duty, what did they get for it? A piss poor standard of living and they couldn't even feed themselves. Let people help each other out on their own accord, not the government force everyone. It's better to let a person succeed and build his business and instead of forcibly taking his money through taxes to fund welfare, lets let him keep that money and hire another person to help his business grow. Everybody wins. Forcing people to "help" other people is punishment. I look at success as a whole as each individual succeeding on their own merits, not taking away from others to better themselves.

And how big is the retail your spending your time in? The customer at the end of the day is always right, try running a business where you the entrepreneur dictates policy to the customer and we'll see how long you last. Part of Walmart's success has been built around customer relations and giving a good shopping experience, ever return something to Walmart, no problems at all. The people who vote in representatives to write and change laws are never wrong. What you call right and wrong, I call a change of the times. What's "right" today might not be "right" tomorrow.

In a free market the only hindrance on success is the individual. How much are you willing to give up to make sure "nobody is left behind"? Why should you be punished for someone else's shortcomings? A free market will not result in the destruction of our economy. People are still buying and selling things, they just aren't worth as much because people are buying less. This is called the trough in the market cycle, it will pick back up when the price is right for people to start spending again.

Hogwash, the gov'ts job is to represent the people. A socialist gov't job is to protect those who can't protect themselves by punishing success and quite frankly that track record flat out sucks. A western gov't's "job" is to provide an environment where all individuals have a chance to succeed. That means not punishing people for getting ahead. As far as lynching black people is concerned, a lot of people thought that was wrong, hence the gov't passed a law fixing that. The gov't passes laws which the people want, in the 1800's people started to think slavery was a load of hooey, the gov't acted. The people are never wrong when it comes to the government. That line of thinking is what caused the USSR to collapse. The very fact that constitutions can be ammended (although extremely difficult) shows that the people are always right. To say that people are fools is a slap in the face of democracy. Same goes in the middle eastern countries, namely Gaza. The Palestinian's elected a gov't that best suits their interests. That gov't is accountable to the Palestinians. I think we can say lobbing rockets and participating in instability is wrong, but to the Palestinian's it is right. Hamas's priority 1 is to it's people, whether they are in the right or not. A gov'ts job is to carry out it's jurisdictions agenda, and the customer is always right. Writing off the will of the people has caused gov'ts to fail time and time again.

And why government respects our individualism. The people are always right and any gov't who wants to remain in power has to realize that. You think it is up to the government's position is to set policy and dictate to the people what the business of the country is. I think it is the government's position to let the people of the country set policy and represent the people's wishes of what the business of the country is. That is our fundamental difference.

Bah! Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years, socialism is a tried and failed experiment. Marx has been proven wrong time and again. There isn't anything wrong with the gov't participating in the free market system as being an investor/customer. Capitalism goes through cycles, it was supposed to implode many times but hasn't!!! Unions are also poison.

People are always looking out for themselves. People will always stimulate the system when the price is right. This leads to deflation, as you notice looking at gas prices. However, the gov't is trying to prevent this. I don't agree with that because people will start buying again when there are bargains to be had. This is happening in the Grains sector. The bottom I think has been reached and people are buying grains. Yes the economy can wait, it's some people can't afford to wait. In times of deflation, the gov't has a problem on its hands, does it ride out the storm and do business as usual taking casualties along the way, or is it going to pump money into the system that future generations are going to pay the price for? People know what to do with money. When people save money they put it in the bank, the bank eventually will get enough money to begin lending again. The people don't lose (in canada that is) by putting money in the bank, even with low interest rates, people are still getting a return on their bank investment. What some on the left don't realize is that these things take time and its a painful process. I know from experience that gov't stimulus in the form of firehose spending does not work. Bailouts accomplish nothing except jack up everyone's tax bill. If the gov't wants to do spending, it should spend on something that it will get a decent return on investment for. Such as hydro projects. Throwing money at car manufacturers is complete lunacy.

I hope he succeeds as well, grain prices will go sky high!!!

So your advocating communism now!??! Are you saying I don't know how to spend my own money??? Does the government know how to spend your money better than you do??? Dobbin is right in this regard, people, businesses, and banks are right now in a state of panic and hoarding money. When the panic subsides, the economy will pick up again. People and business's spending money is what stimulates the economy, not gov'ts and banks hoarding it.

Canadians weren't as successful as they could have been as well. Under the tory gov't I have saved thousands of dollars in taxes. Have you read PMPM's platform? That would have been disasterous as he was planning on throwing the taps wide open on crazy spending programs. How much would we have added to the debt if he was in charge now??? Spending should be capped and should be justified for the good of the economy. Tax cuts like it or not help the economy. Canadians know how to spend their money better than gov'ts do. Believe it or not we have a good fiscal situation. Canadians can save 5000 tax free every year and can access that at any time. That is a great way of stimulating the economy. We could be like England, we could be like the US. Harper has done an alright job with managing the economy, and would have done better if he wouldn't spend so much (that's what happens when you have to face elections all the time, increased spending). And who knows the debt gets paid off in 200 years instead of 100 with this economic problem. The wealth of individual Canadians and the economy is far more important than the wealth of the gov't.

A leader in this country can only do so much until the people reign him in. GWB in the US did not have to worry about this because after 8 years he is done. A second term president can be a very powerful person. Harper does not enjoy this power because he in theory always has an election to fight and has to deal with party brass. Canadian leaders, unfortunately have to keep their eyes on the polls. If they don't, it's curtains.

How soon do we pay it off? How much should we hinder growth/personal wealth to achieve this lofty goal in a short amount of time? There has to be a balance of paying off the debt and not gouging ordinary Canadians. Remember that every dollar that is paid on top of the interest in servicing the debt results in smaller and smaller interest payments. Being that the gov't will not die means that we can afford to pay off the debt over a long period of time and at the same time keep taxes low so that the general population and the economy as a whole is a lot wealthier.

The gov't of Canada like a corporation is in a sense immortal. They have from now until judgement day to pay off the debt. There is no late fees, only interest to worry about. That means as long as the interest and even 1 or 2 billion dollars extra goes to servicing the debt, that is a good thing because the debt is not growing yet slowly being paid off, and there is more money flowing around in the economy. Blame your hero Trudeau for this debt nonsense.

You should love Con logic because what I'm saying is that both massive surpluses and massive deficits are complete nonsense. A lot of Canadians see it that way too. That's why Harper kept very tiny surpluses and would have kept doing so if the economy in the states wouldn't have tanked. I love the lefts logic, the gov't knows how to spend my money better than I do. Hell if Mulroney can be targeted, PMPM is fair game.