blueblood

And I'm called a troll... this poll is an insult to police officers all across Canada.

The theory is that if a person has everything brought to him, he will be less likely to step out of that bubble and work for his own stuff because then his supply of free stuff will be cut off. If you have a choice between being given 3 apples, or going out to work for 5 apples - some people would want to pursue those two extra apples, but many would be content with the 3 because it requires 0 effort. With less people being productive, less goes into the economy, and less comes out - meaning that there will be less apples to go around anyway and we'll all be poorer. It's a basic economic principle. When people have no reason to pursue the apples - the apple trade will slow greatly. An example of this in history is War Communism in the USSR. The gov't took all wheat and distributed it to those in need - which sounds good, but it resulted in far lesser productivity - why would a farmer bother to work harder if his wheat was just going to be taken away? That's why Lenin had to introduce the New Economic Policy which allowed peasants to sell their extra wheat, thus providing the incentive for better productivity. It's a similar situation today, only it's - why would Joe bother to work at all if he could get a similar result by doing nothing and relying on the government. You're right that as a society we take measures to try to control our economy. However, I would argue that we should not, as it often has negative economic and social results. There are many ways for people to get a leg up in our society without the government getting involved. Figleaf, your post was very funny. However, I'm not suggesting that we keep anybody down or force anybody to work. It is government which keeps people down by driving them to dependency. And I firmly oppose any legislation which forces labour. Not a minimum wage thread again, lets hurt the economy by putting a sky high min. wage.

And people get mad at the tories for keeping a tight leash on their MPs, this whole gov't the Liberals have been more "tyrannical" on their MPs than the tories. At least the tories had a reason for muzzling their MPs (to win an election) It doesn't look good for the Liberals if they are divided on an issue and make a big stink like that about it. On the Gay marriage, tory MPs voted against. On the wheat board, Inky Mark voted against. The difference is that the tories let it go and minimized the damage done.

Bang on. This post secondary trap is in my opinion a big hindrance on growth. Most stuff learned in post-secondary is not practical. Having so many students chained to student loans is hindering them. Do you honestly need a 4 yr. degree to sit in a cubicle? Learning on the job is by far the best way to learn. I think our society should realize that university degrees are not the be all and end all of the world.

whoops

Bike paths are great but not everyone lives in cities. A lot of people really do need vehicles. I don't have a problem with discouraging people from using unnecessarily inefficient vehicles and using that money to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles. Most people do live in cities though, do a lot of them really need vehicles? I on the other hand NEED a 3/4 ton, and am happy that I don't have to pay a tax if I want to buy a newer one.

I hear complaints from Danny Williams (That's new? And as Bluth noted in reference to Paul Wells, sso what?). Saskatchewan too. Sask and NL have what, 17 seats? Meanwhile Ontario is happy and Harper may well have killed the PQ/BQ, or at least made them a laughing stock. I'm a little surprised that Alberta is not "up in arms". IME, Albertans are kind of naive about politics. Does that explain it? Quebec politics are genuinely competitive. Albertan politics seem to be, uh, Cuban. I wouldn't write off those 17 seats like that. I think Harper's next majority will be a razor thin one. In order to get his majority, he will need every seat he can get his hands on. Harper will win the next election, but if he wants his majority, he should have the same mindset as his 06 victory in that every seat counts. Of course quebec politics have to be competitive, that place NEEDS change, it hasn't found a status quo yet. Alberta on the other hand has a really good thing going for it, why rock the boat?

Each person has to be responsible for thier retirement to a certain extent. My father didn't save a penny until he was 58, twenty years later (he just retired) he has enough money to live comfortably for another twenty. Although I do believe that the government should be responsible for assiting seniors so that their income is enough to let them lead a relatively comfortable life. (not having to eat Purina or live without hydro or TV). Canada's basic Canada Pension vs the cost of living here is attrocious. Even the poorest Euro member nation has twise the value for basic pensions which is what the majority of people retire on. Most people did not work for the government nor have union employment. The basic Canada pension of ~$1000 a month or $250 per week is not enough to live on in Canada with our much higher basic cost of living. I think another problem is that we as a society are living too long. Back in the day people were lucky to see 65, and at 65 a person can still positively contribute to society. Now people can easily live into their 80's and 90's, what good is a person that age to society? That is a huge drain, and those people are generally a shadow of their former selves. I hope I only last till 65 and go out with my boots on.

wrong, in undeveloped countries it is economically beneficial to have children to help out with the farming, fishing etc. Ya, it would be if they didn't eat. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It may be a pretty good budget. I do not believe that a budget in Canada is going to reduce the population implosion. A better place to start would be to reduce the ridiculous amount of time it takes to get an undergraduate degree and most professional degrees. High school and college could each be three years, law school, one year, and medical school, I don't know from experience but maybe 2 or 3 years. I know this may be a topic for another thread, but I graduated law school at age 25 in 1982. I was in no position, economically, to marry until I was around 30. If I graduated law school at age 21, I could have married early enough to have 3 or 4 children, rather than just 2. Also, the generations would roll by faster, increasing even further the population growth effect. While tax credits for dependents may be a good idea, I didn't exactly look at my tax returns in deciding how many children to have. The calendar sort of made that decision for me. Bang on. This post secondary trap is in my opinion a big hindrance on growth. Most stuff learned in post-secondary is not practical. Having so many students chained to student loans is hindering them. Do you honestly need a 4 yr. degree to sit in a cubicle? Learning on the job is by far the best way to learn. I think our society should realize that university degrees are not the be all and end all of the world.

If there are going to be incentives, they shouldn't be based on whether or it is a hybrid but actual mileage. A hybrid which gets 30 MPG is polluting just as much as any other vehicle that gets 30 MPG. The bike tax is pure protectionism. Why not take that incentive for purchasing hybrids and invest that into making bike paths throughout Canadian cities and launching a massive ad campaign, it would be a lot better for the environment.

How does this budget make "fools" of the (fill in the blank) _____ Quebecois? I'm curious, as an American. PM if you want to send more than what you'd post. With this federal budget, Harper put out a trap for Duceppe (and in effect, the sovereignty movement). Harper was worried enough that Duceppe wouldn't fall into the trap because Harper prepared his party for a possible election. As it turned out, Duceppe went for the bait completely. First, Duceppe talked negatively about a Harper-Dumont Axis. Second, Duceppe approved a Harper budget. Third, Duceppe tried to excuse his actions. [You cannot believe how the sovereigntists in Quebec are explaining this one. It includes Harper's a crook to get involved in Quebec politics one week from an election, Charest had advance notice, Duceppe is defending Quebec's interest, it's our money anyway, Quebec is not a welfare province, the Conservatives are naive since this money will help prepare Quebec independance.] Harper saw that the PQ was dying and he wanted to put it out of its meisery with this budget. Harper might have succeeded. Let's see what the popular vote is for the PQ next week but it's going to be less than 35% and possibly less than 30%. The only ones left are the stubborn purs et durs. The PQ/BQ are moribund. Harper has made fun of both and the ridicule is apparent to all. Those who believe in le fait français en Amérique will seek another method. You might have me turned around here August. If Harper succeeds in destroying the Seperatist movement, and pops in his puppet Dumont, this might not be a bad idea. The thing I'm thinking about is that Dumont has a lot to gain here. I wonder if Harper's first order of business in a majority will be (if his stooge Charest or Dumont wins) is to pull the plug on Quebec's socialist paradise, I think with the right spin it can be done.

The only fault of Danny Williams that I can see is that he won't drop the corporate tax rate to properly exploit the oil right on his doorstep. Atlantic Canada can be stupid rich and dare I say surpass Alberta. Other than that I think he is an excellent premier and his approval rating is a testament to that. He has excellent leadership qualities and a lot more persona than Harper. He stands up for his province in the wake of environmentalists trying to embarass them on national TV. He has a hot temper, but he's far from crazy. Stelmach is a good ol' Ukrainian farm boy, he's playing Harper's game and giving him the benefit of the doubt. After all Harper needs some premiers on his side. Had Harper taxed the oil sands, Stelmach would pull a Williams. Rig pigs get 2 months off in the spring time, plus a week off here and there throughout the year. During their time off they live like kings. Advancement is pretty good out there if your willing to stick it out, but be warned it like any other job is not for everyone. I'd like to see how some of the armchair economists here would write it. Me, broad tax cuts and better investments into traditional gov't expenditures and "money makers", cut Quebec and the East off from the trough. Basically what will net Canada the most money.

Agreed, crop inputs/machinery reflect this as well. If you want a brand new sprayer with autosteer, GPS, self boom height levelling, CD player, Greenstar Field mapping, etc. get ready to cough up 500+ grand to do it. Funny thing is some people are that stupid.

I said Western Manitoba, IMO Winnipeg is more suited to Ontario. An Alberta style tory gov't will help out, Western MB has oil, wood, and an ag sector on the verge of a boom ready to go, Sask has this too, but Sask also has a very large Status FN problem too.

This is the beef that I have. Why do we pick and choose which industries get to make money out of thin air? Subjecting copyright laws to the free market will ensure cheaper products for consumers, which in my opinion helps the poor and downtrodden directly. I'll make Gosthacked a deal, if he can make grain and canola grow 50+ bushels an acre in a field without lifting a finger I will stand corrected. It's pretty tough for nature to get them out of the bin/seed bag. Making money out of thin air is completely proposterous. It should be a one time sale, not gouging the consumers to pay out royalties, if one industry can get away with this, then they all should.

Seriously though, a vote for any other party or independent would at least be a protest vote. I have voted protest votes on mayor the last three elections even though I knew the person had no chance of winning. I wasn't about to be left out of the process. If polling were illegal, then at least if you vote in protest you get a legitimate shot.

It is historic indeed. Being the bullshittiest budget of all time and all... But it made a fool of Duceppe. How much would you pay for that? Cutting Quebec off from the trough and letting Quebec try and fund it's own socialist paradise would make him look like a much bigger fool and wouldn't cost anything. It would take time but it would work. Harper makes Duceppe look like a fool on a regular basis, remember the nation thing?

Calvert was pretty upset with the whole resourse revenue in the equalization formula thing. The richer Sask gets, I think the more upset with eastern canada they will get. Western Manitoba has more in common with Calgary than Winnipeg.

In all honesty, the Liberals didn't manage to come up with such shitty budget in the last 13 years, so I don't see this budget as being Liberal-esque in any way. It's not Liberalesque. It's just....stunning. Fair enough. I can't see this budget encouraging much economic growth in where it's needed. IMO eastern canada needs an overhaul.

It is historic indeed. Being the bullshittiest budget of all time and all... In all honesty would it be if the Liberals wrote it? All over people are saying this budget is Liberal-esque.

Don't be modest. It is a huge thing. If every new sub-division in Canada was required to do it, energy shortages and emissions would be dealt with simultaneously. New houses are already energy efficient, they really don't need it, it wouldn't help them too much, require it for old houses. There are lots of enviro things that can save money, your right let saving money be the hallmark for the environment, a lot more people would hop on board.

What can you expect though? 60+% of Canadians voted left of centre. Quebec style programs are being touted in the media, remember the last election about Quebec style daycare, yah that's all fine and good but Quebec's economy is in the tank. No politician will point that out in an election campaign. Canadians have been spoiled by socialism to the point where they believe they can't live without it. They believe this is as good as it gets. It's a bigger, better world and we are getting left behind. We don't need the gov't to make our lives better, we can do that ourselves.

At the time of renegoiation, can we opt out? I think Saskatchewan and Western Manitoba would join you, maybe eastern BC on top of it.

It's also that they are scattering money the four winds. There is so much spread, and not only that, the programs are lacklustre. 233+ billion dollars spent and we have a pathetic health care system? No, Canadians can only blame themselves for this budget, we have an "I want this program" syndrome and we all like being patronized and supporting the government in that they tell us what we want to hear and not doing what needs to be done. This budget reflects the attitudes of Canadians and can we blame the government for having it's ear close to the ground not wanting to repeat Mulroney? I'm sure when the Irish gov't restructured their country they've taken a lot of flak. This budget also shows that in Canadian politics, people would rather follow a whore than a decisive leader who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision for the good of the country.

cbc In the business tax section it says that small business, farmers, and fishermen get their exemption of capital gains up to 750k.