gc1765

For the most part, yes. An economists focus, by definition, is economics. Economists are not concerned with the poor, they are concerned with economics. Sometimes their policies do help the poor, other times not. Again, that is their job. Is a scientist too focused on science? An artist too focused on art? I'd have to decide that on an issue by issue basis. I tend to agree with economists more often than not.

Do you have a mechanism for HOW farting causes warming, which is backed up by irrefutable facts?

Where does he get the idea that CBC produced these bumper stickers in order to stick them on other people's vehicules? I think I should head on down to Canadian Tire, buy myself some spray paint, and spray paint those words onto his vehicule. Then I can watch innocently as he blames Canadian Tire for their "anti-Alberta bigotry".

If they want to enjoy the benefits of being a corporation, why shouldn't they pay more taxes? Obviously there is enough incentive to incorporate, otherwise businesses wouldn't do it (even the small business who do not do it for capital, but for limited liability). Doesn't that go against #1? If a small business can't compete against a corporation that pays corporate taxes, how are they going to compete against a corporation that doesn't pay taxes?

The old PCs didn't raise my taxes (and since I'm relatively young, I am talking about post-Mulroney PC), and I would hope that they would have done the opposite (of course that's impossible to say since they haven't been in power in recent times)....and I think NAFTA is a good thing.

I would propose using the Instant Runoff voting system . It would allow the emergence of other parties, and getting us away from a 3-party system where we vote for the least undesirable option. It could also mean that parties could nominate more than one candidate in a riding, and thus the voters, and not just party members, could vote for the best candidate for a particular party, not just the candidate that the party happened to nominate. I also might be interested in an elected senate, or abolishing the senate....although it's hard to say for certain if that's a good idea or not. There's probably a few other things that could be done, although I can't think of any right now. If I were actually in power, I would certainly spend more time thinking about possible changes.

Health care/Health Research Democratic Reform Equality Less Government waste/lower taxes Anti-war (unless justified, like Afghanistan) Small government (eg. legalize marijuna, pro-choice) Education Not necessarily in that order, but more or less. My policies would cross party lines. I like the democratic reform of the Reform Party, Economic policies of the Liberals or Progressive Conservatives, the rest on the list would fit in with either the Liberals or the NDP.

Ummmm no. The only reason it is 15.25% for 2006 is because it was 15% before July 1st, and 15.5% after July 1st. The current rate is 15.5%, that is what the Conservatives raised it to. Here is a better link: Link

I hate to be a stickler...but I believe it was raised half a percent to 15.5%, not 15.25%. They also lowered the basic personal exemption (after adjusting for inflation). Does everyone qualify for the Employment Credit? Or is it only for work-related expenses?

Excellent post (above).

The people who agreed to the contract is the Government of Canada, which still exists and will exist for the forseeable future. In other issues, the Government of Canada is the Government of Canada whether or not the people who actually made the deal are still around. Why should Native issues be any different? For example, the debt was created by the Government of Canada, most of it before I was born, yet I (as a current taxpayer) am obliged to pay it off. If you want to disregard the debt that the government owes Natives because it was made by people a long time ago, then using that logic, the government should disregard the debt it owes to the rest of it's citizens.

I've already pointed out one person on this board who does believe that, and that is the post I originally quoted. By the way, Harper said/implied that Dion forced Khan out, but you say no one (including Harper) believes it? Are you saying that Harper was saying something he doesn't believe to be true?

And if your parents didn't have a will, you would recieve them based on your DNA.

...except for the post that I quoted, as well as Steven Harper Link

No. If it's costing us 1.3 billion (actually I think the number might be less), then yes. Yes.

Really don't get your point. He could have sat as an independent no matter what the reason for him leaving the Conservative caucus. My point is that there must have been other factors in Khan's choice other than Dion "forcing" him out. If it was ONLY because Dion forced him out, he would have sat as an independent. There must have been some other reason he joined the Conservatives.

Presumably, we are talking about "Crown" land, and thus the "neighbor" is the Crown, who as far as I know has not defaulted on any debt that would require land being seized from the Crown.

If it was truly Dion who forced him out, he could have sat as an independent, not a Conservative.

If you don't like the fact that seniors have some sort of "entitlement", think of it this way....if it wasn't for our ancestors, and the progress they made, we would all be living in caves and hunting for our dinner. If it wasn't for the progress that seniors made, we would likewise have a much lower standard of living...actually we wouldn't even be alive. We owe our prosperous way of life to those who came before us.

It doesn't matter if it is a tangible asset or not (assuming that this is specified in treaties, though I'm not sure if it is or not). If I sell land to my neighbor with the stipulation that I be allowed to use it for certain purposes, and that my children etc. be allowed to use it, no one would have a problem with that. How is it ridiculous? If (God forbid) your parents should pass away, you would recieve their assets based on your DNA. Where's the difference?

I agree. I think the Liberals are the lesser of the evils, but I am still critical of them. While I don't like the CPC very much, I do give them credit for some of their policies which I agree with.

So I take it you don't believe in inheritance? Isn't that what it is....inheriting land. If my parents own land, and I inherit it, no one would have a problem with that. If they sell it, and I inherit the money, no one would have a problem with that either.

I agree. It was unfortunate to see Iran moving away from Reform in the 2005 Presidential election, and it's nice to see that they might be moving back in that direction. How much of a factor do you think the war in Iraq/axis of evil rhetoric was on the 2005 elections? I always figured that probably played a big role. One of the best things that could happen for peace in the region is to get Iran back on the path to reform.

Not true. I'm paying more tax, not less.

The latest: Link Harper seems to think that an election is coming and that the opposition will trigger it. It will be interesting to see who actually does trigger it.