gc1765

If you don't have anything intelligent to say... I don't have a problem with how they gauge public opinion, but what I do find hilarious is the hypocrisy of Harper trying to claim that he doesn't govern based on polls when he clearly does.

Out of curiosity, who would you like to see him replaced with? Borg As prime minister....out of those in contention, I would say Gerard Kennedy.

"We don't make decisions in our governments based on polls," -Stephen Harper, August 2006 Link "This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based o­n focus groups. We will not take a stand based o­n phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion" -Stephen Harper, January 2003 Link No wonder they call him "Stephen Harpercrite".

You're missing the point. The problem is that the "Muslim community" is doing and saying nothing about the terror emanating from within its community. Actually they are speaking out against terrorism: Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Do a search on google and you will find many more. Pretty good considering the people speaking out are not guilty of any crimes, they just happen to share the same religion as some people who do. Search "muslims against terrorism" and you get 58,200 hits...search "christians condemn iraq" and you get 652.

Of course they are largely white, but they are not 100% white. There are many races in those countries paying taxes which help out others. Why do they not deserve credit? Do you think we wouldn't have helped if they weren't mostly black? Of course there are white people in Louisianna (and other states affected) as well, do you think we only helped out the black people and ignored the white people? Besides, the people we were helping were the United States. They are the ones responsible for the saftey of their citizens and, as you pointed out, the United States is mostly white. You also ignored the other part of my post. Do you not have a response for this: This is a list of countries who pledged help after hurricane Katrina. Notice all the non-white countries helping out the United States, a country of mostly whites?

I don't know, if 95% of industry approves of the deal before it gets put to a vote, it would be pretty stupid for the opposition (ie liberals) to vote against it. Why vote against something that only 5% are opposed to? I think it's just wishful thinking on the part of the conservatives. They probably think this is their best time to try for a majority, before the liberals get a leader. The bloc will also probably support it since they are the ones propping up the conservatives until the fiscal imbalance is addressed (not that it's likely to happen), and if Quebec supports it then I can't see them opposing it.

Look at this list: Link The U.S. is 18th on the list, behind the likes of Hong Kong, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and the United Arab emirates. or this, in response to Hurricane Katrina: Link

Your title is misleading, if not completely racist. I think what you are trying to argue is that it's the rich man's burden to care for the poor, not that it's the white man's burden to help non-whites, at least that is what I gather from your examples. You do realize that there are people from other races (black, arab, asian etc.) that pay taxes in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, and that their tax money is also helping the less fortunate. You should also remember that there are white people on welfare here in Canada (and the U.S.), so the issue isn't really about race, it's about money. But why should we? Indonesia is a nation of well over two hundred million people. They can't take care of a few swamped islands? Do you think the people of Yemen or Zambia were so aghast they were stuffing pennies into envelopes? Were there massive supplies of military and civilian aid from China, Iran and Bolivia? Where were the Chinese, Japanese and Phillipine navies? We also helped the U.S. (along with many other countries) after hurricane Katrina. They are a country of 300 million people who could easily have taken care of the aftermath (moreso than indonesia), yet we still helped anyways...and guess what, most of the U.S. is WHITE.

Well that would be great news for students....the only problem is wouldn't that encourage people to go to school far away just so they can get their housing costs paid for? And if you only give it to people who have to leave home for school because it is too far away, what if there is a not-so-good school close by but a better school far away? A more practical solution might be to pay the entire tuition like some countries do (or did?). I think that's pretty generous.

It would have been nice to see them keep the tax rate and basic personal exemption they way the liberals wanted AND implement the transit tax credit. Not everyone has a bus pass, but maybe it will encourage more people to take public transit. I also think part of the reason the government implemented the transit credit was because harper was being criticized for not doing anything about the environment...but the benefit to the poor is definately a fortunate side effect. Anyways, I was only trying to argue that income tax cuts would be more beneficial to the poor than GST cuts (not including other tax cuts), which in most cases is simply not true. I don't know. For one thing, This Website says you need to keep your passes and how much they cost, though the cost of my pass is worked into tuiton. Secondly, tuition is already tax-exempt....but I could be wrong, it would be good news if it is.

I think the public transit tax credit is an excellent idea which will help a lot of people. My bus pass is built into my tuition though, so I'm not sure if I'll get a break or not. Oh well.

Well you probably know better than me since I"ve never bought a single car. I just got my info from Here (at bottom of page) where it says GST is not charged on used cars bought privately, which makes sense. I don't own a car so it's not going to help anyways, even if GST is charged.

Where did you get this idea? GST is not charged on groceries (except junk food, which isn't what I meant when I said groceries, and I don't eat that much junk food anyways). I bought $60 worth of groceries the other day and paid $0.00 tax. They're included in my rent, and since my rent isn't decreasing I'm not saving any money. Actually, library cards are free. GST is not charged on beer, or if it is, it is included in the price. Since drink prices haven't decreased, the bars are likely keeping the savings for themselves...not that I go to the bar that often. True, which is why I specifically said that I can't speak for all families. However, many of the recent graduates I know aren't making much money, and while they don't pay tuition, most of their money goes to rent & food. As I said before, utilities are often included in rent, and landlords aren't likely going to pass on savings of 2 bucks a month. And once again, groceries do not charge GST. I'd check your receipts, if the grocery store is charging you GST then they might be ripping you off. Used cars (bought privately) don't charge GST. Most poor people aren't going to buy brand new cars. Since I don't own a car I don't know whether it's better to buy privately or from a dealership, but I imagine there are probably many people who do buy their cars privately. It doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people in my situation. Most people 18-25 or over 60 that I know are in a similar situation where most of their money goes to rent/mortgage and groceries.

That is where you are wrong. I can't speak for everyone making $20,000 a year, but I can speak for myself and other people I know. For example, out of $20,000: take off $5,000 a year for tuition, $1500 for income taxes, $8,500 for rent, $3,000 for groceries and you're left with $2,000. Most of that goes towards savings (for a house...in the distant future). If I could guess I'd say I spend around $500 on GST taxable items, so I'll save about $5 bucks, not $67. It's not a huge tax increase, but it is an increase all the same...about $31 per year as you pointed out. The tax cut from the GST isn't huge either, as I showed it's probably $5-$10 for a lot of people...or about the same as the increase in taxes due to the increase from 15% to 15.5%. So, overall those people are loosing that $31 per year. Now $31 per year is probably not a matter of life and death, but in a time when the economy is strong and tax cuts are the main priority of the government, why on earth would you RAISE taxes for the relatively poor in order to pay for the tax cuts for others, and then try to claim that you're actually benefiting the poor??

Please find me two or more that say this, real economists either with a bank or a university. A TorStar reporter doesn't count. Here's a few: Link

Please explain your new math to me. The last I checked $8,839 was higher than $8,648. You could also explain how a HIGHER personal exemption rate hurts the poor. And even if the conservatives did reduce the rate by $400 for the entire year (which they did not), can you please explain how a grand total of a whopping $9 is going to hurt anyone enough that they would notice? My source you ask? The taxpayer funded and apparently unimpeachable CBC. Source If you take out the rise due to inflation, they are raising it by $200 and then cutting it by $400. So the "new math" becomes $200 - $400 = - $200, which is actually lower (last time I checked). At 15%, the increase in taxes will be much more than anything I save from a 1% GST cut.

They didn't in the US in September 2001. You can't really compare only one year, it's only fair to look at all the statistics. Even in 2001, the numbers weren't that different....any other year and the number of underage alcohol related deaths is much higher than deaths from terrorism in the U.S. Link

Harper did increase the income tax on the lowest rate by a half percentage. Most experts have said this hurt the poor the most. $20,000 gross income averages out at about $11000 net income after taxes. This rate extends up to $36,378 of gross personal income. $11,000 x 15.5% (current rate) = $1705 federal taxes. $11,000 x 15% (previous rate) = $1650 federal taxes. You're trying to tell me that pennies more than $1 a week would hurt anyone? What a joke! A tempest in a non-existant tea cup. That having been said, I still think that all the tax rates are too high. Everyone should be paying less by about 5% or more. If they're not going to give the money the Liberals stole from the provinces back to the provinces, it should come back to us. You are forgetting that they also reduced the basic personal exemption. It's yet to be seen if they will increase it again.

Well since you did the survey, I'll take your word for it. It just seems strange to me that someone would smoke pot outside of work, despite being illegal, yet avoid smoking it at work because it is illegal. I guess I'm comparing it with alcohol, which is legal yet the majority of people who drink don't do so at work. And those that do should be fired (though like you mentioned, that might not be as easy as it sounds). Well, I've never gone through alcohol withdrawl myself, so I can't speak from personal experience...but here's what I found on wikipedia about alcohol withdrawl Link

Let's see...someone making $20, 000 on the Liberal's tax plan pays $10,000 x 15% = $1,500 plus GST $1,540 not including any tax credits....under your system it would be $5,000 x 22.5% = $1,125....yep I like it. I think that system would mostly benefit the poor (20k and under) and the very rich, while the middle class would pay relatively more. The only problem is I think that system would not generate as much income as the current system. In other words, without cutting services or running a deficit, the tax rate would probably have to be higher than 23 percent.

That's right, poor people are better off without GST. Consumption taxes are as regressive as it gets. Public transit tax credits are huge too. The public transit tax credit is a great idea....but consumption taxes are not regressive! Speaking as someone on a relatively low income, I can say that virtually all of my money goes to tuition, rent, food and of course income taxes. I spend very little on GST taxable items, and therefore pay very little GST. Higher income people are able to purchase many more things which charge GST. If the government wants to be more progressive, I suggest making more items GST-exempt (for example phone line, certain clothing) rather than cutting it alltogether. Or they could simply increase the GST rebate for low income people, but simply cutting the GST mostly benefits the rich.

I thought Iraq wasn't allowed to sell their oil because of the sanctions? Link Link One argument is that even though you can buy oil, it's much cheaper to get it out of the ground yourself. Of course, I don't think the difference in money is $300 billion, so it would be pretty stupid of the U.S. to spend that kind of money on the war only to get part of that money back. I did find this though: Link and Link

Why do liberals prefer mass transit? Most of them would say because it takes less fuel. I'm not sure which takes more fuel an airplane or the number of cars equal to the number of people on the plane, but surely a bus must take less fuel?

I thought you said they already smoke pot at work? I think they will only admit to it if it's legal. Maybe I should rephrase my point...would you be satisfied if the labour laws were changed to allow you to fire someone more easily, whether it be for lack of sleep, marijuana use or general incompetence, but still make pot legal? Smoking pot is relatively harmless (compared to say alcohol), smoking any additives is probably not harmless. If it were legalized these additives would not be an issue, so legalizing pot actually makes it safer. You said that not smoking pot has never harmed anyone, except cancer patients needing relief which you say they could get from morphine anyways. I was simply pointing out that people have in fact been harmed by not smoking pot, since it has medicinal uses that morphine can not replace. Marijuana has not been shown to be physically addictive, whereas alcohol has. Marijuana is addictive in the same way that shopping is addictive, but neither are physically addictive. Well in that example, it is your choice whether you want to work for the company that also employs stoners. No one is forcing you to work there. If you feel you are doing too much work because someone else isn't pulling their weight, you can ask for a raise, ask that the person be fired, or simply quit. That is much different from the scenario of camping out on the 401, since you are forced to pay taxes and therefore you are paying for the 401. P.S. You could just as easily argue that nobody should be allowed to stay awake for more than 12 hours in a day, since tiredness would also result in less productivity and therefore more work for you.

Maybe your anger is misdirected. The problem is not the fact that people are smoking pot, but that they are showing up to work high and that you can't fire them. I'd rather see the labour laws changed to allow firing people who are impaired at work rather than making it illegal altogether. Besides, making it legal won't necessarily mean more people will smoke it at work. The people who will only start smoking it if it's legal (and have avoided it since it's illegal) are usually responsible enough not to show up to work high. I think you are agreeing with me here. Allow people to smoke pot on their own time, punish those who show up to work high. This is an excellent argument in favour of legalization. If it is legal and regulated by the government (like alcohol) it will not be laced. It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to freedom, unless they cause harm to others. Putting someone in jail violates their right to freedom (unless they cause harm), so smoking pot should be a right. Marijuana has a lot more medicinal purposes than that. People have been harmed by not smoking weed....and by the way morphine is much more addictive than pot. People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Camping in the middle of the 401 does cause 'harm' to others because they won't be able to drive on that road. That means they are being inconvenienced, especially since they pay for that road through taxes.