Figleaf

Right on.

Often they are. Sinking income trust investors, arming border guards at a cost of a billion dollars to protect us from America, planning an obviously unconstitutional move on SSM, caving on softwood lumber, luring Emerson after criticising Belinda, carrying on in Afghanistan without a plan, agrandizing a senator after crapping on the senate ... not much good there. And what has he done on the positive side? I can't think of anything-- no, wait... adding to the military budget, increasing Arctic sovereignty patrols, telling Bush where to get off once or twice -- those were alright. It's funny that every time Harper is criticised tory supporters ask 'were the Liberals any better', or something like that. It's as if Conservatives have totally internalized the concept of Liberals as the measure of everything. Quite paradoxical, really.

It was a perfectly legit post. He drew it from a major media report noting the opinion of another senior tory figure, then he connected that new information to a pattern of behaviour the PM has exhibited. Sheeesh, if that post wasn't legit we might as well all just muzzle ourselves.

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver. Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM. The problem there is that the members are not responsive to their constituents. PR won't solve that, and for the reasons I've already listed multi member districts won't solve that either. In this case I agree there's a real problem, but its one PR won't solve. What we need is Recall.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country.

Israel certainly started the 1967 conflict, and arguably the 1956 conflict. Notwithstanding the act of war committed by Egypt......in both cases...... In regard to 1967, if you mean the blockade, you and I have already established that it wasn't an act of war. Please inform me as to what act you refer to for 1956.

Speaking as a non-leftist and non-rightist, I'm amazed and amused at the rightwingers defending the Conservatives for destroying stock market wealth and undermining our capital markets in order to raise taxes that we seemingly don't even need. There seems to be no shortage of replies on this thread. You've said that before, but it's just not correct, as I explained the first time. You never explained it the first time. You only gave the example of a derivative market. Maybe that's where you stopped reading. I recall mentioning that corporations create real value and that their price is based on the expectation of that value. I'll add here that the sellers' gains don't rely on a buyer's loss because the seller gets the full price (in liquid useable cash) they seek at an existing value, and the buyer gets the benefit of future value by taking on a real risk of decline. In fact, August, I don't mean to be rude, but your thinking about winners and losers on the stock market is exactly wrong -- though it is correct in respect of the derivatives markets. No no no. It's net benefit is that it creates liquidity to fund business growth. If there was no stock-aftermarket, then it would be much harder to raise initial capital because the initial buyers would buy less because they would be stuck with illiquid investments.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them. We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others. Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others. Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy. Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine.

Lawrence Fishburn's big speech in the first Matrix was brilliant. The rest of the film was good, but it didn't live up to the expectations the speech created.

I am saying that someone who made investment decisions that depended on the whim of a politician is a fool. The problems with the tax system created by trusts were well known and any diligent advisor should have informed clients that trusts are risky investments and you could lose a significant portion of your investment suddenly if the regulatory environment changed suddenly. A competent advisor should have informed clients that Harper's promise might mean that the regulatory risk is lower (but not zero) in the next 18 months but after the next election all bets would be off. Okay, so no-one in the financial world should ever rely on even the most explicit government promises. All states are totally unreliable and everyone should re-evaluate the danger of political risks. Well, that's an internally consistent view, I guess, but it bodes ill for the cost of capital. Actually, I had hardly anything in trusts. I've actually done well out of this due to having large positions in blue chip dividend paying corporations which have received a boost from the cash flowing out of trusts. I guess some people have a hard time thinking this way, but my position is not based on self-interest. It's based on principle ... the principle that politicians shouldn't irresponsibly screw over investors.

Israel certainly started the 1967 conflict, and arguably the 1956 conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War "The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim; Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al‑ayam as‑sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent attack by Egypt.[1] Jordan in turn attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya.[2][3] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day." A naval blockade by definition is an act of war, I do believe. [italics and bolding added by Figleaf.]What definition? So, you're agreeing with me ... Israel started it.

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself). You mean the one they came a pubic hair away from losing? Not the expression I'd use, and not the reason I think it was OK. As I recall, it was one that they didn't start.

What are "dippers"? NDPers' --> 'Knee-dippers' --> 'dippers'.

They promised to protect seniors. They have. Harmed some, benefitted others.

Except the tories had promised not to. I don't get how you can keep overlooking that.Any advisor that recommended an investment strategy based on promise made by a politician during a campaign is an idiot. Okay, so you're saying anyone would be a fool to believe the tories' promises?

Now we're getting somewhere.Figleaf, you don't seem to grasp that changes in tax policy have the potential to transfer value between private individuals. I believe you made the argument that to collect $500 million, Harper destroyed $20 billion. That is entirely false. Harper's decision, on balance, created value. There's no doubt that holders of income trusts feel poorer now than they did last week. Other people happen to feel richer. It was someone else who compared the figures, but I agree with the concept. Please explain how the decision created value. I cannot stretch my imagination that far, so help me out. Economics is economics, finance is finance. From either perspective they blundered. They will lose tax revenue in the short run from capital loss set offs. They will lose market liquidity from having mucked up trust in the capital markets. They will have to pay more in OAS due to reducing seniors' assets. Don't get me wrong. I think the difference in tax treatment was driving business choices, which is never good policy. But they did two things VERY badly: 1-made a self-serving promise that induced reliance and 2- failed to make even basic efforts to protect the people who relied on their promise. You've said that before, but it's just not correct, as I explained the first time.

Well, I know of a couple of questions I've asked you without reply, buts so far as I can tell, I've answered all questions you've posed to me. What do you think I've missed?

Well, I'm not a leftist, of course, but I have little problem with Israel's conduct of the Yom Kippur war (in and of itself).

What ridiculous crap. The link opens to a page with two maps and two paragraphs. There is nothing there about a survey of historians. If you think it says something about such a survey, then please, tell me, how many historians were surveyed? Admit it... you didn't check the link, did you?

11% were of German origin ... I don't mean their ethnic origins. I mean how physically did the get to Alberta? Answer: Thru Canada's ports and railways. Who built Canada's port and railways? (Hint: not slave labor from Alberta.) And, Canada having built Alberta up to the point were it was a viable province, Canada generously agreed. Income distribution programs are a fact of life in Canada. Do you oppose them in principle? My taxes support services to people who can't afford them. I know that some people object to the concept of income distribution programs, but I don't see why you think its a regional issue. Get a grip Fig! I keep providing answers, your lack of understanding can hardly be declared my fault. I don't think that I can be truely described as ignoring the responses that you have made. I understand the equalization program very well actually, but perhaps you don't. Just for your information Albertans lost a hell of a lot of services and funding from the feds. Granted that other provinces did as well, but in our province we also made a lot of cuts to provincially funded programs as well just to balance our budget. We tightened our belts in hard times and made sacrfices, maybe the provincial government did where you live as well, since I have no idea where you are it would be a guess. At any rate we did what we had to do, for the greater good of our citizens. Now that we have covered our provincial debt, our designated levy is even higher than it was because the formula the feds uses calculates the debt load of the provinces into the payment schedules. So even after we have paid the price that to my knowledge no other province has, we are now being levied an extra measure in reward for the success of the endeavour. Go figure a punishment for a reward! Even as you claim to be answering, you are in fact not. Please explain why equalization is wrong, not how much it allegedly costs Alberta. Why shouldn't the Federal government have an equalization program? During the NEP Alberta was flying high. During the recession the followed, Are you suggesting that suddenly the feds changed the equalization formula to screw Alberta, or maybe the fact is that Alberta's recession was never bad enough to make it fall to the level of the poorer provinces. Also, I know for a fact that the federal UI program was available accross the country including Alberta. Throughout Canadian history. Up to 1905 Canada helped develop the territory Alberta eventually emerged from. As a province, Alberta benefited from industrial policies that developed the oil resource, and benefited from the Wheat Board. Like all provinces, Alberta benefits from the pooling of federal functions such as defence, and foreign services, etc. etc. Think again, are you suggesting that you pay more for wheat in Eastern Canada than we do in Western Canada. If you are in fact doing that I would like to see the proof of that one! While we are at it can you explain why if the whole marketing board concept was so beneficial to western farmers that the federal government actually put farmers in jail for selling their grain in the US for a better price than the Canada Wheat Board was offering to pay them? By creating a cartel the Wheat Board has kept the price of wheat higher than it would be if farmers competed with eachother. Consumers all over Canada have had their prices kept higher by that policy, all for the benefit of western farmers. Some farmers who have an price advantage over their fellow farmers have tried to cheat on the program. Those farmers are not great heroes of freedom, they're cheaters. I don't think I did. But if I gave that impression, sorry. Now you're lying. I never misquoted you. For the last one hundred years we have tried to be fair and honest with Canada even while the reverse cannot be said. You're losing it. Calm down and be sensible. Almost everybody uses a screen-name here.

I'm not sure what this means...and I'm not sure what advantage 1 voice has. In single member situation, one member says "The people of my district say NO to Resolution 16". In a multi-member sutuation, one member says "The people of District Alpha say NO to resolution 16" and another member says 'The people of District Alpha say YES to resolution 16." Two voices cancel and the people of District Alpha end up having no say. History provides a good bloody example of this when the Tribunes of ancient would be played off against eachother by the Senate. The plebians ended up without a clear voice and their interests were defeated. I would guess that that very few people physically drop into to a constituency office to pay a visit and most communicate electronically and by mail. Indeed and multi-member ridings will only excacerbate that problem.

You posted this quote: And this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...six_day_war.stm As far as I can tell, the quote isn't from that link, and the link says nothing whatsoever about a BBC survey of historians. Maybe I'm missing something ... care to fill me in?

It was the worst economic downturn in Canada since the Great Depression. Alberta was the hardest hit province in the country due to the NEP. No, Alberta was hit because the oil price collapsed.

Advisors are paid to educate people on the risks of the investments that they recommend. The political risk existed and could have happened at any time. Except the tories had promised not to. I don't get how you can keep overlooking that.