daniel

Anne Coulter again.

Since Harper doesn't really know what to do with the $14billion in surplus, he should just buy $15billion USD. All that CAD into the currency market should prop up the USD.

This is quite the alternate to building that wall along the border to keep terrorists from entering via Canada.

GWB has taught him well. Bhutto is confined in her "Free-Speech" zone.

They are the refugees from the Devine government.

Wonder how soon the new government will take credit for the economy. Also wondering what else they will come up with if it's not going to be cutting budgets.

Hey, what about the men? There appears to be a racial glass ceiling preventing opportunities of Canadians of racial minorities from being recognized for their abilities.

Canada already has its own problems with wrongful convictions and some questionable police practices. That's only been revealed and admission due to Canada's openness. Who knows how much better or worse the judicial and law enforcement system is and by whose standards in other countries.

It's no co-incidence that Canada has been consistently listed amongst the top ten countries in which to live. Let's hope this continues and we'll get back to number 1 as we were back in 1999.

It's nice to hear some good news for a change.

Remember who won't go out in the rain?

I wonder if anybody here has read or seen "To Kill a Mockingbird"?

Regardless, all that money will make their way back to the municipalities to fund what Harper and the Provinces refuse to do.

That was over twenty years ago when my economics professor gave the lesson on propensity to save vs income and how "more savings equals less savings" (his exact words in quotes). I can't remember the exact details but unless the bank actually takes your savings account money and uses it for loans, mortgages and investments, it's not in the economy and economic activity slows down. We'd like to think that, but the biggest expenditure of low income people are food and housing. Michael Wilson exempted groceries from GST because the poverty advocates screamed that the GST was unfair to the poor. As for housing, the poor usually rent which is contractual and would be highly unusual for a landlord to reduce the rent because his own expenses were lowered. (They can try to take the landlord to court over it but whose got the money for that over a few bucks?) And furthermore, the poor currently claims a GST refund on the tax return so what appears to be a 1% savings for them in expenditure also translates to a 1% reduction in GST refund, so that has no effect.

Oh,oh, strawman in action.

Sometimes it's not a choice. Have you read Jan Wong's "Maid for a Month" article in the Globe and Mail?

If I had said "Doesn't really matter" you wouldn't have believed me. I should have let you argue it out yourself.

Actually, low income people, out of necessity, spend a greater % of their income than higher income people. In economics 100, we learned that more savings equates to less savings meaning more personal savings takes $ out of circulation and isn't good for the economy. So in effect, low income people have a better personal contribution to the economy than higher income people - that is by % not by $ value.

We did. And since you've implemented the Helms-Burdon Law, that's all I'll reveal about Cuba. I like things the way they are. So now I'm really on the no Fly list.

That's about the same amount of money already spent on the nuclear energy and it's ongoing repairs. But that doesn't stop the political will from continuing.

As well as Ted Kennedy's. Now that I've commented, I wouldn't surprised if I've made it to the list tonight.

One wonders if the war on terror is working why is the list growing larger?

Are we still talking about Condi Rice?

Market forces at work. One will have to add up to total of: 1) cash spent in the US including taxes; 2) transportation costs including wear and tear of vehicle (if not directly included); 3) value of time spent for the entire round trip venture; 4) duties paid for what you thought was covered by FTA or NAFTA; 5) reduction of your personal annual import limit; 6) other inconveniences surrendered for this venture (finger print, mug shot, security checks, racial profiling, etc) for items you don't truly need but only want. If this total value is still less than the equivalent value spent at home, then go for it.

That's nothing political will and a Made-in-Canada solution can't solve.