Saturn

He'd go home for some photo ops in his dad's potato fields and then head to TO to sit on the boards of a dozen large corporations.

Harper lied again. What's new? Prior to the election Harper made a promise for special treatment for some provinces. Well, he lied! NFLD and Sask can whine all they want - they should have been smart enough not to trust him. He didn't promise a special treatment for Quebec, but what do you know - we have a new nation in Canada and big tax breaks in Quebec to come thanks to Harper's special handouts. If there is anything to learn here is that Harper is yet another lying politician, so don't trust his word.

How appropriate for a bunch of neo-cons to go hysterical over a problem that does not exist. Canada just topped the G8 in population growth over the last 5 years and all of the developed world (with the exception of Israel), so let's talk about "population implosion" and population decline. So, will budget solve declining population? Dumb question - there is no declining population. Even if there were a declining population, why would it be a problem that needs solving? Population growth or decline doesn't matter. What matters is what you do with the population you have.

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.

There is a link between taxes and fertility and that link is intelligence+education. There is a strong causal relationship between smarts and fertility and a strong relationship going both ways between smarts and taxes. Pardon my lack of PC but what WD is saying is that reducing taxes will cause people to lose their brains which in turn will cause them to procreate more. While policy can make the population less smart overall, this will take decades to achieve. Dropping taxes to 0 in the EU will not cause birthrates there to increase to third world levels - not in my lifetime anyway.

If everybody thought like this, there would be nobody left on Earth. In third world countries everyone thinks like this, yet they have the highest birthrates on the planet.

"Fiscally conservative" means spending and investing wisely. "Fiscally Conservative" means piling up debt by blowing billions on useless consumption to keep the voters happy while handing over public assets and giving big tax cuts to your friends and screwing the economy overall. Reagan, Mulroney, the Bushes, and Harris did just that - handing out some cash to the voters to keep them happy and busy drooling over their own handouts while filling up their own and their buddies' coffers, then sticking the stupid voters with enormous debt/interest bills. Harper is doing just the same - a chicken wing in every pot, big purchases in one-bid contracts, and one big fat nothing for the economy - no serious investment, no long-term plan - just nothing. That's what "fiscally Conservative" means - spend like the world will end at the end of your term in office...After us, the deluge! Indeed. Their problem though was that they left their economies and their finances in too good a shape, providing way too much money for their "fiscally Conservative" successors to blow on nonsense.

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.

It is historic indeed. Being the bullshittiest budget of all time and all...

It's possible but not very likely to happen soon. But give it another six months of real estate trouble in the US and watch out for oil heading down fast.

How about Baylee's Disease? In any case, reported. Who the heck is Baylee and why is every new poster on this board accused of being Baylee?

LOL! Figures you'd have "learned" that from the Fraser Institute.

That's why I said that income splitting can win the Conservatives the election. After all, it's only fair that people should get big tax breaks for not working. The Conservatives cannot afford income-splitting but they can promise it anyway.

Yep, that should be ultimate goal. Now, it would be much better for small provinces because there is far more waste due to provincial governments there.

That's the claim. But it don't trickle down.

While replacing the 4 Atlantic provinces with only 1 Atlantic province will be good for the whole country and for the Atlantic provinces in particular, it will not be possible because each of the provinces will claim it will be ripped off by the other three and 3 premiers and many MLAs will lose their jobs and influence. No way in hell they would give up their piece of the pie.

Yes, isn't that great? Allow the 2% of Canadians who own half the capital in the country to reinvest and pay no capital gains taxes for life and the remaining 98% get $100/yr. And all that at the cost of only $5 billion a year.

I'd be surprised if he didn't. Why is this important?

Sure. As long as 50%+1 voters want to vote on an issue, I don't see why not.

It's not a war of bureaucrats. It's a war of immigration lawyers and consultants against the bureaucrats. I can't blame the Europeans either. If we are so damn afraid of them, they should be equally afraid of us - we aren't any better than they are.

If you think that efficient practices and the equipment you are using didn't originate with some university "clowns", then you are ignorant and confused. If it was up to high-school grads and high-school dropout farmers, you'd still be farming the way it was done 100 years ago.

No imagination is necessary to appreciate the Soviet experience. It is quite vivid. Bad analogy. Consider the third-world experience if you are interested in bad analogies. What criteria is used to determine "invest enough" or "underinvesting" in your edge of the solar system? When a third of the productivity gap between the US and Canada is due to outdated inefficient technologies used by Canadian business, that's considered "underinvesting" in my edge of the solar system. In your conservative bunker, closing that gap is considered "social engineering".

It is worth what people are willing to pay for. If people aren't willing to pay for it, they shouldn't get it. People don't get it for themselves - they get it for their children. And they claim to care about their children but would still rather have them share outdated books, sit in cold rooms, and to close the school library in order to get $100 tax cut to blow on beer and popcorn. If people had to pay $10K/yr in school fees, far more kids would be ending up illiterate. Bad for the kids, bad for the economy, bad for the country.

And of course a government bureaucrat (a social planner) is far-sighted and knows what a good investment is.Saturn, I suggest you spend some time in modern Russia and see the end consequences of what you are suggesting. But let me try a different argument. Do you think it is wise to put all your investment eggs in one (socially planned) basket? There you go again with your nonsensical evil government theories. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of what investments lead to economic growth can tell you that. There is far more expertise on this in the government than in the general population. And you are hallucinating again - where did I say that it's wise to put all your investment eggs in one socially planned basket? What I said is that when businesses and individuals don't invest enough, the government should give them an incentive to do so. For example, Canadian business is notorious for underinvesting in new and efficient technologies, hence dragging our productivity down - so gov't should provide more tax credits specifically tied to investment in facilities, equipment and R&D. You really ought to restrain your wild imagination and keep the bulls**t down.

If farmers were smart enough to read up on efficient practices, they'd be using more of them and they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. Those "clowns" with the PhD's have already done it but most farmers aren't smart enough to find out about it. They prefer to "learn" from word of mouth and to resist efficient practices because they want to do things the way they've been done for generations. Your money isn't going to pay for daycare in the city. Your money doesn't pay for anything in the city. It is the city that pays for many of the services in rural areas - rural areas just don't generate enough funds to sustain themselves. If you spent a bit of time reading up on the facts, you wouldn't start with the false premise that your money pays for anything in the city. But hey, it must be "word of mouth". Daycare will allow more people to work in the city - consequently, the city will pay for its own daycare and generate more funds to be spent in rural areas. In addition, your products go to the city and if city dwellers have more cash, they can afford to buy more of your products. It's a win-win strategy both for cities and rural areas but you obviously can't see that far.