Saturn

Why? Because he is a Conservative and conservatives are "fiscally responsible" by assumption? Mulroney, Harris, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II - all prove that assumption is nothing but a myth. Quite the opposite - good conservatives have produced the largest deficits and largest debts both in Canada and the US. Fiscal Conservatism means Conservatives looting the bank and filling up their coffers.

Actually, yes, the average Canadian is too nearsighted to know what a good investment is. I know you don't like daycare, education and training but those along with investment in infrastructure and technology are the "projects" that produce the greatest economic growth of all. Bombs, prescription drugs and paying people to sit at home do not produce economic growth - just the opposite. Those are the FACTS and reality won't change because of your sentiments. Btw, that graduate with a PhD in agriculture is not there to grow crops, he's there to find out how to grow better crops and to pass it on to the people who do grow crops. It is kind of a waste though - farmers are notoriously bad and slow learners.

Of course he didn't expect that - $100/month is far too little to change anything. But he expected it to lead to more votes for his party.

That's precisely why education is mainly funded by governments - it is extremely important but people wouldn't be willing to pay for what it's worth.

This is very different - as an insurance broker you know that you charge clients who are more likely to get into an accident higher premiums - in health care, those who use it the most (namely seniors) pay the least. You can't expect to pay a quarter of what your health insurance is worth because there will be twice as many individuals to pay for it down the line and you'll force them to pay twice as much. Neither is it possible to continue having twice as many people down the line, nor is it possible to keep doubling the amounts they pay. Eventually, you'll either have to start paying your fair share or you'll lose your excessive benefits.

Yes, they paid into the CPP 1% of their incomes their whole lives (up to a certain limit) (plus 1% from the employer) in order to receive 25% of their incomes (up to that limit) after retirement. Where can one get such a sweet deal - pay in 2% for 30 years and get 25% for 15 years. Consequently, workers are currently paying 5% of their incomes (plus 5% from the employer) to pay for those seniors' pensions. Yes, they paid into it their whole lives - but only about a third of what they should have paid. I consider that "far beyond" their contributions.

The problem with this is that retirees are much more likely to vote and to be very vocal about their standard of living (they have plenty of time to make noise). Obviously the pyramid is unsustainable but they have too much power to get what they want. Although they receive a greatly preferential treatment, they keep getting more and more perks and it's only going to get worse as seniors balloon from 10 to 20% of the population in a decade.

You did indeed. The point here is that it's far more cost effective and less risky to set up a larger business in a larger urban area than in a rural area. That's why there is more and more urbanization happening - it's the smart thing for business to do and taxes have nothing to do with it - for one you have to be profitable to pay income taxes. To be profitable, you have to set up in a city and in area with a lot of expertise in what you do. If you want to build cars, you'll set up shop in southern Ontario, planes - in Southern Quebec, computers and software - in Silicon Valley. Your software company won't do well in rural Saskatchewan and your auto parts company won't do well in Labrador.

I'd spend it as the article says. There are two things to do with your money - invest or consume. The first results in economic growth, the second in happy voters (who would much rather blow $100 on beer and popcorn today than invest it and get $200 down the road). The budget is almost entirely consumption - good for getting votes but bad for the economy. What I'd do is cut the increase in beer and popcorn spending (read general tax cuts, transfers to individuals and other governments and military equipment), put $10 B against the debt, and put the rest towards investment - in infrastructure, in education and training, and business tax cuts for investment in technology and R&D.

Keeping spending at 3% of inflation or 3% over inflation doesn't make any sense either. Limiting increases in spending to 3% of inflation or to 3% above inflation makes sense and the second makes more sense than the first. Either way, Harper has gone well above both of these options. So what exactly were you picking on here?

You are hallucinating again. Using every conceivable economic measure Canadians are much better off now than in the 60s.

Hehe! All European countries have much lower birthrates than Canada does (with the exception of Albania). Apparently that "basket" didn't work out very well. But no surprise you'd come up with something that doesn't produce any results.

Hehe! Ok, comrade. We'll put it in the next 5-year plan.

It takes 2 kids to replace the parents but the parents don't just die as soon as the kids are born. You typically have 3 to 4 overlapping generations, and lifespans are getting longer thus increasing the number of overlapping generations. Also, any population boom will have an augmenting effect 2-3 generations later. Because of the babyboom of the 50s and 60s, our population is still naturally growing even though women currently have only 1.5 children on average.

So what you are saying is that our population must grow exponentially to maintain our standard of living. Have you considered what this actually means in terms of space and resources? The southern parts of the country are already very densely populated - at par with Europe. There really isn't any room for growth rates of the babyboom magnitude.

1) Depends on the age at which women have children. The current fertility rate is 1.5 and the natural growth rate is still positive (births exceed deaths). 2) About the highest in the developed world. In the US, it's under 70%. August is being an a**e again. Hey, August, you have a great idea how to count everybody who doesn't want to be counted? Let's hear it.

Harper has outspent Martin by far already. It's funny how Harper screamed for every single thing the Liberals did and now he's doing the same - just more of it. From massive spending and patronage appointments, to no bidding for multi-billion $ contracts and appointing friends to Cabinet and the Senate, Harper outliberaled the Liberals in one short year. Biggest harpercrite I've ever seen.

Much of the Federal government's job is to just give money to provinces to spend. Let's cut the Fed, consolidate all power in the provinces and have a joint defense/foreign policy fund. Done deal. I guess you mean split up and act like NATO or something? I'd prefer to keep Canada together and get rid of the provinces but the other way will work too, there will be 10 federal governments then - no provincial, no regional.

Maybe they don't but Harper wants one. That budget won't pass.

Couldn't agree more. Federal and municipal is all we really need. The rest is fat.

Left wingers are concerned with accountability to the entire population. Right wingers are concerned with selling off public policy to the highest bidder - namely those who contributed the most to their party's coffers/campaigns. Because it was a substitute for a much more progressive income tax cut.

Quebec should have left the confederation long time ago. I wouldn't mind helping them out the door.

Don't get too excited...The budget won't pass.

We know that the Liberals provided massive tax cuts throughout their term in office. But the Conservatives on this forum either refuse to acknowledge it or their memories are too short.

Or get rid of the GST and cut transfer spending? What transfer? To provinces? Fine by me. Pay off the debt. Cut transfers to persons - OAS and UCCB. Get rid of GST.