Curiouscanuck

It is astonishing how many of my otherwise knowledgeable university peers don't know this. Id say about 80% in my experience don't know this. Out of those 80% I can say that an overwhelming majority (if not all) do not support the war, and when I ask one further and describe the importance of contracts, they usually give me, "there is a better way" or "I do not agree with that". Of course I live in the Toronto area so maybe my results should be expected to be more like 95%. These people... Educated? Sometimes. Opinionated? Yes.

When did I say it would help hundreds of thousands? And a link to that figure would be nice even though his plan is yet to be implemented.

Saying that the poor pay more tax than the rich when the poor recieve money from the governmant and the rich "earn" money is ridiculous. In order to make a positive contribution to society financially you have to pay in(tax) more than you use(social programs/other gov run stuff). This is cleary paid by the rich people. The "welfare wall" which is what you are refering to as being taxed 1:1 on the dollar is the 100% (aprx. 80% in our current system) clawback when you do start to work. However, there is such a thing as a working income tax benefit, which will reduce the clawback which was stated in Flarety's Advantage Canada. He made it a policy commitment. http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/pdf/plane.pdf pg 44-5

For those of you who have changed ideologies over your life which did you start with and where are you now? This is not a typical liberal/conservative or the likes of political parties but more of a socialist/free market or liberty/statist view from the political compass. If you want to put in why as well may help bring up discussion. Ill start. I went from socialist-statist to a leaning libertarian (liberty-free markets) . My main reason is empirical evidence that has been now interpretated from previous data collection, especially since the internet came to sight (that I believe supports my shift) as well as the loads of academics that have vanished (and opposites that have increased) backing socialist-statist ideoligy since the demise of the Solviet Union.

Are you? Where did you get this info from? In a world with an increasing amount of unaccounted for nuclear material and an increasing chance that an individual can cause severe damage using such material, isnt it wise to spend a relatively small amount of money to protect ourselves in one of the only ways we can? Why is Canada immune in your eyes? Even if the system didnt work well (which it does 4 of last 5 tests successful and 3 of last 3) the horrible damages of an attack warrant a system that has some chance of protecting ourselves.

What kind of f____d up logic maintains that using ground launched sub orbital missiles to destroy countries is not weaponization of space but using other ground launched missiles to shoot them down is the weaponization of space? Are you reading the same thing I am? Where did you come up with that attack from that quote?

Where are you getting this information? Toronto Star? It does work. It may be expensive in your eyes but we only pay a fraction of what the total cost is. Consider yourself lucky the US paying for the vast majority of it. And you know what else is expensive? A decemated city! Read this and learn some of the facts. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083104b.cfm

You're not answering the first question and you are defenitly not answering the second. Try this one. What would you do if a man educated with a Ph D. and had a good childhood committed a crime? Also what if a 35 year old tramp with no education and a horrible childhood committed a crime?... Both have already gone through early childhood and one is very well educated. What would you do with these people?

Based on this logic. Why have prisons/punishment at all? And do you believe having criminals roam the streets is costless?

Be careful with this one people. This is not hypocrisy. Putting taking away someones life with not providing relief under one umbrella is very dangerous. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! In much of political philosophy, there is one restriction in all cases in liberty. You can do whatever you want as long as it hurts no one else. This is explained here by John Rawls now classic book "A theory of justice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice Also, Based on constitutional law in at least US and Canada (i am tempted to say vast majority of the world) your assumption that they are the same are off. A murderer and an observer are not treated the same under the law. Therefore a murderer is not the same as a person who chooses not to save someone. Now on to the other thing about not saving these people of poverty nations. In my opinion if you want to save these people you have to "teach them how to fish" but using the same analogy "let them sell their fish to the same townsfolk in the same market". These people have nothing to offer the world in exchange for our help in history and therefore they have been left to their own devices for survival. But this can change, look at Japan, China, South Korea, India, all previously poor countries that offered extremely cheap labour are now rich, or working their way to becoming rich, and certainly better off than African nations. The best way to do this is to allow them to produce goods, and as many suggest produce food to sell to the world, where their competitive advantage is cheap labour, like Japan previously offered. But it has to be a level playing field, this means no tariffs, no subsidies and no protectionism towards imported goods/food. But food in Canada and the US is highly subsidized. In the case of foods sure this means unhappy farmers in Canada who vote for the government in Canada and so whichever government imposes these new rules will lose those votes so its not a good political move. Treat these people with equal rights and the process to eliminating poverty will be quicker. We benefit as well, its win-win.

Most churches are social clubs - nothing more. I disagree that most churches are solely social clubs. But if they are I have found numerous sources that what their existence (even if solely as social clubs)means for participants. These social clubs are for numerous reasons extremely beneficial to society. Some of the benefits include higher education, better health, lower crime rates and higher satisfaction of life. The first link supports this statement. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/bg1992.cfm Here is one related to teens. http://familyfacts.org/topten/topten_0612.cfm Given that entrance into a church is free, and paid for members who donate, stopping or preventing donations that cause a decline of the number of churches and participants can be stated as being worse for society.

Just to jump in here, a report from the fraser institute has been release which is relevant to this topic. http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=pb&id=877 essentially states that Canada needs a shake up in health care. Dont agree with all the method they used but its still worth a read. Also I just want to say a couple things about the health care system with the US. Its not our system or theirs, there is compromise. Im sick of Canadians fear of the word "Americanization" whenever proposal is made to desocialize the system by only a little.

Try this poll on a summer day in Toronto when the smog is so thick you'd think it was beautiful foggy morning if you were in the country. Lets put some tolls on those roads (we have the perfect technology) and fix some real pollution problem. In Finland, tolls increased transit use, decreased congestion and decreased pollution. In the mean time lets use our Kyoto protocol papers to heat us this winter.

I agree that health care must be privatized in one form or another. I do also strongly believe that the well being of society is much better off if everyone does have access to health care. But your reasons (or your only one reason) is a drop in the bucket to why it is not succeeding. Ill provide more reasons along with yours, and make it a respectable list. Government-Owned firms have much higher costs than private firms b/c: 1. Red tape. 2. operating above efficient scale (making national choices rather than regional). 3. Telling consumers/doctors what they want/need (single uniform quality of product, minority tastes and interests ignored). 4. No one knows what the actual cost (or what the market price would be) is of getting treated because there is no market. 5. special interests (gov, important people jumping lines). 6.hospitals are not rewarded if they succeed, not punished if they fail, and will never go bankrupt. 7. no reward for innovation. 8.Monopoly (power tends to corrupt) 9.Tragedy of the commons (its free, so I use more of it) 10. cheaters (immigrants)

I completely agree that yes the wealthy nations have created this pollution . That is the cost. But what is/was the benefit? It was crucial and helped saved millions perhaps billions get food and amount to some sort of wealth to get off the farms and out of the poverty trap. Our wealth, technology and knowledge is all being shared to these previously decimated countries, (namely China and India and their high populations and recent turnaround - economically, as well as the well being of their societies). There is a strong argument - in the amount of lives saved. If we never polluted we would be hearing more of "save the poor" so again you have a constraint of poverty vs pollution. If we hadnt polluted (or polluted less) we would not be wealthy/knowledgeable/advanced as we are now. I personally prefer to pollute in exchange for saved lives. Now given that, scientists now see (potential) devastating effects that global warming will have. This effects everyone and only a single standardized cooperative effort with realistic goals will have any meaningful benefit. Regardless of the past anyone who pollutes is part of the problem - no exceptions. Aside from all that your point seems to me like your stating that two wrongs make a right. (ie we polluted recklessly and so should they). Think about when every developing or undeveloped country had this right and started growing industry, our pollution would be so bad that the wealthy nations efforts wouldnt amount to any conservation of our planet. Along with the corporation moving to these countries point I mentioned before. So stopping it in 2012 is better than 50 years. Also because we have cooperated with these countries and transferred our wealth to their countries, we are the hands that feed them. Its our wealth that drives these economies through our high consumption of goods. If we werent around they would have no jobs and be about as worse of as they were 50 years ago. So yes the wealthy countries do have a right to complain and polluting the same amount per capita as these countries, whos wealth vitally depends on ours would severely hurt both us and them.

First off, the way you try and twist and nitpick the meaning of a valid point is unproductive for anything but your ego. Clearly, and I think that it is possible for even you to agree, that corporations that CAN move will do so. Unless you prove that all corporations that pollute are exclusively immovable oil sands corporations, my point still stands. It is also important to understand the problem that the double standard creates - as Kyoto is a global protocol and for it to succeed (well it has no chance, but perhaps other non horrible thought out plan with similar intentions , chalk up another -1 for the UN) will need global cooperation with one standard - for everyone, not some, to do their part.

This is why you shift cost from labour to polluations like taxes that way companies don't suffer but they are given a choice between enviroment and money. Don;t you read about this stuff at all? You shift taxes from labour to polluants than your are taxing the same amount but at the same time corperations are given a choice. So you are unknowingly agreeing with me then. High polluting corporations will move to the "tax haven" of China to pollute. Why would any company choose between the constraint of polluting and money when there are no restrictions of the like with the trade-off (or lack thereof) in China? They wont. They will maximize profits by heading to China polluting as much as they like. And whats this about shifting labour taxes? Why is that related - because it results in the same income for the gov? We are talking about the addition of pollution tax here and there relationship with polluting corporations - not labour taxes, which is a different policy change. And please stop talking down to me as if you have all the answers.

And to go along with the double standard thing.... corporations are not fixed in one particular country. Allowing China to pollute recklessly creates a market where high polluting corporations have incentive to move to China - Where they dont pay environmental tax/costs - creating the same amount of pollution. Also this move arguably adding to the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Some call this a Socialist protocol.

I'm going to say Bob Rae was worse because his budget as followed a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Keynesian theory has be heavily criticized by academics based on empirical evidence for at least 30 years before 1990, his first year in office. Almost no government worldwide at this time follows Keynesian orthodoxy, especially developed nations. Harris had problems as well, however economic policy like Rae used is devastating to the well being of society. This is why it is not used anymore.