shortlived

No. I don't think it does a contract is still a contract. I think it makes full sense and makes things very clear. Last i checked the CRA stated that Canada has income tax sharing agreements with over 40 countries. and that many wealthy Canadians are skipping paying taxes like they are suppose to. The student loans scheme is bloated, filled with red tape, errors, and other issues. Its also like people havn't defaulted on their loans. I think your point is redundant. Why should people and the government have to keep borrowing from private lenders to pay peoples student loans, it is a liability for the government. A self managing fund removes the need for the government to pay high interest loans to private individuals and companies that are providing the loans. Defaulting on a contract still brings liability, if it is a legal contract. This would be much the same as student loans only based on variable rate income with an infinite term. It would also pay out eventually too, not all just one way. That is part of the difference between a student loan. No hidden conditions on this either unlike the student loans, we can spy on you and mess around with your bank accounts, hidden clauses. They also don't get the tuition money so no room for funny money deals. Or errored payments which can mess around with other programs and funding, and income levels. The money goes direct to the program from the government. We can move on from my program, as it is just my opinion, perhaps you can talk about alternative free education methods. I stand behind my program, the current system is a piece of crap.

Take over is a strongly worded use. As stated I think that these measures are unfortunate. I think that there might be a case of the city commiting indictable offence in limiting equal access. If equal access is not provided the city is being somewhat criminal, if targeting protesters. It is a problem, but the two are different issues, I addressed that issue in my post above. Usually for a trespass there are methods that should be used. Landrights are a separate issue from protest. Private ownership is problematic. Ownership in many issues can be brought into question though especially land rights protests. I know you would pick a side clearly, but I think the government is wrong with the vast majority of lands rights issues. Outside the box it is totally redundant, within a canadian law society frame work though I can see your point. They are two seperate issues. Protest is not a get out of jail free card, but denying equal access to public space is a crime, whether it is a city official or otherwise. In taking measures to prevent a class of society from equal access it is not lawful. In charging fees to go to parks etc. that is just unfortunate. I don't agree but yes, the city can make spaces close. The important element is insuring equal access. Protest "broad term" cannot be legislated against. Activities such as camping on roadways or in parks can. Limiting the right of squating is legal, the right of sqauting is not constitutionally protected, the right of protest is. There is a difference. Does this mean you can't squat protest, very well it could if squatting is an illegal activity on reasonable grounds. Of course you can still break the law, the crime would be a crime, the protest would not be a crime. The test of constitutionality would be, is the law aimed at protest, or the undesired activity (which is not protest) undesired should also be undesired for reasons of health and safety such as life being endangered by the activity.

Trespassing is not protest. Trespassing has nothing to do with protest. Connecting the two to mean the same thing is faulty logic on your part. I do think it is a serious issue when trespassing notices get handed out at public venues though especially outdoor venues like parks. It is truely unfortunate when access to community assets are denied to segments of the community for the sole benefit of only one class of the community. That really is fascist totalitarianism. While that may very well be the reality it is unfortunate, as it really does show a class stratified society where there are the disenfranchised and privileged, that only invites class warfare. But no protest is not trespass, although arresting people for trespass seems problematic. Trespass itself is issued because land rights in Canada are grey, since well Canada stole all the land from the Natives anyway. Killed off many by disease and warfare, starvation and other issues to force desperation sales and outright land thefts through violence. The whole land right thing is an inflammatory subject. Trespass can be problematic as often clear and reasonable means to clarify trespass situations are not provided. Land management is important for society. I have to restate though trespass is not protest, trespass is a disagreement of the true right of ownership or respect of an authority to exercise control over land. But no protest is not trespass and crimes committed during protest should be treated separately from the protest action itself. Protest is not illegal, crimes are. Not all crimes a legitimate crimes or morally wrong though. Ulitmately all land is everyones, it is just a question of social respect and trusting the authority of the manager of the land. Protest is not illegal. Crimes are crimes. Unlawful conduct is unlawful. Illegal activity is illegal activity. Protest is not illegal activity.

Your Canada is not my Canada. I find it unfortunate you don't respect the right of protest. Police violence is a real issue. Cops commonly use excessive force. It is a valid protest issue. The right of protest is something that all Canadians enjoy the right of. I think you are just being obtuse. It is fairly clear that the nuisance fact is going about their daily lives free of harassment. Large public gatherings whether protest or fair are rights Canadians have to participate in. If they are free. Much like going from place to place. You can't limit someones right to walk down a sidewalk, so you can walk down a sidewalk. You are just plane wrong and attacking legitimate protest. Now preventing someone from walking down a street purposely is an entirely different matter but that is what the cops do, not the protesters. You are sidesteping points I made very early that committing crimes during protest doesn't provide immunity from those crimes, as stated people should be arrested for committing indictable offences, but I think your definition and nuisance and my own do not match up. You seem to extinguish freedom in your definition as opposed to enabling the public to exercise their liberties. You seem to want to just engineer reasonable limits to mean something other than the law, which is simply not the case, you arn't reasonable. The point which I will return to and you should accept is that protest is not illegal, and you can't arrest people for protesting. Laws which specifically deny the right of protest are unconstitutional. Accept those points and move on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/03/public-works-officials-refuse-to-explain-60-k-in-ethics-related-legal-fees.html It is $60k not exactly enough to pay down a 10 billion dollar deficit and 200 billion in accumulated conservative debt.

I'm not refering to the deficit to gdp ratio I'm talking the debt to gdp ratio. deficit = how much debt they take on in a given year debt = how much they have added up year after year and not paid back. real debt is how much they need to pay in the future too based upon their contracts to date including service contracts and bonds. A savings of 5.2 billion is still a deficit of 15 billion.

I think you are confusing the difference in the numbers, they are not the same the 300+K was to take part in the leadership situation, they signed up to the process. The voting required a secondary registration of which 40+% registered to vote. These required verification and many people could not be verified for the vote due to having a family email address rather than individual emails, or living at the same address (which many people do, and is not weird for older people of which may old people do support the liberals would be in that situation, some old people don't even have their own email, or think of a group home or seniors home living situation where the address is the same, or a college dorm or residence, or a apartment building)... and so are not allowed to take part in the voting. Do you understand now?

Where is the proof. sure knock off 100 but that is still well above 300k Where are the fraud charges? plenty of people will sign a petition and not vote for someone. Without evidence it is pure conjecture. I'm sure the other parties have had their share of wankers too. Its pretty easy for a wanker from another party to engage in that sort of activity just to plant these sorts of views. Trudeau has had a big fundraising capacity as well he alone has 195,000+ followers on twitter which is pretty good for a not yet third party leader, the PM has about 300k followers and he is the PM of Canada apparently. Mulcair has about 33k followers in comparison. (I'm following all three, none the less I feel like I am much smaller in Harper, or Trudeau's Twitterverse, than in Mulcairs were I am perhaps just someone in a town, as opposed to being someone in a city. Trudeau is in organization mode and I suspect will continue to grow over the next two years, another 50,000 twitter followers will be almost a given come the next election should he be the liberal leader. Harpers twitterverse is much different than trudeaus.

Post a link. As I said that 600+ billion is SOLEY federal debt. The provincial, municipal, and personal debt is not included. I think the problem is you arn't counting the money they have promised to pay, but havn't paid yet on contracts, it is bsically a shell game. The same with bonds, they have had massive bond selloffs, that are just another form of debt.

Various news sources I've been following for the last 6+ years. Post a link to your info. Federal debt, not counting provincial debt, municipal debt and personal debt, is above 600 billion. Government income from all sources including income tax is about half that amount. It will increase another say 50 billion by 2015 to be somewhere around 700 billion (the number is much higher) when adding in bonds that are still in issue the number is much higher, when you factor in forward projected contracts, that is yet even more money. Add in provincial and municipal and personal debt you get a couple trillion dollars of debt. Also if looking at the value of the dollar on a ratio of CPI, the figure has skyrocketed, as CPI has continued to increase with the debt and relative value of the dollar in global value has declined with the US dollar. According to the CIA the debt to GDP ratio is 84.1% circa 2012 Canada 84.1 2012 est. 87.52 2012 est. North America Here is the issue and shown in Kevin Pages request for last years budget information in court... the feds are just fabricating their information and won't show their secret documents to anyone or release the details to the public. Now if this information is so wrong why is the Federal Government letting the CIA misinform the public on the state of finances in Canada, is the CIA providing misinformation in its world factbook on its ally Canada to make it look like it is performing worse that it really is? Why would the US do that to their ally and #1 trading partner? (Also this is without the new airforce and new navy they are going to buy.. right..) They erased the decade of debt reduction by the liberals, and inflated the value of the Canadian dollar to increase the value of the debt even higher by 133%+ if not for the US economic collapse the debt value could have been even heavier. You can only hope that Nato doesn't go into Syria full force or worse Iran. Costs in waste production will drag the economy even further.

That looks like a bit of misinformation from you, post up a link to your information. Almost sounds like denile in this thread. THAT'S A LIE DAMMIT! YOU TAKE THAT BACK. not saying that is it, but post up your link to the info.

Your debt to GDP ratio information is grossly off debt to GDP is floating around 80%, with adding 50 billion more to the debt by 2015 how the hell is it going to go down by more than 30% where is that 300 billion dollars to pay down the debt coming from next year? That is the entire GDP tax income next year and no spending whatsoever to pay the debt down that much. Somehow I suspect your figures are completely fabricated. He will need to loot a lot more than syria to come up with that amount of cash.

Hold on, I strangely remember Stephen Harper saying the exact same thing.

Some of this chat almost looks like people here are jealous of Trudeau or affraid of him. Also the comment about not releasing numbers is just plain misinformed. It was 300 and something thousand registered and like 120 and something thousand processed to vote.

There is a clear difference between passing off opinion as fact and actually presenting evidence. You guys in how you are going about this is just putting smell on the table, a load of it. I've seen tons of permaculture videos and I know that it looks way more appealing to my needs than a refinery. I don't use gasoline, it doesn't relate to my direct needs an acre full of various food crops does. That is wealth. (It is also important to note that methane is a natural fuel source that is renewable) People buy junk and a lot of it, because that is what everyone does, well it is junk. It is used only to make more junk, and that has very little real economic benefit, it is waste production. Trees can grow decades and produce for decades, yet a car is used 5-10 years and then is obsolete and has to be sent to a junk yard, of which land fills are getting so large new ones need to be made making even more destruction. This remains true for cellphones, computers, and countless other things. Fast food joints are creating waste, if people simply had their own supplies tupper ware or a natural wood container or bamboo or whatever all that waste production would be gone, but the fact is people see it because the environmentally destructing and health destroying products are allowed to be there. Industry will regulate itself but it is junk, it is destructive, unhealthy junk that doesn't help the economy it hurts it when taking into consideration the big picture rather than the money trail from point A to point B|. Business profit is not social profit, it is how products effect society that reveals the true economic benefits. Fact is the new age of permacultural society presents way more benefits to my lifestyle than your rape culture. My only real concerns for industrial needs are keeping nuclear facilities and major industrial waste holding facilities safely operating, almost everything else is just part of a failed consumer culture that is finally catching up withitself and will continue to do so over the next two to three decades if we get that far. The reality is all this crap is to support war industry. If not for the threat of mass genocide and enslavement it would be totally unneeded. There will be no immediate stop short of a world changing emp or nuclear exchange or severe pandemic, but the waste and costs are finally adding up, the economic voodoo slowly less viable, and specific strategic resources becoming harder and harder to obtain. It will turn in on itself. What of the environment we loose can take many lifetimes to return. Those local economies will be waste lands to what were previous viable economic activities. There is no reason not to safely harvest natural resources, it is possible. But it just amounts to rape, and that is for individual profit while the locals in areas and adjoining ecosystems get robbed. If its not sustainable its not required. We have way more crap production than we need. They are other types of sustainable industries like managed agro forestry.

This is nonsense because we have never had extreme environmental policies so your and shady's comments are complete rhetoric with absolutely no evidence to back up what you are saying, I can just as easily say extreme environmental policies will make everyone zillionaires.

This is a flat rate, the brick doesn't offer you a rate based on your income. this also isn't delayed payment it is based on your personal income. Its not a tax, it is a service fee. Only those people who take the plan pay. People who don't use the service don't pay for the service, this is why it is different. What is this? This you are offered to participate in a fund, if you participate in the priveleges of that fund you become obligated to make payment to the fund. This is not a default tax, there is no imposition or force to use the service. It is like saying a stamp is a tax, well you know what, the government has no obligation to move messages around for people, it is a service fee just like UPS requiring payment for the service of moving your goods around. What type of tax is it, because it is nothing like any tax I've ever seen. This annuity isn't to support the government it is to support students, there is a clear difference, it is not a tax. People don't need to take the plan. No it is not student loans it is a vast improvement over the student funding situation. Student loans are mirred in bs, redtape and administrative waste, errors, and more paperwork. Also its not a ponzi scheme. 1. It pays for itself 2. It pays for other people 3. It saves the regular tax payer on average $20,000 over their lifetime on current costs 4. It saves student loan borrowers over their lifetime. 5. It makes education free for those who want access to it without administration or applications. This is just a stupid assumption. You are making no sense whatsoever. I imagine you just rambling talking out of your hand. It is nonsense.

You wouldn't be free from the obligation, people living in the US still pay taxes in Canada. People who move still have use for their "home country". There are defaults with the current student loans too that is no different. Also having your accredation withheld is another step.

Maybe its time to start reducing the size of cabinet, rather than a large bloated and more costly cabinet. Why is cabinet increasing in size and as large as it is if the government is suppose to be trimming 5 to 10 % that is a good 2-4 cabinet positions to remove. With government departments being pared back, so too should cabinet. An easy way to reduce staffing is to consolidate extra cabinet positions. Example putting defence and veterans affairs under one minister. Putting status of women into canada heritage, Putting health and environment ministries together. Putting skills development and labour and industry together, Putting national revenue and finance together, perhaps the tresury board also, putting international trade with foreign affairs and removing the 10 minister of state positions. That sounds like it should make up for any cabinet departures.

Homes have upkeep too though. I think that really if you want equity go with products you will need, like prepper supplies. I'm itching for an old RV as a cheap investment. They seem almost always resellable for a k or 2 even if they are decades old. Things like food stores, you will need to eat eventually and the cost of food is going up. There are of course cheap homes, but they are a massive risk, then you need insurance and other costs, its a bit like buying a car for its resale value, unless you are doing vintage you will get less than you put in. If you arn't getting a truck to haul goods then you are probably wasting your money on a truck. People are buying stuff just to coax their image, most of the crap they don't need. There are $25,000 and cheaper homes out there. Why get stuck in a 30 year mortgage if you don't need one. Sure you can flip real estate quickly but add in insurance costs and upkeep and utilitty bills like heat. if you want money go with things like gold the price is always going up.. although there has got to be a cieling there are better investments than real estate, but real estate can be a winner if you can buy low, and not get locked into high interest rates Things like solar sure has a 10 year turn around. or animals... getting yourself self reliant... growing food those are things that have return.

Almost. 1. It is free to use when you take post secondary studies. 2. Your net income is assessed by your tax and/or accounts at 1% for each year you take full times studies, or 0.33% per term or about half that for part time studies or about 0.08% for each credit. This works out to 3.2% for a 4 year degree of 40 credits. 3. You pay regardless of your net income after the initial term, so say you earn $10,000 during your second year of university you would pay $100 into the plan your second year. On your third year if you earned 30,000 you would pay $300. Say you earn 40,000 after graduating 40 credits you would pay $1280/ year. or about 12 years or so to repay your initial tuition costs. After that point however you would contribute to the fund, based on a $4000/year tuition average which would be higher for some and lower for others based on program types. Tuition for a year of university can go about $8000 so a 4 year program may cost upward of $25000, but for others as low as $6000. The government funded portion of the fund would reduce, and eventually it would pay out to the shareholders, be they private or the government, which is assessed on a basis of percentage each year on equal share of total contributions, so if you put 1% of the cost in your get 1% return, in an accumulative sort of way, the total costs are worked at for total percentage of contributions and pay back in. So people who are the first to take the program will be the first to have their money returned as more and more layers are ontop serving the program, as there is a threshold between when their portion is offset by the sheer numbers of participants. Now this is not universal some people who have higher incomes would likely be paying more than they get in return initially, however their contributions act as shares for future payouts so if they in the future have lower incomes their contributions end up being a sort of dividend. So if they are getting short ended when they are rich, they are gaining from their investments when they are poor.

I am not the subject of debate here. I think that to the actual net stalkers out there you should probably stop netstalking William as it is illegal and criminal harassment, and you will eventually get hit for trolling activities like that. I think that the fact you revert to ad hominem attack just shows how full of it you are. You are here to slander and deride the guy not actually debate the issues. You are turds. To the actual net stalkers, those that arn't that isn't intended for you. I think hitops is the brown variety. A few other people on here tend to fixate on the person rather than the communication also.

I think your impression of socialist international vs. fascist international is a bit misleading. there are lots of middle of the road parties, the middle of the road isn't even the middle in Canada compared to the US. Total nonsense coming out of you. The fact the EU has consolidated into many blocks is representative and no the EU is not scored between the far right and the far left. Sorry try again. The democrats are as close to the middle of the road as you can get in the US, same goes around the world. Total nonsense. As you can see the left vs right is just not a sane argument and only far left and far right parties seem to push this idea. Its just another left vs. right, bolshevism vs fascism type argument... the world doesn't work that way that is a 50 year dated mentality, that was engineered for the cold war. it simply doesn't represent reality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament Liberals like in Canada have 30-40% support in Europe. I'm really not sure how to define US big 2... I think democrats are more center of the road, but republicans are more liberal, well atleast before 2001, when they became ultranationalists. by the way the people's party in the EU is not left wing, it is centrist. The term used is often social democrats which is a type of liberal. Centrist parties control ~70% of European Parliament.

They arn't fiscal conservatives. The are borrow and spend conservatives. Flaherty is an offloader, if you arn't conservative expect to be offloaded onto the policy is plain and simple. Its been that way for him since the 90's. There is no functional economic purpose to the budget other than to punish groups that they don't like.

Really how do they impact the economy, I havn't seen them yet, how can you say they do if they havn't been implemented before? All I know is that in order to have safe water I have to pay the municipality because industry has dumped chemicals into the water, in the south almost all the fish died and have taken 30 years to have marginal recouperation and the water they say is safe has even more chemicals in it. Cancer rates have been increasing. Why is that? Negative economic impact, more like fining someone for pissing in the pool. Clean industry costs the tax payer no more than dirty industry because dirty industry take the great lakes a generation ago or lake managua, or lake athabasca.. have secondary effects that negatively effect the economy, take needing to buy water rather than having it from source, not having trees, or having health issues. Frankly take mining operations by Canadian companies or american operations in other countries have devastated and poisoned the environment, ruining the natural economy, and destroying the local populations health, while the company makes money the people loose a whole lot of money and quality of life. So on the contrary environmental policies havn't showed to negatively impact the economy because they have never been implemented, and on the contrary, lack of environmental policies has devastated local economies. So shady you are wrong. We can look at the Exon Valdez wiping out 66% of life in the north oceans, or the poisoning of seafood in the gulf by BP horizon. Look at sudbury, and what happened there. gardening was next to impossible. So I say shady what have minor environmental policies done, no the economy has not stalled on the contrary under the Liberal weak environmental improvements to the former conservatives policies, the economy thrived. You shady are wrong, and you shady have no evidence to back your totally baseless claims that a good environment makes the economy bad. On the contrary a good environment makes bad business bad, it seems that is your problem you like destruction of people and places, because that is your economy, as opposed to improving quality of life. You just want to rape and walk away. You are a rapist or a rape collaborator. What have the current conservatives ignorance of environmental policy brought 175+ billion additional debt and a stalled economy. So shady the facts seem to indicate the opposite. You are wrong. Oh and of course the biggest economic loss is unfolding with climate change, the need to fight forest fires, whole chunks of the us becoming absent of water source for agriculture that has held together those economies, whole islands sinking, and cities threatened with being sunk under the ocean.. the costs trillions and trillions... how is that for good cost economy. You are just ignorant of the real costs. You are drinking from the tap, not from the source. You could not be more wrong. That phone will just end up in the dump or recycling center after a few years of use, the chemicals contamination, the hole in the ground and poisoned rivers and food sources will last much longer than any product. Money is artificial, its not the real economy. A lack of environmental industrial practices, and environmental consumer choices, has many many many hidden costs. You know there are more than just extraction and production industries.