Martin Chriton

I bolded it twice. Normally when you get an adviser you get someone experienced in the area. Harper did good here. Likewise, if you want someone to be PM you'd naturally want a Canadian. But for an American adviser you'd want an American. If the Liberals want to use an American to be their leader and a Canadian to be their American adviser then I don't see how they expect to do well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49We8C2tzMQ This is off topic to this thread. I didn't say I supported Harper's decision to prorogue. Not all of us are as blindly partisan as you are.

I find it much more concerning that we would consider electing a guy that said he was an American a few years back than having Harper hire an American to be an adviser to him about America. If anything what Harper did is common sense. What the Liberals are doing here is just scary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49We8C2tzMQ

Deleting duplicate post.

Lies. Liberals would not do such a thing. (BTW - follow my YouTube link)

I'm with you. Anyone that's from or has lived in the US is not to be trusted. I sleep soundly at night knowing that my beloved Liberals would never associate themselves with those types. The key problem is that they are loyal to only the US and would never give good advice. Like this guy for example @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49We8C2tzMQ

If you re-read my comment, I didn't actually say either approach was better What I did I say was a direct comparison between US and Canada and US and Europe are invalid and shows ignorance. One thing I will say is those arguing for a tougher deterrent in the US are often those that are those pushing for stronger protection on the southern boarder (root cause for some crimes). However, there is obviously more differences then just illegal immigration. IMHO you need both a strong deterrent and you also need to address the root cause. Anyways, some of the differences become more obvious once you have lived in both Countries. I lived in Canada during my younger years and have since relocated to Calif where I've spent the last 5 years. I've also spent considerable time in Europe.

Ok, if that's the "proof" folks are using then they lets hope they aren't ever put in charge of anything.

I'm curious. While this is a bit of a tangent from the OP what proof do you have that light sentences are better? Posts like yours normally point to an apples-to-orange comparison of something like Canada vs USA where which are vastly different (e.g.: one example is the amount of illegal immigrants in the US vs Canada but that's one of many fundamental differences).

The problem is getting an agreement from the big players. It only slows things down if you have 115 different people in a room....

I agree w/ this. But this is another tangent.

You've gone off on a tangent. Do you acknowledge that your original assertion of "I notice some governments still believe that cutting their own revenues will increase their incomes. How else can one explain this without concluding that some very influential economists fudged their numbers?" was incorrect? Obviously cutting taxes does make sense in some situations.

It's complicated; personally it works out well for me. The point I was trying to get across to eyeballs is that you can't endlessly tax the rich. They're not going to stay if things get out of wack with other countries.

Getting the rich, who pay for the system that you take advantage of, to leave isn't a forward looking strategy

Rich will just leave. Why would anyone successful start or keep a business in Canada if they just lose all their earnings? If they can switch Countries and make another 20-100% more, it's a win-win for them. (FYI - I've already left Canada because the tax rate is too high. I still have family in Canada that bare it but increasing the tax rate more will just further push people away.)

-

It's not all black and white. Lets compare a 80% tax and a 20% tax. Which model has the best short term and long term benefits for government revenue? Answer: In the short term a 80% tax. In the long term a 20% tax. Time to study economics eyeball.

-

Great. So you want to make Canada uncompetitive for corporations and successful people -- why would they stay? Further, any company that stays is going to have to past the cost on to the consumer. Whether it's by lowing salaries or increasing price of goods and services. You'll still end up paying for it. As Riverwind asked earlier, what sacrifices are you will to make? If none, why should anyone else make any.

Exactly. All that increasing the minimum wage would do is have an inflationary impact. The cost of everything would just go up. I live in California and we have government employees like firefighters and policemen making 90-120k/year. All that's done is increase the cost of housing everywhere in the state to ridiculously high prices, such that you need to making 200k a year to afford a decent house and standard of living.

With a good credit card you get cash back. It's pretty stupid to not use a credit card to buy things. You also get extended warranties, etc. Of course it's important to pay it off right away but that part should be as obvious as not over drafting your checking account.

(responded to the wrong thread; ignore this)

I think you should reread his comment, you either completely misread it, or are completely clueless, or insane! The GG and the Queen have no real power so not having them wouldn't change a thing other than to offend those that appreciate the historical background of those long outdated roles.

Exactly. All parties are guilty of this. If Harper said there would be a deficit the Liberals would've lied and said he caused it even though they knew full well it wasn't his fault. If you know you're opponents are going to lie you're left with little choice but to lie yourself.

Pfft. Harper is nothing. You remember that guy call Paul Martin? 1. Soldiers in the street 2. Harper's view aren't Canadian, etc, etc Harper has nothing on him.

Won't happen in the short term but long term hopefully they'll tighten down considerably on EI. Too many people abuse it. A scheme that would be nice would be to force receivers to get a new job (no matter how crappy -- e.g.: MacDonalds) and EI would pay part of the difference until they find a real job. Would prevent people from working under the table and they'd be more motivated to get decent work.