Martin Chriton

I suggest you look into the definition of "mutually exclusive." P(deficit) increases when spending increases. Those aren't mutually exclusive events.

I suggest you research what a minority government is. You obviously don't understand the concept.

Then you must really hate the Liberals for forcing this on the Conservatives. You're not alone.

If 'enough' money isn't spent the Liberals will vote no. They've been saying every day for over a month now. The Conservatives have no choice but to spend this money. If they don't work with the Liberals to get the budget passed the Liberals will work with the NDP/Bloc and who knows how much more would be spent in that scenario.

Hmm, you complain that Harper isn't doing enough to stimulate the Canadian economy. Then complain that Obama is going to do it for him (that is buying Canadian goods). What are you really mad about?

This is simply untrue. Our immigration system sucks because we're not getting best and most qualified immigrants. There are several things that need to be done: 1. Bias towards those with higher education. 2. Bias towards those that have already secured employment. 3. Bias towards those that are already working under a work visa. The Conservatives proposed #1, which is a start, and were blasted for it. It's a shame. Canada's current immigration policy is designed to be a welfare program for the rest of the world. It shouldn't remain like this. You seem to be blaming the government for these immigrant's problem, that's fine insofar as they should never have been accepted in the first place had #1, #2, and #3 been in effect. Government should not put private sector in a position that they're forced to hire a specified amount of immigrants. As someone who has worked in the US on a TN, and now an H1-B, I haven't seen this problem here as the immigrants I work with secure employment before going through the Visa/Green Card/Citizenship process. Note I work in Silicon Valley area where there are an immense amount of educated immigrants.

That's peanuts if you look at how much money the average workers pays in taxes every year. If those people aren't paying equivalent taxes albeit minus that small processing fee they're a drain on the system.

The problem is Canada lets people in before they get the jobs. Jobs should be secured first, they should work sometime under a visa, e.g.: something like the America's H1-B, then they should get their citizenship. Letting people in before they get interviewed/accepted for jobs doesn't help anyone. Canada needs to be biased towards immigrates that have a proven experience, and the best way to determine that is whether they're able to secure employment. Often times Canada seems to be used by immigrants as a backup for those aren't accepted by the US. There is no reason why the quality bar for being accepted as Canadian citizen should be less than that of the US.

How can I spend more of your money! So goes the socialist dogma. If you are a socialist and know that the government doesn't have enough services, think day care, etc, you must know also know how big government should be and how high taxes should be. You can't know something is too small unless you know what size it should be. This is obvious. Don't you agree? (If not why not?) So, socialists all, how big should the government be and how much more tax should Canadians pay? Once you've told the "righties" and "neo cons" that, maybe we can take a look at what kind of Canada would be the result if the government was just the right size and taxes were just the right amount according to socialists.

If he knew well in advance and didn't kick off the new process in a timely manor than I agree he acted unethically here with the supreme court appointment.

Reading http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home it looks like the Supreme Court recommended the appointment. It doesn't sound like it was a partisan decision. Hopefully the process will be refined so such long process delays won't be present in the future. Again pragmatic decision. I don't think anyone should expect a transition such as electing senators or supreme court appointments to be binary.

Interesting. I might have said the same thing if I was in his shoes. Unfortunately, with a minority government you have to work with the other parties and don't get everything done that you want. It's hard to fault him for that.

I guess you lack common sense. If senators can't be elected, there is no point to leave the seats empty, senators cannot currently be elected. Once the legislation is in place, then future senators would follow the new procedure. Similarly, those fighting for proportional representation don't stop running for office until it's changed, they work within the system to get things changed. Harper's decision here was a pragmatic one.

1. If you think a budget crafted by NDP/Liberals/Bloc would have more productive uses for the money, you're indeed smoking something. The Bloc involvement would see a disproportionate amount going to Quebec. 2. As for the CPC, reading the article I see the highlights are: * More than $6 billion for infrastructure, which doubles the previous year's spending * Major funding for public housing and for home renovations, which is intended to stimulate the construction industry * Tax breaks so consumers will spend more money * Billions of dollars for the Employment Insurance program Nothing really stands out as a poor choice.

How could anyone be outraged? If Harper didn't spend the money the Liberals would've used that as an excuse to seize power and spend more. It's the lesser of two evils. It's a minority government, Harper has to work with the other parties. If you don't like that you should have given him a majority and we wouldn't be in this mess.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081201/...iament_crisis_1 This took a total of 5 seconds to find. I think the biggest concern was letting the Bloc and NDP run the country.

What more could they possibly do? Some would say they've already spent too much, the coalition would probably say too little. You can't have it both ways. If you wanted less money spent you should have been more vocal against the coalition. They left the Conservatives little choice. I also disagree with this spending but it obviously wasn't their first choice.

Why is it that some Liberals have trouble understanding simple probability? With the CPC's seats in the house the only need one other party to vote with them or abstain. With the Liberal seat standings they'd need two. The Liberals would obviously have a much harder getting legislation passed. This is basic math guys

It's less. Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition requires three parties to agree on everything. Conservative + X only requires agreement between two parties.

As other have already said Harper was close to winning half the seats. As a reminder Chretien got a majority in the 90's with 38% of the popular vote. I think all political parties are guilty of using fear mongering at times. The left is just a guilty, e.g.: some of the most ignorant try to compare Harper to historical figures such as Hitler.

Article @ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home What are the chances that Rae backs off this when he reads the polls that just got released? Probably too late for him to backpedal now.

As much as I dislike Harper, one thing he has correct though is his corporate tax policy. If Canada isn't competitive corporations will just relocate elsewhere. When it comes to corporate taxes the NDP are much more scary.

I'm curious, with these high polling numbers for the CPC released, and the spectacle of the last few days, do we know anything of recent Tory fund raising efforts? I'd imagine that they pulled in a sizable amount of funds.

Given those poll results, perhaps the most advantageous thing Harper could've would've been to allow his government to be defeated in the confidence vote. After seeing the follow out in the past 2-3 days from this proposed coalition the most probable length the coalition would last is on the order of weeks. After that we'd see an election and the conservatives would get their majority.

Chretien got a majority with 38% of the popular vote in '98 IIRC. Harper had what, 37% last election? He was close. Very close.