Visionseeker

Gee BubberMiley, is it possible that Harper and Co. have hired the same US Republican firm that made the T-Paw ad? Further, is it also possible that said same firm will hire Harper when he resigns after his electoral failure on 02/05? No need to reply. I already know the answer.

The elderly do, and will. No measure of logic will prevent them from fiscally smothering their grand-children. My father-in-law whines constantly about how his OAS is clawed-back because of his investment returns. I tell him to shut the fuck up or I'll make sure he's cremated (he don't like that idea) and, if he doesn't piss me off too much, I'll wait until he's dead before striking the match.

Good old Stevie took another stab at buying our votes with our own money today. Harper promises income splitting once the cows come home It's not just the 5 year wait that's stupid, but the blatent irrelevance to any near parity double-income household in the country. It's like saying "Hey, all you households with two working parents, I got nothing for you other than you get to pay for stay-at-home moms 5 years from now." Unbelievable.

CPC = 121 LIB = 117 Bloc = 47 NDP = 22 IND = 1 And there will be no coalition. Rather, a CPC without Harper (who will resign after again failing to win a majority) in complete tatters. Another election will be held in Spring 2012 that results in a LIB/NDP coalition government.

So it looks like the 40th Parliament will meet its end this Friday and the Prime Minister will be obliged to ask the Govenor General for an election writ. The date of the eletion will likely be 2 May, though 9 May is also possible. Based on all your knowledge, instincts and generally recognized skill at predicting future outcomes, what do you believe will be: A-) the percentage of popular vote won by each party? B-) The seat distribution for each party on a national scale? Lastly, why do you forsee this outcome? For my part, I will initially keep my opinions quiet so as not to sway anyones response. Fire away forum pundits. The prize for coming closest to the actually income is the lint found in your belly button on election night and, provided you gloat sufficiently, the grudeging respect of your fellow forum posters. P.S.- feel free to critique the poll that preceeds this post.

Man did I laugh at this! Thanks Morris,

Lets let this topic die shall we. Move your discussions elsewhere. Create another topic. For the love of mike this has gone beyond insensitive to his victims and their families.

Yup. We so bad that we let in the 9/11 crew... Not.

Exeptionally well put Bloodyminded. Hats off.

Because you are weak and can't keep up with the times. So you try to oppose rather than evolve yourself and, in keeping with Darwin, you and your ilk shall perish. The sooner the better for all of us IMO.

The hate is strong in this one.

RCMP appoints new deputy czars as part of shakeup Is this the RCMP, or the Romanovs? More to the point, is this the RCMP or the Holy Roman Empire? Is Halifax the new Constantinople and Vancouver the new Rome? Seriously, this is beyond odd. Elliot faces a mutiny; the senior ranks are then purged and replaced by dauphin princes at opposite ends of the country… So much for esprit de corps. To all those in uniform who endured the "decade of darkness", welcome to the "decade of stupidity". Just another example of Harper Standing up to Destroy Canada one Institution at a Time. There should be a blog called "I fixed it!" featuring Harper's "successes".

And when a poster acknowledges such limitations, calling them out is like shouting FIRE among the embers of a burnt-out theatre. Not quite. But by your logic registering a motor vehicle is a stupid pursuit. Implementation costs (as ridiculous as they were) do not weigh into a utilitarian calculation of current effectiveness v. maintenance costs. Yes, those ever so intrusive moments where the government requires you to fill out a form and asks that you safely store dangerous items. Oh the humanity!!! Look, if you can't take 10 minutes to fill out a form and accept that your weapons need to be properly secured, you lack the maturity to handle something as dangerous as a can-opener, let alone a firearm. You've got it all wrong bro. The state imposes obligations. Whether these obligations take the form of involuntary fanancial contributions or constraints on individual or collective behaviour, such impositions become the varient cost of membership to the polity. The state doesn't impose cost, mans' social construct demands one. In a democracy, the nature and depth of that demand is expressed at the ballot box. The state is not the uninvited oppressor of men, for men invited it by creating it. Right. So please give me an actuarial assessment of said costs. Perhaps. There are emotions on both sides of the spectrum that make it difficult to discuss the matter intelligently. I've never had a dog in the race myself, which is why I expect something more than talking points and slogans when discussing the issue. The registry helps, but does it help enough?

Indeed, supporters of the registry do a terrible job in selling it's usefulness. I haven't read the report, but the media coverage focus on stated conclusions instead of highlighting compelling arguments lends support to your argument. Nevertheless, weapons seizures in domestic assault cases have arguably reduced incidents of spousal murder and murder-suicides. The events in Perth some 15 years ago prompted at least one gun owner to check with the police before loaning a weapon to anyone (i.e. enquiring as to their status to handle weapons) which actually resulted in a guy getting arrested for violating his weapon prohibition order. Recently a roadside stop in MRC lead to the discovery of a weapon stolen during a burglary months before. The recovery of that single registered weapon was the first domino which lead to the cracking of a burglary-network suspected in hundreds of area break-ins and the recovery of over $10,000 in property. The initial bust then produced leads that lead to police through-out the region making a number of arrests for posession of stolen weapons, the discovery of a drug network, a grow-op, card skimming devices and counterfeit credit cards. I learned all this from the burglary victim: a former neighbour and retired OPP officer with a collection of 14 long guns all properly stored. All but one of the weapons were recovered. True, but you need one to quickly determine whether a discovered weapon is with its rightful owner. Uh, no. Anyone who suggests it serves no useful purpose tends to lose this argument in my opinion. The relative effectiveness of the registry is certainly open for debate. But simple proclamations of its "uselessness" are both arrogant and demonstrably false. The point was that after the event years earlier, he refused to take it for granted that someone he's known as a gun owner still has a licence. The lesson he drew from the events was that the registry might well have saved two lives if not for the careless act of another gun owner. My knowledge of the registry's effectiveness is as lacking as the next guys. Sure I know of an episode here or there where it has helped law enforcement, but then again these could be unrepresentative of the whole or, worse still, there could be wider factors that render the registry a net impediment for law enforcement. The problem is that there simply hasn't been a serious debate about its effectiveness. The chiefs of police in this country have publicly stated that the registry is useful, they want it retained, and will campaign in favour of its retention. I guess we'll have to see whether police PR units across the country begin to pour story after story of the registry's good uses in the days leading up to the vote in the House. Even so, such a campaign would'nt constitute debate but simply propaganda vs propaganda.

I agree August. This should come about as a matter of convention rather than de jure.

This is the single most dishonest argument people pull-out in arguing that the registry should be junked: "Show me proof of the crimes it has prevented!!!" Well answer me this, where are the credible statistics for individual acts of prevented crime housed? Answer: nowhere. Because they simply don't exist. If they did, they would record every instance where a friend prevented a friend from driving drunk; or incidents where a bank robber was thwarted in his aims by the presence of a squad car outside the bank he was casing; or the drugging and sexual assault that was thwarted because a woman brought her drink with her to the bathroom - preventing her aspiring assailant from spiking her drink. How much crime is prevented by the registry is difficult to ascertain. But the reality is that it does serve an important intervention tool in violent domestic situations, has helped to crack burglary networks and has enabled snitch networking by getting suspects in possession of stolen weapons to offer bigger fish in the hopes of mitigating their own misfortune. Anecdotally, I can offer you the following: Some years ago, a woman in Perth Ont. was murdered by her estranged husband in a murder suicide involving a shotgun. The husband's weapons had been seized months before as a result of charges for domestic assault and uttering threats. The gun used in the murder was provided by a friend whom the murderer convinced was to be used for a hunting trip. 5 years ago I was at a social function where I happened to learn that the man I was conversing with was a hunter from Perth. I asked him what he would do if a friend asked to borrow one of his guns and he said (roughly paraphrasing) "Happens all the time. I tell them that I'll give the OPP a call first and if they're OK with it, I'm OK with it." In other words, if the OPP hasn't seized his friend's registered guns, he's a legal gun owner and can borrow the weapon. I asked him if he ever faced an objection to his approach and he said that one guy told him "never mind, I'll ask someone else." He called the OPP anyways and the guy was arrested for violating a weapons prohibition order. The registry prevents and helps solve crime. That much I know. Whether it is worth it or not is perhaps a matter for debate, but how many lives must be saved or crimes solved to warrant the $4 million price tag? You tell me.

And what's been your employment status been during the last two years?

Um, the officers secured the location with the suspect appearing nowhere on the premises. Meanwhile, after having fled the scene he hooked-up with friends who supplied him with both a ride and weapon so that he could go out in a blaze of glory. He had the advantage of surprise and, in his control/view of the killing field, superior fire position. Four members of the Canadian Forces with full kit and fully trained in counter-ambush tactics whould've been hard pressed to come out alive. The gun registry didn't prevent their deaths, but it did bring his enablers to justice.

Canada is much more than two linguistic groups and 2 religions. But I agree that the polity has managed to live together in peace for the most part (ignoring the occasional rebellion, conscription, our treatment of aboriginals, and the FLQ). We do compromise or govern by concensus. But if you think for one minute that Quebec can achieve independence in a calm transition you are nuts. First of all, Parlament becomes defunct. Devoid of any authority to speak on behalf of constituencies that quite rightly will look towards their provincial premiers to represent their interests. The idea that an independent Quebec negotiates with a single entity in Ottawa is the single most absurd notion of the soverignty movement. For either Canada is indevisible or it is not. And if the federal government cannot defend the nation's indivisibility by preventing Quebec's session, then the nation divides into it's components over night. And that would precipitate an environment that would fullfil the worst fears of any Québécois: to live in a continent that has become entirely hostile to its existence.

Um, 65 - 70% of the electorate consistently support "anything but conservative". Their wouldn't be "socialist bills" or "pro-Quebec bills", but rather consensus bills reflecting the values of all coalition participants. Attempts to pander uniquely and directly to any coalition partner would lead to revolts within coalition caucuses. All would understand that the absences of consensus would precipitate the uncertainty of an election, so consensus becomes the overiding aim. Call it politics of the necessary. The real risk in a coalition is to the junior partners having some of their MPs and some of their support base defecting to the senior party. The more people from different backgrounds are required to work towards common causes, the more they begin to see themselves as common to each other and more open to further collaboration. An overture for a coalition in the present context would be resisted much more stridently by members of the NDP and BQ than within the ranks of the Liberal Party simply because the Liberals would need only to draw some cream from both camps in order to weaken the remainders significantly. Both the NDP and the BQ can ill afford the impression of the tide turning red in the "anything but Harper" flow.

Naw, the headline will read: HARPER STEALS AN ATV! Tough on crime PM sets bad example Seriously this is rather benign. The jet ski was staged hokiness at its best. This just comes across as the PM letting lose a little. I'm no fan of his politics, but the guys allowed to enjoy himself from time to time. I don't see political fall out here. And there can only be political benefit if the opposition were to take issue with it. Though it was likely planned, this isn't the same category as the staged hokiness of the wet suit/jet ski debacle (with roster-tail appearing to originate from the rider's orfice).

You have no idea how much I appreciate your raising this discussion to the level of facts. The national picture looked very cozy in 2005. But I invite you to look at the graph for wealth by age only four tables below. Link Note how median net worth drops 25% from cohort 55-64 to cohort 65+ from $407,417 to $303,167. There are a number of factors that could explain this: 1- The current 65+ cohort may have traditionally had a lower net worth than the generation following it. 2- The 65+ cohort has been depleting their net worth during their retirement. 3- The current 55-64 cohort's net worth has been boosted through inheritance from former 65+ cohorts who have since died. 4- The current 65+ cohort may have used safer, lower yield investments to house their retirement savings while the 55-64 cohort may have continued to play the wider market 5- The current 65+ cohort's primary asset (home) sits in a less lucrative/volatile community than the current 55-64 cohorts. In fact, each of these explanations stands as true to varying degrees. What is important to note is that, on average, the 65+ group held 25% less wealth than their 3 to 4 surviving children and that each day the live, the gap grows larger and the inheritance smaller. Another matter to consider is that net worth has taken a beating since 2005 when the TSX stood at roughly 10,700. It closed today at 11,557.35. This anemic increase of 7.7% over 5 years is more than over taken by inflation. So on average, those who've simply held the course since 2005 have witnessed loss, not growth in their portfolios. But in reality, most investors realized losses between the summer of 08 and spring of 09. Their real position likely sits at 8-10% less than it was it 2005. Lastly, home prices figure heavily in the relative net worth of all cohorts. Housing markets in Canada have been mixed since the financial crisis began, but are beginning to show a generalized decline in prices outside major markets and, in some case, within major markets. Housing markets "The slowdown has been most dramatic in Canada. Average home prices in Q2 were up just 6.8% y/y, compared with 16.6% y/y in Q1. Sales, while still at a high level, have trended steadily lower alongside reduced affordability and exhausted pent-up demand. Meanwhile, increased listings are tilting overall market conditions back in favour of buyers. We expect demand to remain at a lower ebb into next year, and prices on average to be roughly flat." My point is that fewer and fewer will inherit and those that do will inherit much less than "expected". Hey, I opened the door so there's no need to be coy. There was equity when we sold the house, and my mom was able to use it to start a new life. I got nothing out of the equation nor did I expect to. When Dad died, mom cut cheques to his clinic staff for 3 months work and afterwards learned that he had borrowed against his life insurance to pay salaries while he was sick. Neither of the 2 doctors with "rights" to the clinic paid a penny to the staff and simply shunted patients to their own practice from the moment dad "temporarily" closed his practice. As a side bar, 8 years ago I learned that the wife of one of the doctors my dad employed had run-off with his accountant and managed to spend the entirety of his savings. I drove to Montreal that night, rang his bell and when he answered the door I quietly said "shadenfruede", turned around and drove home. When I got home, my cheeks were sore from smiling the entire drive.

You can't forget about the law. You can argue that it is wrong and needs to change. But any opinion that stands oblivious to the law denies the basic principles upon which the law was founded - the intellectual/philosophical starting point. Without this starting point, there is no common ground from which opposing view-points may debate in earnest.

Not all purchases are subject to GST. Food, rent, child care, prescription drugs, dentistry, and ABM fees are exempt. These basic expenditures consume the bulk of income for the poor. Of that which remains, the 2% GST deduction nets them between $60 and $80 dollars in savings in a year. By contrast, a reduction of the basic tax rate to 14% would yield $250-$300 in savings for such households. But this is besides the point. The 2% reduction in the GST deprives the federal government of 8% of its prior revenue stream. Can you take an unpaid month off of work and still meet your financial obligations?

Whether they make him out to be Pol Pot or not might be a stretch, but that's the general idea.