RonnieWood

I completely agree dude! Hopefully it will help people who aren't very involved with politics realize that a vote for the NDP is NOT a 'wasted vote' anymore

LOL So very true I hate all the 'he said' she said' part of politics.......like MacKay accusing the Libs of trying to make deals with Conservative MP's.......and the Libs profusely denying anything of the sort Grow up, your adults and you should be DOING YOUR JOB!!!! Politics these days is nothing but personal attacks and pointless fighting. Ed Broadbent is a smart man! “...Question Period, I think it's become – instead of being functional to Canadian democracy – it's become dysfunctional”

Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ I'm very happy to see that our PM will be involved in at least some VE-Day celebrations this year. How would Europe and the rest of the world have looked at Canada if they stayed at home bickering with each other instead of paying our respects and remembering the soldiers who fought for our freedom? Isn't it too bad that the leaders of our country can't work together? LOL Like that will ever happen! ------------------------------------------------- We Will Never Forget -------------------------------------------------

Now that people are starting to realize a vote for the NDP is not a wasted vote, I think the NDP will win somewhere between 10 and 20 seats in the next election. Keeping in mind what Kimmy said about Mad Magazine here's some tidbits about the NDP: 15.7% of the voting population marked an X next to an NDP candidate in 2004, that amounts to 2,100,000 votes for Jack and the by's The NDP received one seat for every 110,000 votes cast by contrast the Liberals got one seat for every 37,000 votes, the Conservatives received one seat for every 40,000 votes and the Bloc won a seat for every 31,000 votes they received There were a lot of close races for the NDP in 2004 The closest 12 races came down to less then 6,500 votes combined! An average of about 550 votes per riding... Here's something the NDP said in a letter sent out in January: "..if just 3,200 people in strategically placed ridings across the country had chosen the NDP instead of another party, we would have 31 seats instead of 19." So I think it's safe to say the NDP had a fairly successful election in 04. (the party's second highest vote count only second to Ed Broadbent's 88' campaign) Also I think it's safe to say that the increase in support that the NDP is seeing will make the next election even more successful for the party Interesting and exciting times ahead that's for sure

Your point might have a bit more credibility if there were similar numbers of rich and poor people. However, owing to the fact that 1% of our population holds 50% of the wealth in this country, your argument seems slightly flawed. Just curious about what you think.... Should that 1% get 50 percent of the services ?.... Do you think that the 1% contributes even wildly close to 50% of the tax revenues... I think not... It is the lower and middle income earners that pay the lions share of the taxes in this country... simply because there are just so many of them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK let's see here: Here's link I should have posted earlier..... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...rce_login=false This article is locked now, but if you have a membership you can see the whole thing..... 'Canada's top 10% pay 52% of total tax bill' By TAVIA GRANT Saturday, April 23, 2005, Page A1 They used to say make the rich pay. Well, they do. The top 10 per cent of Canadian wage earners carried more than half the nation's federal personal income tax load in 2002 -- 52.6 per cent -- up significantly from 1990, according to a Statistics Canada report released yesterday. So that's where I was coming from when I said the rich in this country will be paying the lions share of health care costs. Don't know where this came from but to answer your question......NO No I don't think the top 1% contributes anywhere near 50% of tax revenues, and I never said I did. You said: "owing to the fact that 1% of our population holds 50% of the wealth in this country...." I said: "The rich will be paying more of a share for the public system then the poor people would!!! (based on income tax rates in this country) " You substituted the word rich with the top 1% business... So I'll stick with what I said, but change it slightly..... "The rich (top 10%) will be paying more of a share for the public system then the poor people would!!! (based on income tax rates in this country) "

Figue I'd add this to the mix: 'Poll puts Liberals in front' http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

So let me get this straight. You say that a two-tiered system would kill a universal system. Right? Then you repeat what I say about how rich people will be able to afford and pay for fast, reliable and available health care. Also you repeat what I said about the public system being less bogged down but you replace "public" with "poor". Now that fist bit makes since but what is your basis for saying the public system would be full of poor people and therefore it won't get the proper funding it would need? GIVE ME A BREAK!! I certainly hope thinking like this isn't the norm in this country!!! The rich will be paying more of a share for the public system then the poor people would!!! (based on income tax rates in this country) Not to mention that the middle class would be using more of the public system rather then the private system anyway...it wouldn't just be the poor. I'd love to hear some arguments from the people who will suffer with MORE Health Care!

This post is a little bit dated but.......what's a couple days. A country like Canada is going to have well above average costs for Health Care compared to the other OECD countries just because of our geographical size and also the insane cost of doing things across the north. Don't try to tab our #1 spot on our shabby system alone, because even with an improved system we'll still be spending more compared to other OECD nations. I think almost everyone will agree something needs to be done about our Health Care system, and adding some private services would not be a bad start. There's a lot of people on waiting lists right now who would be willing to pay for their surgery, so why not let them? They get the fast service they are willing to pay for and the public system gets cleared up a little benefiting everyone still waiting there. Looks like a Win-Win situation to me. Actually you can add another Win for everyone who works at the private and public facilities as well. Win-Win-Win

Some Globe and Mail articles about ‘Free Trade’ in North American skies: Article #1 Article # 2 Article # 3 The articles talk about having 'free trade' in the skies over Canada and the United States (cabotage). This wouldn't be such a bad idea if the airlines on both sides of the border were of equal size and could fairly compete with each other. The consumers will probably be able to fly at much lower rates, for awhile. I think eventually the bigger American Airlines would take over the Canadian skies, Air Canada, Westjet, and most other small Canadian airlines would disappear. Right now American Airlines has dozens of planes (big and small) going unused all over the United States. If these planes were allowed to fly between Canadian cites (essentially a whole new market) we would be flooded with cheap flights and our Canadian airlines would not be able to compete. I'm interested to see what you all think. I've been looking around these forums for a few weeks now but this is my first post. Thanks, Ron