Moonbox

Of course you'd get a different answer. If you asked random people in Toronto if they wanted our military to fly 40 year old jets into battle they'd all say no. If you asked them if they wanted to spend $30B to make sure they didn't have to, they'd also say no. Lots of ideas sound great until people have to reach into their wallets.

The 2nd debate will have little to no effect on Harper's numbers. The polling from the English debate showed that Harper stayed the same and Layton gained at the expense of Ignatieff. Even if Harper loses a few seats in Quebec (he won't lose all, some of his candidates are shoe-ins), his huge gains in the Maritimes and Ontario look like they'll cover for that. I don't think he'll get a majority but people are already losing interest in the campaign and have made a lot of their decisions. We have playoff hockey to worry about and a Royal Wedding (lol) to worry about.

Nobody else thought this 'sentence' was hilarious?

I think the answer to the question would depend first on where you asked and second under what context it was asked. Asking in Alberta and much on Ontario would probably give you a surprising response. Asking what people in Ontario, for example, think of transferring billions annually simply from Ontario taxpayers to send to Quebec, would likely provide you with different answers.

Your region (riding) is well represented by the person you elect. I think what you're saying is actually that you're unhappy that people don't vote the way you do.

Wow that's an argument I've used a dozen times before here but I don't think anyone's put it as eloquently or intelligently as that. Well done Topaz.

It's all a matter of perception. I thought that Harper deflected and dismissed a lot of the criticism and it almost felt like he was reading from a script. I think he did a good job keeping calm and I agree he seemed more Prime Ministerial, but I would have loved to see a little more 'fight' in him. He impressed me more when he was throwing punches back in 2006 and before. I think Harper won that debate simply because he was ganged up on and he kept his cool. I think Layton is going to be the one that sees the most votes swing his way after the debate.

I don't think they can constitutionally do it. What they can do, however, is gradually reduce federal revenue so there is less of it to go around. Smallc you and I don't have access to direct polling on this question. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people you meet in Manitoba support it, as would most of the people in Quebec. Why wouldn't they? People don't seem thrilled with it here in Ontario, however, but once again, where are the numbers? This is really a silly argument you and I have had many times before and I suspect neither of us are going to change each other's opinions.

I sold off as soon as the earthquake hit Japan. I should have shorted. What is there to argue with GS about? Commodity prices are at record highs and demand isn't really supporting the prices. Look at oil. What is it about oil that has prices almost all the way back to record pre-recession levels? It's not demand. It's speculation. People who made 50+% on their commodity portfolios over the last year or so (moi ) should be selling off not only because there's huge potential for a correction but also because you can't reasonably expect those gains to continue and there are going to be better places to put your money.

How about the huge corporate tax cuts and the fact that the Tories are leading the polls despite that?? How are those facts for ya?

34M other Canadians yes. Outside the GTA and Montreal, it really looks like most Canadians agree with me. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

I thought that Ignatieff did a pretty good job of bashing Harper and landed a good number of zingers on him. I also thought he was very well spoken. His problem was that he spent the entire time bashing Harper to the exclusion of all else and didn't make any effort to advance his own agenda. Jack Layton did this VERY well and Harper did it alright too. If I were to guess about the results of the debate I think I would say that Layton won at the expense of the Liberals and Harper and Duceppe basically treaded water.

I don't think the OP was talking about sovereignty in the sense of every treaty we sign. I think he was indicating something extraordinary with this deal...

because perimeter security does not equal loss of sovereignty. The mouth frothers and bed wetters on this forum would make it out to be otherwise but it's not something I'm terribly worried about. If it means I don't have to spend an hour crossing the border anymore then I'm excited about the prospect... I would say we need to know a little more about it, however.

It's still cold blooded murder. It was pre-meditated and things like uttering threats and assault as far as I know are jail-worthy offenses. Unless the police are incompetent in the area I can't see why this couldn't have been handled without the help of a hit man......

This is something that has always bothered me as well. In the interest of fairness, I think everyone should receive CPP etc. You should be rewarded for having saved for retirement.

Privatization is one option and it's used enormously in the US. If you've ever been to Tampa Bay there are tolls on the causaways all over. Federal $$$ I don't feel should be used for local projects. Inter province highways etc are one thing, but bridges etc should be a provincial or municipal expense. What I hate most about the federal government is how unfairly tax dollars are spent. The federal government, as far as I'm concerned, has a mandate to guard our borders, keep us safe, encourage trade and promote our interests abroad. Instead, we spend billions subsidizing Quebecqois whiners and Manitoba have-nots.

Oh his logic is most certainly in question. It's almost non-existant most of the time.

You get a lot more than a restraining order for beating up and sexually assaulting your wife. You go to jail likely for a long time. This was cold and pre-meditated attempted murder and a sham of a trial and I'd be surprised if it doesn't get overturned.

Infrastructure spending isn't bad when it's being spent efficiently. Unfortunately, large amounts of it are wasted on inefficient feel-good and pet projects that provide no net benefit to the vast vast vast majority of taxpayers.

Interestingly enough almost all of the Liberals' fundraising came from those 'few well paid businessmen at the top' until Harper changed the fundraising guidelines.

Oil is a worldwide commodity. What happens in Africa or Europe or wherever affects everyone. Even so, the prices definetly seem to go up pretty fast when something drives them up, and they're way stickier on the way down when prices are being pushed down.

August, I'm not sure you read anything else I mentioned in this thread. As for capitalism being a Darwinian jungle, it really really is, and I don't understand why you can say otherwise. As for the government being honest refereesm, give me a freaking break. I'm not that naive. A 1st year BBA student knows more about free markets and the invisible hand than most of the people on this board and I can assure you I'm a fair bit beyond that thanks. As for free markets protecting the weak, that's BS. Unrestrained and unregulated free markets are just as harmful to the average person as an over regulated centralized economy. Unrestrained, we have Bill Gates, Rockefeller, price fixing and straight out cheating. Regulating is good when it seeks to prevent deceitful, unfair and blatantly stupid market practises, because those things do not help the economy grow. and if you read my other posts you would have seen I blamed the borrowers just as heavily. I know exactly what happened, being in the industry myself. Your nice simplified explanation failed to explain the role that the Fed had in propping the housing prices up and how negligent the lenders were in approving mortgage loans. People were applying for refinances and new mortgages without having to prove their income. Borrowers and lenders basically ignored the most important principle of lending -- affordability. It really doesn't matter what your house is worth if you can't afford the payments on the mortgage. Zero down mortgages with 40 year amortizations and without income confirmation, based on the brilliant assumption that housing prices would continue to skyrocket forever -- that's what the Free Market came up with in the US. That's such naive BS I don't even know what to say. To say that Canadians are somehow just naturally more risk averse than the rest of the modernized world is balogna. We avoided the meltdown because our financial industries are heavily regulated. Our mortgage regulations required clients to either put 20% down on housing purchases (making the mortgage less risky and at the same time showing the clients have the background that enabled them to save that much in the first place), or they were required, by law, to purchase default insurance through a third party which has fairly strict approval guidelines. Interestingly enough, one of those guidelines is proven affordability, and CMHC DOES NOT typically approve mortgages above their affordability ratios. To say that the US and the rest of the world couldn't implement something similar is just not true.

Haha yes we can agree on that. I had to look back to see what the heck I'd said and I'd misunderstood you earlier. What I'd been trying to say was that the number of people who can afford 10,000/year, or even $7500/year in TFSA contributions are ones whose income is so high now that something remarkable would have to happen for them to end up with less than 16,000 in retirement income. It will still be extremely small. When you consider CPP and OAS, those people will literally need to have zero other sources of income. The type of people who can save 5-10k per year into their TFSA are not people who have zero income when they retire. So she has millions of dollars of wealth and is not making ANY income with it? Even a million dollars in lousy GIC's or savings accounts would earn enough to disqualify her. My point is the GIS is not something worth worrying about because the amount of wealthy people who qualify for it because they've saved in their TFSA is going to be small. Where this plan could really hurt us is with people like me in their late 20's or early 30's who invest in equities in their TFSA and would be able to hold them there for 30-40 years. Capital gain taxes on most personal investors my age won't even exist if the $10,000 limit lasts forever. Like you said though, it's not going to happen. Even if it goes through it won't be kept that way for long.

What the heck are you even talking about? I'm saying the percentage of people that can afford to invest $10,000 annually for 25 years are the people with >100,000 incomes. How many of those people do you know who end up with nothing for income when they retire, thus qualifying for a supplement? Give me that percentage. The OAS website is saying that the max income for the GIS is $16,000. What do you think the percentage is of retired folk who have been putting $10,000 in their TFSA each year and only $16000 in retirement income? Pretty freaking low. Most young people are still putting money into the RSP instead of the TFSA for the tax deduction. Seniors by far prefer the TFSA and they're the ones that have bought in the most to it. Kind of like RRSP's right? Okay we'll wait and see over the next 10-15 years and see: 1) How many wealthy people (the only ones who could save the $10,000 per year) end up with <$16000 in retirement income/year . 2) How long both future Conservative and Liberal governments will allow what will obviously be a fairly significant tax loophole if left unchecked. I'll agree with you in the sense that if left like this forever, the $10,000 limit will get out of hand. If you or I can see that, I'm sure present and future governments will too, and it will be a very easy thing to to change. What I won't agree with, in any sense, is that we're going to see a huge abuse of the GIS. The idea of wealthy people with nothing for income when they retire other doesn't really add up.