Moonbox

Okay...so if all things are equal...Flaherty's projections were right according to them??? On the federal level it's a drop in the bucket. Take a look at our national debt level. Tell me if 1.5 billion is a big deal relative to that.

Having a contingency is a good idea in any budget. Unless you can compare that number to previous governments then it's meaningless.

We're talking about new hires here. They can take the job or not it's up to them. The pension plan is already grossly unfair compared to the private sector so I say go ahead with it. Let them strike. I'll survive.

Wrong. It seems some of the biggest names in economics in Canada are agreeing with him, or are even more optimistic. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Economists+give+Flaherty+boost+budget+debate/2646680/story.html I'm at work and can't use the normal link function sorry. At any rate, these are just a handful of the people who DO think it's possible/likely. 1.5 billion on the federal level is peanuts, so it might as well be zero. Regardless, the target in Ontario is 3-4 years BEYOND even Flaherty's half-assed stab at the budget. Personally I'd prefer to see it gone in 2ish years max and see a cut back in program spending, but nobody is offering that option.

Who do I 'support'? Nobody really. I think they're all clowns. Some better than others. Even Flaherty is looking to mostly slay the federal deficit by 2014. Add 3-4 years to that and those are some pretty unambitious targets.

We went from a promise to not raise taxes when he took over, to new record deficits that for some reason can't be fixed for SEVEN years??? Telling us the deficit won't be taken care of for seven years is pretty much the same thing as telling us they have no intention of addressing it at all. It's pathetic.

From what I know (which isn't a lot) the wind turbines appear cost effective in the long term. Solar isn't anywhere near being cost efficient so that's another story.

It won't happen because the Liberals would kill themselves aligning with the NDP. The difference between the Liberals and CPC isn't huge and there are a lot of red conservatives that would bail the second it happened.

He asked that they keep it for him or empty it in front of him. He has a very valid point actually. How are you supposed to know airport security doesn't just take your crap and use it at home for themselves? There should be SOME accountability for the airport security, just like there would be in any other profession.

Aww Argus beat me to it. That's exactly what I was going to say. Sometimes I'm surprised the security guards at the building I'm working at aren't drooling.

The university itself is a joke. It's been censured by the CAUT (canadian university teacher's association) for issues relating to academic freedom and it's been mired in scandal for years. On top of that, it's an ethnically and politically motivated entity in the first place. Why should it receive the same funding as an actual Canadian university?

There's no agenda. I'll acknowledge that there are Bible-thumping morons who've made it quite clear what they think of things like gay rights and women's rights and there's nothing hidden about it. The 'hidden agenda' you speak of implies that the Harper cons are out to take away these rights. That's not the case and hasn't been since Harper became PM. NOT promoting all of these rights abroad doesn't equate to a hidden agenda. It just means they're not promoting them. It's a lot more simple then you're making it out to be.

This 'motion' is absolutely meaningless and I doubt will be worth the paper it was written on.

I think the question itself is kind of silly. Since currencies are always valued to international counterparts, any change in values is based on external and internal influences at the same time. If one country chooses to devalue their currency, it doesn't necessarily mean ours is worth more. In fact, demand for ours could stay the same. The only thing that has changed is the external comparison. What governments should aim for then is currency predictability. Long-term, a government can't really control exchange rates without causing other problems along with it (inflation/deflation, debt ect), thus it's more a matter of smoothing down the sharp spikes up in down in the currency value. Surprises hurt the economy, whether they be external or internal. Long term currency trends, however, can be accounted and adjusted for.

While I laugh at the 'hidden agenda' comments by some of the wing nuts here, I will say that there's a reason Harper does so poorly with the female vote. His party is out to lunch on a lot of social issues and he suffers in the polls accordingly due to this. Religion has no place in politics EVER and the sooner politicians realize this the better.

Ugh...the hidden agenda thing is so cliché and silly now. It's been what...like 4 years now? As far as I can tell we have not been secretely building the Death Star or anything like that.

Are you talking about Ontario or Manitoba or both? If Ontario, then I'm not sure how we could arrange to send back money we already sent out...Actually I like that idea. It's like a double negative. Ontario's budget - (- net equalization payments) = Ontario's budget + equalizations payments. WHERE DO WE SIGN UP FOR THIS!?!?!?

While I know virtually nothing about Manitoba or its industries, the 2 provinces you speak of left have not status the same way Alberta did. Newfoundland's waters are sitting on some sizeable oil reserves and Saskatchewan is a potash powerhouse. If not for these then they'd still be perpetual drains on Ontario's economy. That's because the balancing formula is totally borked.

You're right, but then it's also not that simple. You need only look at what happened to Alberta during the recession to see the problems with people chasing jobs across the country. Personally I can deal with equalization if the provinces used it to modernize, build infrastructure and become more competitive. The way it works right now, however, is it seems to culturalize under-achievement and inefficiency. The money should be used to improve the economy and make it so equalization isn't needed in the first place, instead of just pissing it away.

That's just drivel. What's your point?

First off, we pay for the programs, so when we screw it up and let it get squandered, it's like we crapped in our own bed. We have full control over these programs and can fix them. We also pay for First Nations programs, however. When they squander handout money it's like a giant slap in the face. We don't have any say in how it gets spent and we get no benefits from it, so it's very difficult to justify further funding.

Some did, some didn't. The antagonists did not, and that's all that matters. They're the ones who finance and foment violence against Israel and leave things as the mess they are today. It's absolutely cowardly how countries like Iran operate but that's a whole other story.

I'm saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with at least drawing the comparison. Things ain't right in Israel. It has a lot of problems. Everyone is not treated equally. That's a fact. The only thing left to do is understand WHY things are the way they are, and on that I'm much more sympathetic. I doubt anyone said that. I certainly didn't. It's not necessarily anti-semitic at all. If you were one of the displaced Arabs that had previously lived in Israel do you not think you'd feel they had no right to take your land and migrate on top of you? That has nothing to do with them being Jewish. I could have been Klingons and they'd be saying the same thing about Israel. No, what's absurd is your inability to grasp the simple logic of the conclusions you're trying to make. Have you looked at a map of Israel/Palestine lately? Palestine practically sits inside Israel, so by building a wall around it they're effectively cutting it off from the outside world and preventing it from functioning like a normal 'country'. I think it's justified, since Israel's enemies are refusing even the DIALOGUE of peace, but I think there is at least SOME traction on the apartheid comparison and it has nothing to do with Jew-hating.

No. None of those things can be considered anti-semitic. Replace the Jews in Israel with Hindus and you'd get the same reaction. The criticisms against Israel are in no way directed at JEWS. It's directed at the segregation of people based on race/religion, the heavy-handed retaliation of attacks and on settlement encroachment...oh and that they transplanted themselves on already inhabited land. Personally, I believe that what's done is done. I understand why Israel segregates the population because it has ample reason to be afraid and I don't think the measures it takes to protect itself are exaggerated. I understand why they retaliate heavily and I don't really blame them for that either. I feel that after 50+ years they have every right to exist where they do. At the same time, however, I do understand a lot of the criticism directed against it, and I most of it isn't jew-hating.

Of course he says that. He wants more money. The question is why was it allowed to be squandered in the first place? The money was a handout and they still managed to waste it. Now the question is why should regular taxpayers like myself pay for them to have a race-based university that they can't even manage properly? You don't get three chances when you screw with charity money. Once you've blown it you've really blown it.