Moonbox

I speak both English and French. I don't feel any more Canadian than someone who doesn't.

India already has the capability to blow up Pakistan and itself with nuclear weapons. I don't see any problems providing energy solutions to long standing allies and trade partners.

I'm of the firm opinion that the Greeks had it right. The people do not know best. The 'people' by and large, do not bother to keep themselves informed or educated enough to make fiscal policy decisions. Leave it to people who at least understand the principles and we can have our pageants elections and judge what politicians say they're going to do and what they actually end up doing. Kind of like now...but we could use a little more accountability.

I just don't read them and throw them out. They're pathetic jokes considering how much truth they hold.

They don't know what they're talking about then. 2006-2008 is the CPC's record, not the LPC's. The CPC didn't shine in this time, you're right. What you really have to ask yourself, however, is why the Liberals promised spending increases in the 2008 election if they were so in favor of fiscal restraint? If you were unhappy with the spending, one would assume spending decreases would be on the agenda and not new spending announcements. Keep in mind this was before stimulus spending was even part of the picture. Since then, the Liberals have been demanding even more spending. Again, if you're going to criticize the spending don't make spending promises on top of it. It sends a pretty confusing message, one only brainwashed Liberals seem able to reconcile. I mean, saying, "The CPC has been spending too much, but WE'LL spend an extra $80B over the next few years." somehow to you means that spending will get reduced. Chretien and Martin reduced spending 14 years ago...so it MUST be true. As far as UFO museums, seriously get off that. It's ludicrous, but it's peanuts and you bring it up all the time. Mulroney cut spending significantly from Trudeau's levels. $30B in debt service payments each year from Trudeau's accumulated debt turned operating surpluses into DEEP deficits. I can show you these numbers AGAIN if you like. For Mulroney to have balanced the budget with 14% prime interest rates and the biggest debt levels ever, he'd have had to slash spending far beyond what Chretien and Martin did. If you want to talk about former cronies and who's in government right now, Pierre Trudeau's spending record was the worst of all BY FAR and there are lots of current Liberals who worked with him.

You should see what some of the academic economists are saying. Ignore the government and business economists, take out the vested interest in the predictions, and you'll find some REALLY gloomy predictions.

Nobody argues that. All we argue is that given the excessive spending, the Liberal solution was to propose increased spending. They promised this in 2008, they are promising it now. They are promising EI spending increases, they are saying Harper's not doing enough to help the economy but at the same time they're criticizing his spending. Somehow you're able to determine that promised spending increases in the wake of Tory increases means the Liberals would show fiscal restraint, but the shoe don't fit. The facts speak otherwise. Only you, in your weird little way, are somehow able to reconcile this VERY fundamental problem with the Liberal position on the economy. That is, of course, if you ignore Paul Martin's tenure, Pierre Trudeau's record, and ONLY use the mid 90's as your reference point. I'm really sorry to have to tell you this, but what the Liberals did in 1995 was to prevent the government of Canada from going bankrupt. They had no choice. They did what was necessary. Unfortunately for you, we're now looking at a completely different set of people, 14 years later, who are promising and proposing nothing BUT increased spending.

What 'most' Canadians, do unfortunately, is not indicative of the rate of default on loans and credit cards. It's not uncommon to find people with $40,000 annual incomes but $30,000 in credit card debt. Most people aren't that dumb/desperate, but that doesn't matter. Just watch the Banks quarterly reports as they come out over the next little while. Loan loss provisions will be skyrocketing and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better simply because people are able to live off their credit cards while unemployed for months and months before it finally hits the fan. Thankfully we'll not be in as bad a situation as the Americans because of CMHC guidelines on mortgages and stricter capitalization requirements, but believe me it's not a great time to be working for a bank right now.

The only thing you have to do to judge Pierre Trudeau's record as PM is to look at the deficits he ran and the debt level he accumulated. To THIS DAY the majority of our debt can be laid directly at his feet and we are STILL paying off his ludicrous spending 27 years since he left. I can back that up with numbers if you like, but Turdeau sold us out to finance his dubious legend. He failed at national unity, because he alienated the West. He failed as a fiscal manager, because we are still paying his debt. He failed us as a statesman, because he never did anything but piss off our neighbours and the only thing good you can say about him is he at LEAST got Canada in the news. It was really great to have the PM's wife make news for screwing around with coked out rock stars.

Yeah I'm still waiting on the platform. I've no idea what the Liberals are about. I'm 100% against their EI changes (and yes I do understand them) but other than that I have no idea what they want to do.

As mentioned before, there are various ways the provinces can change their Constitutions and there are various ways the provinces can arrange to have the constitution changed and failing that there are ways the provinces can force federal fiscal adjustments in their favor. The fact that the West has been a Liberal wasteland for the last 20 years is a pretty good indication of where equalization policy has gone. Ontario and the West thought they had found a solution with Harper but unfortunately he ultimately turned out to govern exactly like the Liberals had previously with spending and pandering to Quebec. A golden opportunity was blown in my opinion, one which will likely cost Harper and the CPC the vital support of Ontario that it needs. I'll probably not vote for him again.

Sorry. I wasn't clear in my last post. The vast majority of the cost for the OIL companies in bringing a litre to the pumps is from crude. What they don't tell you is that the oil companies own the entire process from drilling to refining to distribution, and they make profit on every step. Petro Canada likes to tell us that only 3% of the retail price at the station is profit, but that's total horseshi* and even if it were true the whole process is so vertically integrated that the parent company is making giant margins on every preceding step. There's massive profiteering going on right now. I hate the oil companies but I've invested my money with them. If you can't beat 'em...join em.... :S

I would love it too if it the federal government paid $2000 worth of taxes each year for me. Like I said, it's easy to love Canada when it's paying your bills.

I agree to some extent, but it's not really relevant to the discussion....

Smallc no offense but it's very easy to say what you're saying from the receiving end. It's a completely different story when you're paying. Equalization is equally annoying no matter which province it's going to. It's especially annoying to see the bulk of it go to Quebec, however, as the majority of them don't even really see themselves Canadian and vote federally for a party purely devoted to getting the best deal for Quebec only with a secondary goal of destabilizing federal politics.

At least with the Maritimes you can make the case (other than Nfld) that they don't have vast natural resources or urban centres. It's no secret why PEI and Nova Scotia are relatively poor. There are no resources and there is no nearby population to manufacture for. Quebec, on the other hand, has literally everything going for it and receives over half the annual equalization payments on a perpetual basis.

and this is my problem with equalization. Because of how vote-rich Quebec is, they're able to get the pandering CPC and LPC to throw money at them which only perpetuates a joke on our behalf. They have resources. They have energy. They have seaports. They are close to the US border. The only problem the Quebecquois have can be laid flat on their 'culture' and their desire to contribute to Canada.

The futures exchange helps set speculative gas prices and is manipulative AT BEST, which I think we are both acknowledging. You could probably make the case that the oil companies themselves may be manipulating them to drive up price/demand artificially. It still doesn't change the cost of producing gasoline, as you know. It just helps them drive margins higher.

Similar services for similar taxes would work if the provinces in question even paid similar taxes or offered similar services. Similar services, in my mind, don't mean supporting more than double the % of unemployed 'workers' on a perpetual basis. This is especially irksome when this happens in resource/energy rich provinces with access to large ports and international waterways. Using federal funds, like I said, to invest in Health Care and infrastructure/economic investments, that's one thing. Using equalization to subsidize perpetual unemployment and in some cases cultural loafing is another. The equalization formula as it stands is a mess and we can get into that if you reall want to but I advise you to look at some criticism of it first.

75-80% of the price of a litre of gasoline is from crude. As crude prices go up, the proportional costs of taxes, refining etc all go down. Gasoline trading seperately from crude doesn't affect what the ulimate cost of bringing a litre to the pump is. The futures exchange is a beast entirely to itself, which is what I assume you're talking about. The problem, as I said before, is that we have oligopolic oil companies controlling a VITAL commodity and through a lack of real incentives to compete, they find ways to earn tremendous profits at our expenses. When gasoline price increases vastly outpace those of crude price and when gasoline price decreases lag behind those of crude, you have to look at the other cost factors. Unless taxes, marketing or distribution/refining costs have risen, profiteering is the only remaining explanation. If the market will bear it the oil companies will swindle us. Our governments, however, do have the power to curb this, ESPECIALLY considering gas taxes are fixed.

Smallc I think the point you are missing here is the relative amount of aid per person that's contributed. Quebec and many other provinces have habitually leached more than their fair share of transfer payments, to Ontario and Alberta's habitual detriment. I think Hydraboss is WAY out to lunch on a lot of things (Alberta separatism is an idiotic idea in the long run for numerous reasons, especially for the people of Alerta) but he does have a point when he's talking about transfer payments. I think everyone should be entitled to free health care in Canada, but when you look at different provinces and the way they spend their money, it starts to look like my taxes in Ontario are being used to fund welfare and social programs in other provinces. This is particularly irksome when you look at Quebec because they have an entire federal party whose objective is SOLELY to get an unfairly advantageous deal for their province. Transfer payments are all fine and dandy IF they were distributed equally or at least to a reasonable extent. If we have to subsidize health care in New Brunswick or invest federal dollars in Alberta energy, I'm not going to cry because these are investments and the entire country should end up benefiting from them. When the dollars are being spent on social programs in Quebec and the Maritimes (particularly EI and welfare), however, and these expenditures are both perpetual and EXPECTED (NFLD is an exception now but regardless), THAT'S where the idea of a Federation looks like it's breaking down. Quebec has ABUNDANT natural resources and the rest of the country should not have to subsidize their sloth. YES I WENT THERE .

I'm with Jerry there and simply for practical reasons. Voters react better to sensationalism than appealing to their rationality. Unless you've got a highly charismatic leader who can endear himself to the people (Obama is an example, Harper and Ignatieff are NOT) you have to go negative and make the people dislike YOU less than the other guy. It's a pretty sad and cynical way of doing things, but Ignatieff and Harper have the personalities of soggy cardboard, whatever the heck that means.

They were doing it in China. It costs the government a fortune because oil is ultimately market driven. The only way to do it is subsidize the prices. On the other hand, government COULD regulate the margins the refiners etc are allowed to make.

Supply and demand is obviously a factor. What I'm talking about, however, is how gasoline prices fluctuate higher and faster when crude prices are rising, but fall slower and are stickier on the way down. When oil was going for $40 a barrel, we weren't paying $40/barrell oil prices. We were paying $50-60 per barrel prices. it's a telling tale when even Harper admits things might need changing like he did last september....

I'll agree again on that. US households lost something like $11 trillion on paper over the last year. That's pretty much the value of the NYSE. It's HUGE, it's ugly, and hasn't been fixed. I wonder how much of the recent rally is price manipulation. In the LONG run, things have probably changed for the better.