Moonbox

It goes a lot further than that. There will be no peace in the Middle East in our time. Give it 50-100 years when we don't need oil anymore. Then Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc can sit on their sand and get laughed at. Maybe by then they'll also accept that Israel is there to stay, because it's not going anywhere.

Personally I think Martin was a good finance minister and Chretien was a good PM. I'm a young Canadian (25) and my biggest concern in government is that the old farts that voted in Trudeau and Mulroney start paying off some of the debt they're leaving my generation. Yes, they were arrogant and quite likely corrupt. Yes, they screwed the provinces over on funding, but they DID pay down the debt. I'm thankful for that. I voted for Harper because I was disgusted with Liberal entitlement back in 2006 and I voted for him again because I was disgusted with the current batch of Liberal leaders.

I'm a very strong supporter of Israel. I don't think, however, that there is any role for Canada to actively play there other than to provide public support. Havings said that, I don't think people understand what it's like to be a Palestinian today. They're cut off from the outside world by military checkpoints. People, food and supplies are restricted access to the area and it's like living in a prison. It's such a huge mess it's not even funny. On one hand, you have over a million people denied access to anything more than what's absolutely necessary to stay alive. On the other hand, you have people (often from other Arab nations) hiding amongst the civilian Palestinians launching rockets into Israel. What is Israel supposed to do? Israeli brutality is well documented but they HAVE to be that way. Israel occupied all sorts of territory around itself to act as a buffer for attacks from outside. Any time they withdraw from contested lands it does NOTHING to appease its enemies. Militants simply move in and start attacking Israel proper. Israel isn't going anywhere. The sooner Arab countries accept that the sooner they can stop firing missiles at each other and compromise on peace.

you'd hope we would have thought about it PRIOR to going yes. Now that we're there, what do we do? It's difficult internationally to just bail and leave a power vaccuum. It's generally seen VERY negatively.

Military procurement IS complicated and highly technical/political/logistical. You have to plan WELL in advance for future procurement and you have to make sure those procurements are being done with 'the Big Picture' in mind. Throughout the mid-late 80's and 90's, the US military completely overhauled itself. They anticipated what future conflicts would be like and where they would be, what sort of equipment they would need for these conflicts, and then they designed/purchased equipment that integrated perfectly with their existing and/or future systems. This sort of fore-sightedness is what led to things like the M1 Tank, Apache Helicopter, the Black Hawk, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, LRMS etc that nobody on earth now could hope to match in combined quality/volume. The Canadian military, on the other hand, has been hamstrung by the idea that we don't need a military. Instead of cooperating with American and European military development, we've left ourselves out and ignored the forward thinking that has streamlined processes around the world. Now that we've landed ourselves in a conflict our government has had to improvise to get equipment on the field. We've borrowed Leopard Tanks from Germany, bought second hand from Holland and scrambled to find someone to make the right helicopters in time for our troops to be able to use in Afghanistan.

What is it particularly about Ignatieff that you like? I find him very unlikeable. He seems to me to have a lot of the same stances and opinions as Harper. He was pro-war in Iraq. He's pro-torture. He spent most of his life living outside of Canada. He only came back to pursue politics and run for the Liberal leadership. I'll ask again, what is it about him that you like specifically, other than he's not Dion???

Yeah...there's an idea. Let's make sure that all our leaders are uneducated in the arts of politics, economics and law, and let's replace them with 'hard workin' folks who have no idea what politics, economics and law really are. Bach, I think you're on to something....either that or you're smoking something...

I really don't see this as a very big deal. Our dollar went to 1.10 US last january and now it's going back to its non oil inflated price. Good for manufacturers, yes. Permanent? No. It will go back to around par when the economy and oil demand start picking up again.

I would say yes. I never paid any attention to Duffy really, but he always seemed to be biased towards the CPC.

I actually agree with you somewhat. It doesn't make sense to have senators appointed by the parties they are watching over, but the American system isn't great either. I still think electing them is better than appointing them, because at least then it's OUR choice, but I like your idea as well.

I'm a little late replying here sorry. I would strongly consider voting for someone who's pushing Senate reform. I don't like the appointed Senate. It doesn't make sense. The Senate is ultimately our check and balance for parliament. If parliament isn't looking out for us, then the Senate is there to block bad legislation. It defeats the whole purpose of the Senate to have the senators appointed. That's like having your brother or sister audit your business. It doesn't make sense. Why would you have a political safeguard appointed by the people that the senate is designed to safeguard against??

A carbon tax is almost as unpopular in Ontario as it is in the west. It's one of the main reasons the Liberals lost Ontario outside of Toronto. The Carbon tax is ONLY popular in Quebec because most of their power comes from Hydro. It's an unfair, hypocritical plan that is only going to hurt the average worker in Canada and offer MARGINAL benefits.

I basically agree with everything you say, although I contest that everything is being outsourced to China or Mexico. I'm sure many things are, but assembly is usually done domestically because of the huge transportation cost advantage. How much do you think it costs to transport a new and completed vehicle from China to Ontario...or Mexico to Ontario? A lot. Certain things can be transported cheaply and certain things can't. I know an orderly bankruptcy is necessary but what I'm really hoping is that whatever company emerges from bankruptcy protection doesn't have a militant UAW/CAW to deal with. When push comes to shove, the union is mostly responsible for the problems the Big Three are facing. Yes, poor management decisions helped things along, but the Union has always been there and it's been exaggerating labour costs for decades now to the point where there's a $30/hr wage and benefit difference between a Nissan and a GM worker. I don't want ANY tax dollars provided for a bailout if we're just going to continue subsidizing CAW entitlement wages.

That still doesn't make Toyota unsucessfull. The company posted a 1 quarter loss after massive growth and profitability and is not anywhere near a situation where they would need a bailout. They'll weather the auto market collapse and be stronger for it. GM and Chrysler, however, are completely boned. This 'bailout' is nothing but a temporary measure. The companies are going bankrupt either way, but now they have until March to plan for it.

We're better off with Harper than the bozos the Liberals have lined up for us. I'm not a hard core Con. I voted Liberal provincially in 2007 and I voted for Martin in 2004. Liberal leadership today has nothing different to offer Canadians right now. Period. Go back to the 2008 election platform. Take a look at what the Libs are saying they want to do that the Cons aren't. There's really nothing but a lot of crying and whining.

Let's be serious here. The Senate is a joke. It was a joke under the Liberals and it's a joke today.

The Liberals were also responsible for most of the debt anyways....but we've had that argument before. I'm totally for spending decreases. I've been deeply dissapointed in his Mulroney/Liberal style pandering thus far and if Ignatieff can convince me he's ready to reduce idiotic spending on things like a Human Rights Museum or hugely disproportionate equalization payments to Quebec, he'll immediately have my vote. My main concern for government is the budget. Pay off our debt, lower my taxes, pay for my health care and help with infrastructure, and then F off please. Personally, I think Harper's doing a crap job, but I think it's a less crap job than Dion would have done or an NDP/Liberal coalition. Give us a fiscally conservative majority government, whether it be Liberal or CPC, and please let's end this mess.

The Canadian banks did NOT get a bailout...period. I work at a bank. I'm doing more lending than I ever have. I sold 5 lines of credit this week at 6.5% interest unsecured. Most of you don't have a clue how the financial system works and I won't even bother explaining the finer details unless you really really want to know. There are very simple reasons why mortgage rates haven't fallen with the BoC rate. There are also very simple reasons why the banks aren't lending to Joe Schmo the GM worker. Yes, it's likely compounding a bad economy, but the Americans are in the mess they're in right now because Democrats back in the early 2000's encouraged cheap, easy lending to help the economy rebound from the .com market crash. We all see how that turned out.

The Canadian banks did NOT get a bailout...period. I work at a bank. I'm doing more lending than I ever have. I sold 5 lines of credit this week at 6.5% interest unsecured. Most of you don't have a clue how the financial system works and I won't even bother explaining the finer details unless you really really want to know. There are very simple reasons why mortgage rates haven't fallen with the BoC rate. There are also very simple reasons why the banks aren't lending to Joe Schmo the GM worker. Yes, it's likely compounding a bad economy, but the Americans are in the mess they're in right now because Democrats back in the early 2000's encouraged cheap, easy lending to help the economy rebound from the .com market crash. We all see how that turned out.

Canadian Blue I have to agree with everything you say there.

Oh my isn't that a shocking revelation. A politician wasn't completely honest and forthcoming with information. What has the world come to? Maybe if the average person wasn't dumber than a cow you'd see through the BS for what it really is. Anybody who unconditionally says there won't be a deficit is full of crap. It's foolish/naive to have believed the claim at the time and if you're outraged by it now it's only because you're outraged by EVERYTHING Harper does no matter what or you're not smart enough to see through a promise that is not under the PM's control. Harper is 100% full of crap. He's all over the place with his views, opinions and policies and to be honest I don't believe half the things he says. Having said that, the opposition is even more full of crap and quite a bit less competent. I'll stick to the snake of a Prime Minister that we have now rather than the clowns aspiring to take his job.

Only the ridiculously hack Liberals are criticizing the stimulus package. It's exactly what their party was proposing and threatening to bring the government down if it did NOT happen.

Jdobbin I know you understand the difference between running giant deficits during GOOD economic times vs giant deficits in bad times. Mulroney had a crap economy to deal with for the largest part of his term. Inflation was extremely high and thus so were interest rates and something ludicrous like +40% of every tax dollar was going towards debt payments, which was covering pretty much interest only. This was all a mess he inherited from Trudeau. The deficit was higher during Trudeau's term (relative to the size of Canada's economy) than it EVER was under Mulroney. He wasn't a good PM, I'll concede that, but Trudeau was far far worse. The worst part about it, however, was that Trudeau did this ALL with basically zero previous debt and a largely rosy economy. The Liberals did this over 12 years during the strongest economic time we've seen in 50 years. This means higher tax revenues with less need for social spending (see EI surpluses). They over-taxed federally and cut transfer payments to provinces, many of whom had to raise taxes or make enormous cuts to cover the deficiency. Granted, they did cut spending, and they finally turned away from Trudeau economics, but you VASTLY exaggerate their competence fiscally. To put it simply, they were in the right place at the right time. This whole balogna argument about Harper eliminating the surplus and giving us no breathing room is a joke. The 2004-2005 surplus was 1.6 billion. That's how much breathing room Paul Martin had during a booming economy. Get out of here.

Everyone wastes money on Quebec. Every party is guilty for it. It sickens me whatever party is doing it. There's a reason the province is a have-not, despite their immense resources and ideally located population.....

okay Topaz, at the end of your ramble you said Harper should have listened to Dion's warning. What was that again? That the economy was going to the crapper? Okay...the economy is going to the crapper. Now what??? What do the Liberals have to offer, SPECIFICALLY, that the Cons haven't already? Please...