Moonbox

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.

I think you're absolutely right in this. I think for the VAST majority of cases people should blame themselves. Realistically, it's not the bank's responsibility to tell you that it's a bad idea to carry a $20,000 visa balance at 19% and make minimum payments on it. First, providing you didn't lose your job or something (which is the minority of cases), it was idiotic to run up the balance. Second, your minimum payment is barely covering interest. With that said, the banks do anything they can to sucker people in. You can literally be on ODSP or welfare and get automatic increases to your credit card. If you're carrying a $1000 balance, and you've always made your payments on time, the banks would AUTOMATICALLY increase your limit without telling you. If you racked it up to $5000, there'd be another automatic increase providing you kept up with the payments. It was a game to the banks. They wanted to see how high they could go and how much interest the client would pay until finally they can't keep up on the visa. Even then, there's a good chance the bank could get a nice consolidation out of the deal. It reminds me a lot of some of the girls I was friends with in highschool and what they could do to the guys' heads. I used to shake my head for two reasons. First, it was sad to see how stupid some of these guys were and second, it was sad to see how cruel and manipulative the girls could be just to get a few kicks. Dumb consumers and preying banks are not a good match.

OPEC oil prices are only PART of the picture these days. Now we are facing VERY obvious and VERY clear price gouging from our own continental oil companies. We can see what a barrell of crude costs at any given point in time. We can see that ANY bad news excuse will drive the price up instantaneously, but when the prices are a LOT more sticky on the way down. What's also interesting is that when crude prices DO go up, gasoline prices go up proportionally more than the crude markets would suggest they should. There weren't more taxes on the crude, there were no increased costs in refining it. When gasoline prices rise faster than crude prices, and fall slower than crude prices, that's profiteering and nothing else.

Working in the industry I can say Jdobbin is absolutely right. Personally I think they could have done better. I find it REALLY pathetic how the banks are allowed to unilaterally raise interest rate spreads across the board on existing PLC's because of 'costs' but in the face of 16+% spreads on credit cards (unheard of in recent times) they do nothing to make things fairer for consumers. Why? Because they can get away with it. If anything the banks need MORE regulation. They can easily be profitable without screwing people over on a regular basis.

Ahh...the "I know you are but what am I?" defence. Real smrt. So instead of saying, "You're a desperate party hack lacking any semblance of intelligence/ logic." I need to say, "You ACT like a desperate party hack lacking any semblance of intelligence/logic?" I mean, I'm not branding you or personalizing...I'm just stating observations of your behavior. We can all access behaviour and comment on it. The smarter posters, however, don't use silly technical and rhetorical labels to describe political figures. For someone who refers to the forum rules when someone calls him, "dobby," it's hilarious to see you throwing around 'mad dog sociopath' and such. It's another reason for people to mock you for the pathetic and desperate hack you are ACT like. For the record, I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you're holding on irrationally tight to the Liberal bandwagon.

The amount of time you put in to posting pro-Liberal media (of any kind no matter how dubious or small) and the time you spend responding here suggests a VERY strong emotional aspect to your efforts. You're not the only guilty offender, but you're the most obvious. You can pretend to act level headed when people start mocking you, but it's your blatant and childish rhetoric that give you away.

To think that this poll means ANYTHING is nothing short of stupid. It means nothing. The survey is totally bogus and an actual academic could poke holes the size of your face through it by exhaling. I do have to congratulate you though, Radsickle, on bringing the maturity on this forum to an all time low.

The whole, "He's just in it for himself." and "Just visiting" stuff is stupid rhetoric meant to smear him before people even consider his policies. Thus far, I've decided his policies are mostly bad but whether or not he taught at more highly regarded universities OUTSIDE of Canada for most of his life have little to do with my decision.

There you go again dobbin, all pouty-mouthed with rhetoric.

If you're going to used cliché at least use it when it makes sense. Are we to presume that you voted for Stephen Harper hoping he got a minority so you could make sure he didn't get a majority?

You were saying this 7 months ago as well and it didn't happen.

It's pretty juvenile if you ask me. I'm no fan of Ignatieff but this site is definetly geared towards misleading the stupid.

It looks like someone just cannot avoid the immature personalization he so openly denounces. Frothy mouthed extremist? Far Right wing? Mayhaps the forum community's contempt of dogmatic and unquestioning support for the Liberal Party is starting to chaff? I'm picturing an angry man pounding on his key-board, red face-paint smearing with tears, while candles burn in the background around a pentagram with a Michael Ignatieff idol in the centre. Sketches and designs for a spaceship lay scattered around the room.