marksman

That's commendable. But you've also taken a very narrow view of what poverty is and reject any attempts to combat poverty outside of a very narrow range of options. You might not be consciously trying to keep anyone down but advocating simplistic solutions to complex problems has that effect. Characterizing people as either disabled or lazy drunks doesn't help anything. That would be blaming the victim. No room for external causes. Poverty must only be caused by stupidity and bad choices is that it? I'd be happy to read the study that shows that. Yes but it's never the people who say that. And never the people who take such a narrow view of reality so that they can feel better about themselves.

If we want to play guessing games then figure the federal government gets about half of its $20million back. That's a reasonable guess based on tax rates. If you've got another figure other than $70million show us. Otherwise your speculation is just a figment of your imagination. Of course even if it's half that figure it's still a good investment for the government. Did you have plans to do better with your $1 share of that money? Remember aside from the direct economic boost over that 1 weekend it also advertises Canada to the world so we can't ignore the indirect benefits of the publicity either.

You're right the government got that $20million from Canadian taxpayers. IOW you could never have spent that money on anything because it isn't yours. You could only spend your share of that money which is maybe $1. The F1 takes place over 1 weekend. So what do you plan on spending that $1 on that generates that much economic activity over the course of 2 or 3 days? And if $1 makes the difference between you generating that activity and you doing nothing then I'll gladly give you that $1. I won't hold my breath for your business plan. The only organization that could spend that money as a $20million total is the Canadian government. And you're complaining that they used it to generate $70million worth of economic activity over the course of 1 weekend. The government found a way to increase a sum of money by 350% in 1 weekend and give it to a whole bunch of people but you'd rather have a sum of money that can't even buy you a cup of coffee. How can you possibly justify that argument? Just because you don't receive direct economic benefit that doesn't mean there is no economic benefit to the country. Using your logic I can say that I don't get a single cent from oil production anywhere in Canada therefore all oil projects are losses. On 2nd thought this is a great way to argue. From now on anything I don't like I'm just going to call it a wash therefore it doesn't exist. If I admitted that it wouldn't be honesty it'd be insanity. You presume that any $20million block of cash can be turned into $70million of economic activity. In 1 weekend. By anyone. Which is crazy. You haven't been lending money to people for mortgages in the US recently have you? It's true that you lose the benefit of your contribution to that $20million. But that doesn't mean that there's a loss of $70million from somewhere. Too much taxes can have a detrimental effect on a country's economy but believe it or not there are some cases where the government can spend a block of money more efficiently than if that money was left divided up between taxpayers. This is 1 example. The only reason you're surprised is because you're apparently unable to see that creating benefits even if they don't directly help you is still a good thing. Luckily others aren't as motivated by selfinterest.

I don't know about that. I don't think people are going to appear reasonable if they assume poor people are either lazy or disabled no matter how much info the report includes. Unless they've got studies that show that assumption is true. That's not really true either. A widening gap will almost always be bad news all on its own. The link I provided earlier shows that. A judgement can be made on that basis. Plus a quick google search gave the link to the OECD report itself and the country notes. That had lots of information that you were asking for. Both the article and link show the benchmark they were using: Sadly the article made a mistake and said it was average income not median income. But that just goes to prove my earlier point that reporters sometimes make mistakes with this kind of thing. You'd think they'd have someone to fact check. You wanted to know what was contributing to this and some reasons are also there Some of that was in the article too. It's not enough to say we can't discuss something because we don't have complete information. Sometimes what we do have is enough for a limited discussion. And since widening gaps cause their own problems we can certainly discuss that without further info. What's really unfortunate is that this report is something you've got to buy. I'd like to know what other info is in there that we can't get to without paying $100 for it.

Your response is spending money wastes money? I'll assume that what you typed isn't what you meant to say because saying that spending money equates to wasting money is dumb. More excellent logic. Oil companies have received government money to encourage their development therefore oil production is unsound. The only thing painfully obvious is that your rhetoric has no basis in reality. Some projects that get government funding are unsound. Others are perfectly reasonable and viable. So the benefit you get is good and the benefit others get is a wash? Nice try but if a $100 benefit is good for you then a $1500 benefit to others is good for them. You'd have to be extremely selfcentred to believe that economic benefits are only good when they apply to you but bad or don't count when they apply to others. The government isn't concerned with ensuring that you and only you get benefits they're looking out for all of Canada. Of course noone's taking $100 from you. In 2007 the government gave $20million and the race gave benefits of $70million. That's less than $1 from you. What great project were you going to invest in with less than $1?

And where did you get the number 10,000 dead? And the better question is who killed them? I've got no problem with Canada taking part in missions to protect innocent people and preventing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Račak_massacre from turning into this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre It's nice to say let's leave the world in peace but that assumes that the world's peaceful. It's not. This type of intervention should be done only when absolutely necessary but when it's necessary we shouldn't turn our backs on victims of crimes against humanity and genocides.

Sometimes you've got to spend money to make money. That isn't a radical new concept. If we spend a bit of money that results in economic benefits for a lot of people that's a good thing. If it's got the added value of increasing Canada's image then even better. This isn't the government of August1991 it's the federal government of Canada. They're supposed to promote Canada and support economic activity. The F1 is a proven economic boost for Montreal. It's hardly a gamble. You want to know why they don't leave the money in your pocket? What're you going to do with $1 that'll bring in tourists from other countries and boost any local economy in the way the F1 does? Taking $1 from you won't change your effect on the economy in any significant way but does create a big boost for a lot of other people. If this was done to excess it'd be a problem. But that's why they're going to talk and see if they can work out a deal. But the mere fact that these types of events get supported isn't cause for such indignation.

Some of those options equal more choice for Canadians. I'm not saying Conservatives don't give choice. But look more closely at some of the programs they've instituted. They preferred to cut the GST rather than income taxes. Which offers more choice for Canadians? With a GST cut you've got to spend money on GST taxable stuff to get a saving. With income tax cuts you can do whatever you want with that money. You can save it, give it to a charity, spend it on stuff or sit in the street and burn it. Whether you liked Paul Martin or not in the 2006 election it was the Liberal platform that offered Canadians more choice when it came to tax cuts. Some of the other Conservative tax "cuts" are also like that. Andrew Coyne was right to point out that many of the tax "cuts" are actually spending programs that just happen to give out their money through Revenue Canada. Tax cuts for families are good but let's not pretend that they give Canadians more choice. They only give families more choice. You only get that benefit if you've got kids or enroll your kids in sports programs. I don't have a huge problem with those types of spending programs but let's call it what it is. It's not giving Canadians more choice it's subsidizing families with kids and giving families an incentive to enroll their kids in sports programs. With some of the spending that's been going on over the last 2 years you also might have problems saying that this Conservative government is interested in smaller government. Liberals and Conservatives are more similar than many would like to admit. Conservatives like to say they're giving more choice but the reality doesn't always match up to the hype. Both parties have policies that give choice and both have policies that cater to certain interests.

I remember reading a news article about a project I worked on. The report was wrong in so many ways for such a simple news item. So sometimes it's a reporter's position on the story and sometimes it's just that they wrote an article quickly without getting into the details or properly understanding their subject. But yes either way it can be frustrating. Here's a link to the OECD page. I think you might have to pay for the report but you can get the notes for Canada http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_...l#COUNTRY_NOTES The report isn't so bad for Canada. Even though the gap is widening average incomes for the poor and middle class are still above the OECD average and poor households have better access to basic goods and decent living conditions. That doesn't mean we can't do a better job of closing the gap though.

The article didn't really miss those things. The study was only looking at the gap between rich and poor it wasn't saying it dealt with every issue related to poverty. But those are questions that need to be asked in order to come up with a realistic view of what's happening. 1 problem I think I mentioned before is that different governments have used different definitions of poverty to show the number of poor people going up or down. I'd say it isn't bad that people are doing well for themselves and it isn't necessarily about taking from them. But if the gap keeps widening then that means we aren't doing enough to help lower income Canadians keep up or take advantage of growing economies. The only emotional driven lunacy I've seen here is the need for some people to blame the victim. We can admit there're freeriders in the system without assuming everyone who's poor must be disabled or freeriding. You'd think when faced with problems like kids going hungry we'd want to help but instead some people feel that all we need to do is point at the parents and blame them. It doesn't help anyone but I guess it makes some people feel superior.

Your world must be so nice to live in where everyone can be slotted into such simplistic categories. You've said yourself that you made dumb decisions in the past. How would you feel if you weren't able to correct those decisions? Why is it you feel the need to keep someone down even if they're willing to work hard but just need some help? Poverty is too complex a problem to take a 1 size fits all approach. Poor people can't be divided into the 2 categories of people who're lazy and people who're disabled. Your me first approach is commendable. It's also selfdefeating. If you're paying for those things now then why wouldn't you want to deal with poverty in an effective way so that you can stop paying for those things? Dealing with individuals can help more people so that taxpayers don't have to keep paying for them.

That's a huge question which I can't pretend I'm an expert on. But here's a place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ineq...s_of_inequality Class envy may be part of it but the effects of that're more than simply saying someone is jealous of someone else. Greater economic inequality seems to lead to less trust in a society and to more crime. Studies focus on homicide since it's defined almost the same in a lot of countries and the results seem pretty clear that homicide rates are lower in countries with better economic equality. It's seen that lower socioeconomic status means worse health. If the gap between rich and poor are growing because more people are getting poorer then this has implications for healthcare. Discussion about economic utility are interesting with respect to a widening gap. 1 dollar is generally worth more to a poor person than to a rich person so a society with big income gaps could be seen as less efficient or has less utility. These gaps aren't all bad. Some inequality seems necessary to act as an incentive for people. Which is probably good since we'll probably never eliminate inequality. But promoting this aspect has its own problems it appears that inequality's got a negative effect on economic growth. That's a bit of a summary of the page and I'm sure there's more out there.

Well it doesn't have to be quite that literal. In a developed country where there's no public healthcare employees will generally demand more healthcare benefits. Businesses will end up picking up at least some of that tab. With government funded healthcare businesses pay less for benefits for their employees and what they do spend gets them better coverage. Healthier employees means better productivity and less turnover and less retraining. So I don't have a problem with some businesses paying their taxes into healthcare. They get a benefit from the system too. I'm still hesitant to generalize about any party understanding this or knowing that. I think it takes away from examining their actual policies. There're many different ways to encourage job growth and any government revenue or spending redistributes wealth. I don't think any 1 party has an exclusive or complete understanding of any complex area like that.

Once again you've assumed that the only reason someone can't improve their situation is because they're stupid or lazy. And you wonder why some people believe the myth that the right doesn't care about poor people. If someone's got to spend all their time and money caring for their family and working a low paying job they don't have the resources to take advantage of programs. Going to a skills program takes time which some people need to either make money to make ends meet or to care for their families. And that's just 1 example. 1 size doesn't fit all when it comes to poverty. I'm glad you had the chance to improve your situation. Some people don't get that chance. I don't think it's a big sacrifice for those who're successful to help those who need help. People shouldn't be punished because a simplistic solution to a complex problem doesn't work.

No matter how you phrase it your question is still about trying to impose a decision on an entire province without giving them any say and without any negotiations about how that should be done. So yes there's still a difference between someone saying they've made a choice for themselves and someone imposing a choice on someone else without any chance for discussion. You keep defending yourself against a claim that noone has made. You're saying lets get rid of all the Quebecers. And even more people seem to feel that a better solution involves a whole Canada not a divided 1. And of the people who'd like to see Quebec leave most realize the necessity of discussions between Quebec and different communities in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

The study wasn't about eliminating poverty. It was about the gap between poor and rich. As long as you always use the same definition of poverty then each time you do a comparison you'll be able to see if the gap is growing or not. A widening gap creates problems for countries. The poverty definition isn't based only on Canada either. It's based on the OECD median which makes it a bit more realistic. But the definition of poverty has always been controversial. In Canada differing definitions have allowed governments to claim a reduction in poverty from previous governments even though the only thing that changed was how poverty was defined. Your distinction between left and right is as simplistic as the 1 you argued against. If the right creates skills training and free education programs where do you think that money comes from? Taxpayers who work hard and earn it. If the right only focusses on jobs then they also don't care why people are poor. Having education and skills training doesn't help a poor person who can't afford to stop working their low paying job because they're barely making ends meet for their family. Your distinction seems to assume that poor people who can't better their conditions even if there is skills training available must be lazy or more interested in getting drunk. We shouldn't be paying for freeriders. But poverty is a complex problem that requires more than just looking at the number of jobs available or skills training programs out there.

I'll agree with you that there's a point where too much business taxation is a bad thing. But there's a point where too little business taxation means businesses get to benefit from many of Canada's government programs like healthcare without paying their share. Much of the argument between Liberals and Conservatives is about finding that line. I think the NDP might be a bit too far on the more taxation side for most Canadians. I'm not sure that answers the question about the poor though. Poor people generally aren't paying business taxes. My ultimate point is that these talking points are nonsense. There's lots of room for political debate on many of these issues without claiming that 1 side hates families or that 1 side hates poor people. All parties are guilty of this but that's no excuse to continue holding up this nonsense as gospel truth.

Oh goody more talking points with 0 details or proof. For every little slogan you've regurgitated you'll be able to find policies from all parties that meet those criteria and you'll be able to find policies from all parties that go against them. Although if you move to the extremes of the political spectrum both left and right you'll find that policies usually go towards more government control and less freedom of choice. The reason you don't think that nonsense sounds bad is because you think that actually reflects reality. We could throw up some great communist ideals and they'd sound great too. Everyone living comfortably with whatever they need. How can that be a bad thing? Besides if this was reality you'd have been able to come up with lots of concrete examples by now. Isn't it amazing how questions like that go unanswered on these boards.

I love it when propaganda talking points get repeated over and over again. It's plain and simple everyone! Liberals and NDP hate families. Conservatives hate poor people. We could do this all day. Of course we'd all be stupider for repeating such nonsense but that's never really stopped anyone before.

See those are solutions at least worthy of discussion. I think equalization payments have got to stay but better monitoring can't hurt. The only problem there is trying to agree on how much the provinces are giving and how much they're getting. Each province is always going to say they're contributing more and getting less. I'm also convinced that even if things were equal we'd still be dealing with provinces pointing at each other and complaining. It seems like that's the cheapest way to score points with the voters these days.

Feeling a bit self-righteous today? In 1 case you've got someone saying I've made a choice for myself and I want to go my own way. What you're saying is you've made a choice for other people and want to force them out. There's a huge difference between someone choosing for themselves and someone forcing a choice on them. It's amazing that concepts like that still have to be explained to some people. When you're finished with your soapbox maybe you'd like to read your own posts. You said you disliked Quebec so don't get all crazy when I say that you dislike Quebec. And that's all I said. If someone else called you the KKK then take it up with them. I'm saying your premise sounds like bigotry. If you'd said let's get rid of all the white people in Canada what do you think that sounds like? If you'd said let's get rid of all the Acadians what do you think that sounds like? If I was to give you the benefit of the doubt then I'd say you're someone who sees a problem but is seriously misguided about the solution. If I'd been like most people seem to be on this forum I'd have called you the KKK. Your anti-English Quebecer example would be someone who's probably a separatist and probably a proud Quebecer and definitely a bigot. Strangely it's possible to be all of those things.

How sad that you're attempting to generalize about so many people in an attempt to avoid a legitimate question. People in the conservative party would be idiots to not ask themselves why Harper hasn't been able to get a majority when his main opponents were so weak in the last 2 elections. They'd also be idiots to have him step down right now but the question should be quietly asked. Intolerance isn't limited to any 1 political philosophy. Your attempt to dismiss a legitimate question by saying the poster doesn't like democracy shows your own intolerance.

There's a difference between saying I want to leave and saying I want to kick that group out. Especially when someone's saying I want to kick that group out because I don't like them or their democratic choices. If people actually cared about this country they'd want to discuss real solutions. But their dislike for people seems to outweigh everything else.

My ears are good thanks but maybe you should take your own advice. I didn't say you disliked anyone because of language. I said that you're asking who wants to kick Quebecers out of Canada and that question sounds like bigotry. Your response where you talked about all those French friends of yours doesn't change that. You admit you just don't like Quebec. That's great but we don't remove people from this country because you don't like them. If you're really interested in helping Canada then kicking any group out of the country isn't the solution.

I'll agree that people should be voting no matter what. But I still disagree with why you think voters don't care. It's not that people aren't looking. It's that when they do look they don't see anything worth caring about. I don't think it's true that you can go to the websites or listen to the news to get the issues. Where was the real debate on environmental issues? The debate on the carbon tax consisted of 1 side saying go look at a website with a calculator and the other side saying it's a tax grab that'll ruin civilization as we know it. If there were detailed discussions by the parties about carbon taxes vs cap and trade vs emissions intensity then I missed the good parts. Do you really think the candidates honestly discussed the issues? The economic crisis debate came down to 1 side screaming panic and the other saying don't worry we've had a plan all along just don't ask for details. Maybe you're right and it's buried deep somewhere where voters could find it if they looked. But the 1st impression given by all of these politicians is that they're more interested in insulting each other and negative campaigning than in an open debate.