marksman

Harris did take other steps to balance ON's budgets but all I'm saying is that despite those steps the only reasons the budgets ended up balanced so early was because he sold off assets which can't be sold again. There're ways to balance the budget that only work shortterm and ways that are sustainable in the longterm. Selling off assets is a shortterm solution. So I'm saying that I find those claims that he balanced the budget so quickly to be exageration. How's that rubbish? The point of the Green Shift is that the carbon tax in addition to income tax savings will be revenue-neutral for the government and that most families will see their increased expenditures on the carbon tax balanced by reduced expenditures on income tax. I won't be surprised if the government's revenue from the carbon tax isn't equal to the cent with its reduction in income tax revenue but that's no different from any other economic policy. Every tax reduction proposed by a politician never costs exactly what they say because its hard to predict to the cent. It's also no different than Harper's claim that people would save $400 with his GST cut. It was really unlikely that the average Canadian would've saved that much but it didn't stop Harper's claim. If the Green Shift is a tax plan for poor people then the GST cut was a tax plan for rich people. Of the 2 I'd choose to help poor people.

If you judged by press reports then the ice age comment is valid but at the time I don't think the scientific community was anywhere close to agreeing that's what was happening. It's like what is happening now a press article will cite 2 scientists with opposing views even though there may be 10 scientists supporting 1 view and only the 1 scientist on the other side. It's not that there's no doubt about global warming it's that based on what we know so far and most of the work done it's probably that humans are causing global warming.

It's clear there's not much point in continuing the discussion. You argue that models can't be trusted because they've been tuned to match historical data. Then you argue that models can't be trusted because they don't match historical data closely enough. You don't trust any of the climate scientists looked at by the IPCC because of one scientist the IPCC looked at. Even though you've said you support many of the policy decisions that'd be taken to reduce climate change you're basically saying that we shouldn't take those decisions until we wait to see if the human caused climate change people are right. You had different reasons for supporting those policies but they're the same policies despite that.

Harris and Flaherty did "fix" ON's finances just maybe not the way you meant. They may've improved the financial situation but all their talk of balancing the budget was exageration. They balanced budgets by selling off assets like the 407 then people were surprised when after those assets were gone ON had budget problems. They hadn't really brought everything into order they just delayed the pain. This was better than spending into debt but it's far from the financial feat they claimed. It's easy to balance your budget when you make 1 time deals but it's not a sustainable longterm strategy. I remember reading analyses of Harper's and Martin's tax plans in the last election. They were almost identical in total savings and Harper's plan overall would've reduced taxes by only a few million more than Martin's. The big difference was that under Martin's plan most people would've got equal tax breaks but Harper's plan gave bigger breaks to a smaller number of people. That's because Harper's plan raised income taxes and involved the GST and tax credits but Martin's was more generic income tax cuts. After the election Harper did endup lowering the income rate back down and I think threw in a few more goodies but I'd have expected that from any minority government whether it was Martin or Harper. The carbon tax is put on fuel you buy and use is that any more indirect than the GST?

Moonbox I'll just respond to a few of your posts at once without quoting them all. I've said this before but I'll say it again - Harper didn't break any laws by calling an election. That's not my issue with the election call. The problem I've got is that he talked about how he was going to be open accountable and transparent and how he could be trusted to keep his word and play fair - but he hasn't done that. 1 of the things he said was that he was giving up the advantage to call an early election and he passed the fixed date law for that purpose. This was a really dumb thing to do. We've already got fixed election dates in the constitution so there's no need for this legislation especially when there's nothing that says you can't call an election before the "fixed" date in the new law. The problem is that he's doing what every PM before him did and calling an election when it suits him. It goes against what he said 2 years ago and many years before that and it goes against the spirit of his law. He says Parliament wasn't functioning but he can't point to a single instance where a law he wanted passed - made a confidence vote - was blocked. Saying that the opposition parties no longer agree with him isn't true - they never agreed with him it's just that the Liberals never voted against the government when it mattered and simply disagreed with him in the press. Opposition parties that say they disagree with you don't count as a nonfunctioning Parliament. Nonfunctioning means legislation isn't getting passed. You've pointed out that why should Harper wait for a nonconfidence vote to be determined by the opposition. A few people have answered this - he should wait because he said he would. It might be a double standard to say that the opposition parties can time a nonconfidence vote but the government can't call a snap election but this is a double standard that Harper enforced on himself. You can't claim to be the "trust me guy" and then act surprised when people point out that you aren't doing what you said you would. And blaming the double standard on your opponents makes you look even less trustworthy. He'd get more respect if he'd admit that the fixed date law was misguided and that he needed an election because he thought he needed a new mandate. It'd still be a cynical snap election call but at least it'd be a traditional cynical snap election call. We wouldn't have "Parliament wasn't functioning because I've been able to pass everything I've wanted" nonsense and the opposition wouldn't be able to criticise him since he'd have admitted that the fixed date law was inadequate. So it wasn't illegal to call a snap election but for Harper I still think it was wrong unless he repealed the fixed date law or at least admitted his mistake.

Foxer I won't quote your previous posts but here's somethings to think about in our GST or income tax discussion. It isn't very difficult at all to argue that lower income earners aren't benefitted more by the GST cut. You say they need the savings the most but they can get those savings from income tax cuts more easily than through GST cuts. Many of the products and services bought by low income Canadians are not taxable by the GST - this includes groceries rent prescription drugs etc. They also receive GST rebates that can refund all or most of the GST they paid. So you can't say a GST cut helps anyone save on basics like groceries and you'd have to reduce the savings they get after considering their rebate. Using your examples of a low income Canadian saving $1 and a rich Canadian saving $2500 - sure the rich person is only saving 5% compared to 10% for the low income person. Now look at it from the government side. They're spending 99.9% of their lost revenue on the rich. I know your numbers are just an example but you see the problem. If you're trying to help low and middle class Canadians then why spend something like 90% of your cut on rich Canadians? Income tax cuts are a better way to distribute that money more fairly. Even a quick google search shows that an argument for GST cuts isn't as solid as some claim. http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/275586 I'm sure there's some economists who would disagree but obviously a GST cut doesn't automatically turn into huge economic stimulus. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck..._inquiries.html For economic stimulus Andrew Coyne makes an interesting point http://www.andrewcoyne.com/2007/03/todays-...al-case-for.php His point was that a 1% decrease in GST cost about $5.8 billion. For about $4.4 billion you could've reduced the income tax brackets from 15.5% 22% 26% 29% to 15.5% 22% 25%. His column was from 2007 but now the tax brackets are 15% 22% 26% 29%. If you wanted to spend the full 2% decrease in GST you could've put those 2007 rates at 15.5% 20%. Spending the money in this way wouldn't help lower income Canadians but it'd help middle class Canadians and provide a huge stimulus to the economy. If we're talking middle class then I can't see how a GST cut helps them more than an equivalent income tax cut and the same for most low income Canadians. Those who are at the bottom of the income scale maybe get more from a GST cut but I haven't seen anyone take into account the GST rebates available to those making less than $30K so I'm not convinced that even they get as much savings as GST cut supporters claim.

The meaning of your post isn't clear to me - especially what's the horse and what's the cart? And when you say "The debate on same sex marriage came before the Law was enacted." what "Law" are you talking about? We have rights in the constitution. If the majority wants a law that violates the constitution then the government can't make that law unless they're willing to change the constitution. I'm also not sure how your response deals with the fact that the government must protect the rights of all Canadians not just the majority no matter what that majority wants.

I know I'm knitpicking here but some food as in groceries are also taxed. Carbonated beverages, non-carbonated beverages like juice that's less than 25% natural fruit juice, chips. Some won't consider those groceries but some do. But you're right that most of the taxable items are essentially take out meals not groceries - like single serving ice cream.

You can't pass a bill without the support of Parliament. It's Harper who wanted fixed election dates. Ask him why he wanted to do that because when he passed the law he knew that a no confidence vote could bring him down at any time. That wasn't a problem for him when he passed the law but it appears to be a problem now when the polls show that he's got a chance at a majority. A nonfunctioning Parliament is 1 that can't pass legislation. That hasn't happened yet. Therefore Parliament was still functioning when Harper called his election.

Yours was the 1st post in the topic. There was no need to result to name calling in the 1st post. Your arguments also lose weight when you criticise others for name calling and name call others at the same time. But enough of that and on to an actual discussion. As for your question the answer is yes I do have the bill in front of me. I think you were a bit premature in declaring your position without actually reading the law. Especially the part about the escape clause. Here's the bill at royal assent - read this one since you don't need the rest of the Elections Act http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...4668&file=4 But here's the Canada Elections Act for completeness - you'll want section 56.1 and 56.2 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/c...0&length=50 You'll notice absolutely nothing about how parliament "is functioning". You'll also notice that nothing that was passed affects the power of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. Which means that a PM can call an election whenever they want. In order to change the powers of the Governor General you'd have to change the constitution. All Harper's law did was to say that instead of having to have an election 5 years after the last election as it was written in the constitution we now have to have an election in October of the 4th year. The passing of this law was a feel good political tactic but now it isn't working out. So Harper changed his mind and called an election when it was favourable for him. If Parliament wasn't working during the summer then why was it working in the spring? Nothing changed. No legislation was stopped - because Parliament wasn't sitting. What changed was that polls were looking good and enough time had passed since 2006 that it wouldn't look ridiculous to call another election. As for your other points Dion has been "going on about how he disagrees with everything Harper says and does in Parliament" since he became Liberal leader. So nothing there has changed. You say that "parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining". That makes no sense. Don't we want over half the House to be voting? Even more to the point you're basically saying that parliament isn't functioning because Harper has been able to get his legislation passed. Once again that makes no sense. How is Parliament not functioning if Harper has been able to pass his bills? And no one has explained how Harper "gave up this advantage" in 2006 but seems to be using it in 2008.

Revenue Canada says some food is taxed. Reading some of the links can be amusing - who gets to define a sandwich?

The line about people not spending was in response to a line that said a GST cut "gives the same benefits to those who don't spend". I agree that everyone spends. It's hard to survive without spending. But someone who spends less won't get the same savings as someone who spends more. As for the economic stimulus argument that's true in a way. But when comparing income tax cuts to GST cuts you can't say GST cuts stimulate the economy but income tax cuts don't. Increased take home income gives people more money to spend as well. Comparing the relative benefits to the national economy of income tax cuts vs GST cuts is complicated but it wasn't really my point to get into that aspect of the tax cut. This topic was about the middle class and I've been saying that the GST cut was better for high income Canadians not the middle class and not lower income Canadians.

Some groceries are GST taxable. But not the basics. Meat, bread, milk products etc. don't have GST. Stuff like candy is GST taxable. Prescription drugs aren't taxed by the GST and so on with some other medical services and rent. Check Revenue Canada's page if you want a complete list. You'll find groceries under zero rated items - items that have a 0% GST. You'll maybe have to click various links for complete lists. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/gst...l/menu-eng.html http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/gst.../zrrtd-eng.html http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gm/4-3/4-3-e.html If poor people don't spend a lot of money I think it's safe to say that a good portion of their money goes towards things that aren't GST taxable. My point was simply that income tax cuts are better for lower income people not cuts to consumption taxes. Most economists I've read agree - with the 1 disclaimer being that you have to cut the income taxes properly. Cutting the upper bracket obviously won't be better for lower income Canadians.

When you open the door by flinging nonsense - calling people whiners cry babies and simpletons and generalizing about an entire party - don't be surprised when you get the same type of response back.

Where's the escape clause that says "if parliament isn't functioning"? Please point it out. Harper didn't break the law but it wasn't "perfectly reasonable" for him to call a snap election when you look at his previous position. He said he was giving up the advantage that previous PMs had to call an early election. Then he called an early election. Harper claimed Parliament wasn't functioning. He made this claim over the summer break. Nothing was happening that showed Parliament wasn't functioning. The problem with the fixed date law is that it's meaningless. Any PM can find an excuse to get around the law even in a majority. Harper is just proving how pointless his law is and that he's no different from any other politician who'll change their position whenever there's an advantage to doing so.

And if those provincial laws can also be avoided simply by saying "government isn't working" while on summer vacation then they're also useless in my opinion. It's hard to interpret Harper's quotes as saying anything other than that he won't call an early election http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ote-060526.html So he said he's giving up the advantage but then he times this election when polls are in his favour. Doesn't look like he gave up much at all.

Your apples and oranges defence looks like an attempt to avoid the problems with your argument. The issue was that approving same-sex marriages was against the majority opinion of Canadians. Same-sex marriage is not death. Therefore apples to apples. Your requirement that an example include death is requiring someone to compare apples to oranges. Plus death isn't the only thing we think is worthy of protecting people from in Canada. We've got rights aside from the right not to be killed. You'd have to read the link to see that it wasn't hindsight that was involved. Even at the time the military and RCMP didn't see a security threat but the government bowed to public pressure. 1 problem with your argument is that it sounds nice to say "I support the majority's right to be wrong" but that doesn't help the people whose rights are being done away with. If the government isn't there to protect the rights of Canadians then what's the point? A 2nd problem is that we've got a constitution that protects rights. If the majority wants to do away with rights then they'll need to change the constitution first. I'm not sure there's a majority of Canadians who want to rewrite equality rights in the constitution.

Those who don't spend don't get any benefit from a GST cut. Basic groceries aren't taxed by the GST so a GST cut doesn't help poor people buying groceries. Plus rebates are given to people with low incomes so again a GST cut doesn't help as much as claimed. A GST cut helps rich people buying luxury goods quite a lot though. How is it that you think low income Canadians who don't make enough to pay income tax are going to substantially benefit from cutting a consumption tax that doesn't apply to most basic necessities and that they already receive a rebate for? Income tax cuts can increase the number of people who don't pay income tax. They can ensure that low income families get more money on every paycheck. This is money they can do whatever they want with - they don't have to spend anything to get a benefit from the cut.

What's this escape clause? What're the criteria? If Harper is currently meeting "the escape clause" criteria then the fixed election date legislation is worthless. Repeal it now since any PM at any time can call an election whenever they want. Harper promised fixed dates so that PMs couldn't call an election when the polls showed it would be favourable for the PM. And then he went and called an election when the polls showed it would be favourable for him. No law was broken but a promise was.

Canadians - or at least British Columbians - as a majority wanted internment camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment Saying the government should do whatever the majority wants is as dangerous as saying the government should do whatever it wants regardless of the opinions of Canadians. That's why something like the Charter is a good idea - it gives guidance for when to listen to the majority and when to defend the rights of the minority. Like it or not the rights of a minority do sometimes need defending from the majority.

I didn't say it was a "get rich scheme". Income tax cuts help everyone who pays income taxes but GST cuts don't necessarily help everyone who buys. Not everything is taxed by the GST and poorer families generally don't buy as many things that are GST taxable. It benefits those who spend more - richer people - and doesn't give the same benefits to people who have less to spend. A GST tax cut may help a little but an income tax cut of the same magnitude would help more. A tax cut is not a tax cut. Any economist can tell you that. How many GST taxable products are those who don't pay income tax buying? If you're not paying income tax then you aren't making enough to pay for large amounts of GST taxable items. When making a GST tax cut you've got to ask why does someone making less than $30K a year deserve less savings than someone making more than $200K?

Which is why I talk about certainty with the models and don't make statements like "GHGs 100% did cause warming". You've mischaracterized my argument. Unless you think the phrase "is likely responsible" is equivalent to "is responsible". An unsound argument would be something like saying that you think all models are built to show a certain result which is why you can't trust them even though there's no proof that models are built to show any particular result. The IPCC has done studies on temperature in the last century and to the best of their knowledge - which means the best knowledge of 100s of scientists - the factors that explain the 1890-1940 warming do not explain the subsequent warming unless you include GHGs. You ignore this by saying that without showing that the models were rigged in this way or explaining how different models have reached the same conclusion. You ignore your own sources when you say things like this. Isn't one of your sources saying that changes with the sun allow more cosmic rays into the lower atmosphere causing cloud formation? Total solar irradiance may be more limited than we thought but that doesn't mean the sun's total effect on climate is necessarily negligible. So your objection here is that models created in 2004 should've taken into account scientific results from 2007? Nothing in that graph shows the model is "clearly wrong" since it says nothing about how the line for solar forcing was determined. Research constantly moves forward. You're back to arguing that we need 100% certainty before doing anything. So you discount Mann's work because of his methods - and also discount anyone else who reached similar conclusions even if they used different methods - but you don't discount Spencer's work when he uses questionable methods. Unlike IPCC models it's been clearly demonstrated that Spencer's values were picked unrealistically. The IPCC has never stated that natural factors don't exist so they wouldn't have any reason to "prove" this fact. When Spencer says that natural forces can explain global warming and his proof is a made up graph then he's overstating the significance of his results. Nothing here has shown that the IPCC is overstating the significance of their results.

That's true. One should probably know the name of the person they're voting for - Stephen Harper. Come to think of it maybe this Steven Harper that TCCK is talking about really did do all those fantastic things.

It's a tax cut. But doesn't change the fact that Harper's income tax "cut" wasn't a cut at all. If we're looking at the topic of what's better for the middle class then the GST cut wasn't better than an income tax cut. The GST cut benefits those who spend a lot not the middle class and definitely not the working poor.

What made the 1st post so convincing was the large font sizes. And the red lettering. Red lettering always means there's a valid point to pay attention to. The excellent format allowed me to overlook the fact that income tax rates were raised by Harper after the last election and then subsequently reduced with press releases talking about how great the reduction was. It also allowed me to overlook the fact that Chretien's promise about the GST was similar to Harper's promise about income trusts. It made me forget about the 1990s where spending was reduced and the debt lowered by a Liberal government. And was very convincing that Harper has cut spending despite the huge number of actual statistics that say otherwise. But the lettering didn't cover up the condescending attitude towards everyone east of Manitoba.