OddSox

He's almost as dumb as he looks. Sorry, that's probably not called for, but gee

2010 isn't that far away. The market may dip again but I suspect the worst is over - or else it's just beginning.

Try taking a look at a map and find Iqaluit. It's the largest community in Canada's North (Yellowknife barely counts), and for nearly 11 months of the year it is only accessible by air - about 5 hours from Ottawa, an $1800 round-trip and over $6.00 per kilogram for freight (oh yeah, its on an island so the train might be difficult). And there are many other Arctic communities even farther north.

A train? Do you know where the North is?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territories they have a GDP per capita of $97000 which is the highest in the world if it was considered a country. In terms of countries, Luxembourg is the highest at $83000. But there is a significant amount of income from resources which include gold, diamonds, natural gas and petroleum, even though the potential of these resources is significantly higher than what is currently developed. All of which doesn't mean much. The northern territories are still the most expensive place in Canada to live, and the most expensive place to do business. They are also heavily subsidized by funds from the Federal government, which funds provide jobs to a huge and expensive bureaucracy. However, there isn't really a lot of choice if Canada wants to maintain any type of significant presence in the area. A military 'outpost' isn't enough.

I'm not sure you get it. Giving money and aid to those who need it is not a problem. Having someone else (who usually isn't the entity actually putting up the cash) determine how much has to be given, who has to give it, and who gets it - that's the problem. In fact, 'non-socialists' have been shown to be more generous to those who need it - http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1 There are ways to fix 'income inequality' without resorting to social engineering by government.

There are tons of ways to invest your money without dealing in a bank's mutual funds or investment services. You can set up your own online trading account, or you can invest in ETFs which don't have management fees, or you can actually invest in a business and possibly create employment while earning profits. (although there seems to be a lot of people who think 'profit' is a bad word) Just because some bank says 'please buy our services' doesn't mean you have to. You have options if you look for them.

That's a good one! However, (it might be my TV) Ignatieff has been looking a little greenish lately...

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the government makes a lot more money on a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do... And on the subject of costs, I smoked a pack a day for almost 35 years before I quit - that's the equivalent of something approaching $100,000 in taxes at today's rates. I believe it has also been shown that most smokers cost less in health care than non-smokers because they die younger.

For one thing, it's very rare to get much more than a pound from a single plant - just because the police say something doesn't mean it's true. They also calculate the value of said plant as 1000 grams at $10.00 per gram or some such ridiculous number...

So, where does the missing tax revenue come from after you write your own laws?

Heh. If that's truly the case then, (1) it seems to be working, and (2) Mr. Ignatieff may even be more incompetent than previously thought.

Aren't you overdoing this? The report pointed out that people in Canada are saving their money. Period. They are not being forced to do so by anyone, unless I missed something. If you don't want to save your money, I don't believe there is anything stopping you from spending it as you choose - or maybe even investing it by starting a business? As for tax-deductible mortgages - sure. But then the house becomes an asset which is then subject to capital gains, the same as any business. All under the guise of an economic model that does its best to serve citizens' interests just as well as businesses - they are both essential to our economic well-being.

That's pretty much what the current government has proposed - what's the problem? It seems that you're the one who is adding all sort of 'bogeymen' to the issue.

Huh? Where did that come from?

I suspect http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/701930 was the article you noticed - and it says nothing about the government. It seems to be a typical Star fluff piece without a lot of meat (or mukluk) to it.

Interesting emphasis on Stockwell Day's religious beliefs when a recent study shows that most evangelical Christians have historically voted for the Liberals... http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...085566-sun.html

Does it really matter how deep the bomb goes? If the front door is radioactive for the next century or two it won't make much difference if the rest of the plant is intact...

I don't think the issue is the HST - most would agree that it is a more efficient way to tax consumption, and actually will reduce prices in some instances. The issue is the percentage rate. 8% is going to be a windfall and they're going to try and hide it in the recession. Giving us a one-time $300 rebate is a smokescreen. They should drop the rate to a realistic 5% and then run with that...

Uh, what else should we call them?

Yes, and I would hope that most Canadians aren't quite that gullible. If they are, then there is really no point to this, is there?

Wow - some people have been complaining forever that the Tories refuse to work with others "to make parliament work" or some such drivel, yet once they actually make an attempt at it, you start throwing things! Besides (1) it was the other way around - the socialists and the separatists aligned themselves with the Tories without being asked to!, and (2) one vote in the house is not quite the same thing as a formal, written agreement which everybody (yes, every body including Mr. Ignatieff) signed onto.

I don't know how you bring "governments" into it, but its pretty frightening, people silencing lies by accusing those who tell them of being a threat to democracy. Kind of works both ways - scary either way.

Hmm, you've already made up your mind. Would knowing the actual dollar figures make any difference at all?

Huh? Lots of private sector organizations already offer this - but I don't think it's free, and it shouldn't be. "Almost one-third of the Best Companies (33) offer an onsite child-care center." - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bes...child_care.html Is this just another way for (all you lefties who are too cheap to pay for it yourself) to get free childcare, seeing as the Liberal government never came through on their ridiculous promises? Maybe you can move to Quebec? Where transfers from the rest of Canada are funding their childcare system...