unspoken

As a Conservative supporter, I'd love to see it. When the people of Canada see Layton and Dion/Iggy/Rae/Leblanc on their knees grovelling to that dirty separatist Duceppe just to have the numbers to make it work, the next election (which will probably be called about a week later when the coalition falls apart) will result in a huge Tory majority.

I think it's a great idea to slash this. You can say all you want that your vote is your $1.95 donation, but here's what isn't being said: 1) The lower limit of 2% being in place. The votes of all 158,968 people who voted for independents or other parties other than the Big 4 and the Greens don't see their near-toonie going to who they support. Why should their vote count for less? 2) You can't say it's each person's $1.95. Realistically, it's more than that, and the reason is very simple... MANY people do not pay any federal tax, yet still get a vote and exercise it. There's more than a good chance that they're putting a $1.95 into the pocket of a party you don't support, but you the taxpayer gets to fork over the non-taxpayer's share. Private donations are a much better way to go.

I don't know about resigning yet, but it's certainly embarrassing to have a guy blaming a particular media outlet rather than his own abysmal performance for his loss. And who was the guy who manhandled the CTV reporter? Was he a cop or private security? If it was a Liberal staffer or privately hired security, then there should be some sort of apology from the Liberals for that. You can say all you want about emotions running high, but that's completely unnecessary regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

I'd say on average $1000, depending on how much extra scratch I have to kick in to my RRSP. A couple of errors in here. First, I said at least 4x. Everything that I get, he gets for four. Plus he gets a bunch of things that I don't. Second, your usage to payment ratio is based heavily on the assumption that if she rejoins the workforce, her income will equal ours. Not usually the case for anyone, man or woman, who has been out of the labour market for nearly a decade. Even if your assumption proves correct though, the ratio is still far larger than 2:1, as the kid-related tax incentives and social programs don't stop at age 6, they just change in scope. And I am aware that he has extra expenses, but those are directly the cause of something that he and his wife CHOSE to do. I don't understand why so many people expect to reap all of the benefits of a choice they made, but then when it comes time for the downside, they just try to pass it off, and that it's passed off to third parties who had no choice in the matter. That's the base of my argument. I'm not so much anti-kid as I am pro informed, responsible choices where you accept both the positives and the negatives. There's very few people I can think of who are the latter, and using the excuse of kids is the most common one in the book. It's especially rich when it comes from people (not all are like this mind you) who are already living higher standards of living than those they are passing the burden onto and spend frivolously in an effort to keep up with the Jones'.

I'm a Conservative supporter and even I think his dual citizenship is a non-issue.

I guess you Liberals are right, I mean the nerve of Harper to criticize the policy of his opponent in an election campaign. Who the hell does he think he is? /sarcasm Harper hasn't said anything negative regarding Dion's disability. Give it a rest.

I'm not saying I'm 100% anti-kids when it comes to social spending, but there's a limit, and it's long been crossed. And now the Liberals and NDP want to stick rockets up the ass of where it is now and launch it to another galaxy. I'll give you an example. I do tax returns for a friend of mine. This is a guy who, in the past few years, has made 10-15K more than me in gross salary per year. I'm unmarried and have no kids. He's married with 2 kids, wife doesn't work to be with the kids. Despite his income being larger, when all his kid-related deductions, he ends up paying less net tax than I do. The married parent in this situation pays less taxes, and uses the system at least 4 times as much in terms of spending. Explain to me how this is even remotely fair, or how this isn't a punishment for not having kids.

Remember the last time he had this plan? You can see clips of it in those briefly run "Stephane Dion is a leader" ads that the Liberals put out to combat the Conservative ads. Here he is, leading a conference of world environmental people, which of course, was paid for by the tax dollars of you and me since Canada hosted it. Dion, all leaderly, says "decided!," bangs his gavel, then sighs and smiles in relief while leaning back and doing a fist pump in celebration. Now tell me, all those meetings with the experts and all the costs associated with them, what did they result in? Not a damn thing done. Tell me why I have any reason to believe any different this time around. Precedent is on my side. You'd thank him later. Markets are cyclical and sooner or later they'll be back up. Buy low, sell high. Do you know why the markets continue to go down? It's already taken the 'economic crisis' hit. It's because people who know little to nothing about investing get in a panic at any news of a loss and sell, sell, sell. The stocks continue to go down because the market is oversaturated with supply due to these actions. Buying would not only be a great investment for you personally, but if done in mass numbers, it would be great for the markets as well.

So then how is it that his hearing problem doesn't affect him in noisy media scrums and when four or five people are all talking simultaneously during the televised debate, but in a silent room going one-on-one with a TV interviewer, it's all of a sudden an issue?

So Dion gets a free pass for the whole campaign to trash talk the Conservative economic record since they took power, but then has no answer of what he would have done differently? That question was worded easily. Dion has also said that the problem with his hearing affects him at cocktail parties and the like where there are lots of people in a room talking. This was one on one, the hearing excuse isn't in effect here. And you can bet the house that if this was Harper and in French, the Liberals would be running to the bank with that tape. Funny too, the Liberals tried to stop CTV from airing the tape...where's the cries of media censorship now from the left? Now that the shoe is on the other foot I guess it's alright.

I'm still waiting for just one member of the media to have the guts to ask Danny Williams just how the heavily resource-based economy of NL will see less hurt from the Dion/May carbon tax or the Layton shut down the oil/tax the corporations to death plan. Harper's plan may not be ideal but it's still the best offer on the table for their economy. Out of morbid curiosity I went to that site. Told me to vote for whoever I wanted as it wasn't a swing riding. I also found the a great laugh on it. Just above the generator, under "About this site." First, nice oxymoron in two statements the bold. Second, the wording could be a lot better, it just doesn't sound right or roll off the tongue very well. Seems to me they didn't think that one through a whole lot.

You are correct, however, I'd assume you have it set up so it comes in your wife's name. You'd be collecting 4800/yr total. If she's not earning any self-employed/T4/interest/dividend income from somewhere, she's still not paying any taxes because the BPE is almost double that amount. The amount that does end up getting deducted in tax from the UCCB is also more than covered by the CCTB and the numerous programs for kids (sports, etc.) which the gov't chips in a lot of money for.

Round of applause for this statement. I'm sorry that you're having difficulties, but the reality is that all of the things that you listed as the causes of your struggles (single income, four kids, etc.) are choices that you made on your own free will. You shouldn't expect to reap all of the benefits while accepting none of the repercussions of those choices.

The universities/colleges/apprenticeship stuff doesn't apply to me. I've already finished my university and have taken on the debt of doing so, and these plans aren't retroactive. The only tiny bone that I'm being offered is the tax break for first time home buyers from the Conservatives, which frankly doesn't add up to a whole lot. I agree with this. All of the parties just want to put more of the tax burden on us while throwing everything at the mid 30's-mid 50's people who made the CHOICE to have kids. I've already decided I don't want kids, so why should I be punished for that choice? And for the people in my age group who eventually do want kids someday, they won't be able to because they're having more difficulty than ever starting out, and by the time they have enough saved away to be able to give their kids a reasonable upbringing, their biological clocks will be near or past expired.

Perhaps young people don't vote because nobody has anything of substance to offer them in exchange for their support. Take a look at this election... the only thing that young voters are going to get from any party is a heavier share of the tax burden to pay for the kids of the 35-50 crowd in a time where to get started in life for a young person is more difficult than any generation previous. I assume you're not a "young person." In which case, the irony of the statement in bold is profound.

Were you a committed Green supporter prior to the debates though? Or perhaps NDP? Because those are really the only two groups that's going to hit home with. The point was to grow her base, not satiate her existing one.

I said this in the other topic, I'll say it here. She was doing OK until about 20 minutes left when she committed the biggest mistake of anyone in either debate. She was given the opportunity to speak of what her first act as PM would be, in other words, what issue was most pressing to her at the time. She could have said economy, environment, health care, or a list of other topics. She chose to go off on a rant about proportional representation. Huge mistake. Why? a ) Right now, with the economic crisis going on, electoral reform takes a far back seat to the vast majority of Canadians. They'll still even hold environment, health care, and tons of other issues in higher importance. b ) She was looking to grow her base. This was a measure that appealed only to her already committed base. Sure, she might have swayed a few NDP votes with it, but for every NDP vote she gained, she lost at least two perhaps interested Liberal/Conservative votes. c ) By picking electoral reform over the economy, reading between the lines, the conclusion can be drawn that she's more concerned about gaining political power rather than actually governing for the good of all Canadians, regardless of their political stripe. The Greens were supposed to be something different, now they're just the same old, same old. And of course, the media gives her a free pass on it again, the only one with the guts to give her some criticism for it is CPAC.

My impressions: First of all, hated the format. Go back to the round-robin 1 on 1 debates on each issue. Why? Because it would force equal criticism... for example, Elizabeth May took the "we'll stay until it's done" answer with leaving Afghanistan... where were Dion, Layton and Duceppe with their "BUSH!!!" outcries like they have been against Harper? Also, I thought it led to too much "yours won't work because" and not enough of "mine will work because." Also, the moderation was just not good. Here's my count of interruptions and speaking out of turn: Harper and Dion tied at 6 each Layton next at 19 May at 22 Duceppe at 33 Two biggest losers for me. #1 would be Dion. Not necessarily his words, he handled the language well enough to pass by, although once again, he chose his words to academically, and perhaps unfortunately, you've gotta dumb it down at bit to get some people to understand. But the biggest factor contributing to what was IMO his loss was his facial expressions and body language, especially in the "intro" segments after each video question. Giving the puppy dog eyes and looking like a desperate beggar in every answer. I think he handled offence reasonably well, but he failed miserably when either Harper or Layton put him on defence. #2 would be Elizabeth May. She almost had me fooled last night. She came off pretty well in the French debate. However, tonight, once again all she became was the arrogant, rude loudmouth know-it-all we've seen in interviews the past two years who couldn't follow simple debate rules. Now, that's not enough to give her a completely bad grade, her absolute worst moment came at the end. When the older gentleman asked what their first move as PM would be, she went straight to Proportional Representation. The only voters she may take that way are from the NDP. And I'm sure that electoral reform is a more of a priority for people than the ass kicking they've taken in the markets the past few days, or whether they're going to be able to keep their job or continue to make their mortgage payment. That was a huge gaffe IMO and people are going to clutch on to that.

Another thing I didn't like... I know this is being kind of nitpicky, but I didn't like that they were seated. You can tell a lot by body language, which you use more when you're less relaxed.

Hated the format. I liked the way they did it last time where they did a round-robin of sorts of shorter 1 on 1 debates. It helped to cut down on the interruptions.

I agree. Layton and Dion are not to be trusted.

If you don't watch the Canadian debate, I'm predicting you'll miss seeing history live, as Stephane Dion will take the biggest drubbing in debate history. Bigger than Turner.

The answer is simple. Nobody wanted to do business here because we had the highest corporate tax rates in the country for years.

By some miracle if Jack gets in, he won't be able to represent working families anymore. Because nobody will be working. Seriously though, more money for kids? There should be none. Having children is a choice and those who choose to do it should accept the consequences/responsibilities alongside the benefits. It's not like the system doesn't discriminate against the single/childless enough already.