Progressive Tory

Good paying union jobs DO NOT JUST BENEFIT the union workers. They benefit everyone. On the whole, Union Workers pay more income tax, which benefits everyone. Those tax dollars help provide social programs, pay to equip a military, etc., etc. Good paying Union Jobs provide expendable income, which helps industry provide jobs, and generate tax revenue - both income tax and GST. Lower income employees have very limited expendable income and pay little if any, income tax. They also tap into social programs, closed to Union wage earners. I also oppose privatizing the Civil Service since it is really only a way to appease lobbyists like Accelerate (formly Anderson Consulting until the Enron Scandal) The idiotic John Baird did that when he was in the Mike Harris Government in Ontario and justified it by saying that it was good news for employees since they now paid less income tax. That's like telling a homeless person to look on the bright side, because they now didn't have to do housework. Ultimately, in 2000, an Ontario government report revealed that Andersen Consulting was charging an average of $257 per hour for work that had previously been done by ministry staff at $51 per hour (including benefits). So the moron not only reduced income tax but paid 5 to 1 what it would have cost to keep the good Union job that generated income tax. He won 'Idiot of the Year' honours then and has been in the running ever since.

The only thing wrong with the abortion debate in this country is that it still exists.

Reducing taxes and government spending is indeed the nature of Arthur Laffer's 'Curve'. However, many governments like GW's and SH's follow one and not the other. I'm all for tax cuts based on income taxes, not sales taxes; because without the first we can't pay the second. In fact, I may venture so far as to say that Sales taxes (like the GST) are a good way of collecting taxes from the rich, who generally benefit the most at income tax time. The more you are able to spend in a country with a free enterprises system, the more you should contribute to keep it a free eneterprise system. Listen to me, the big scarey socialist. I also agree that we need to find ways to streamline services, but 'for profit' is not the answer. When services are privatized, they usually eliminate good paying union jobs and put in place minimum wage earners or just above, who don't pay as much income tax, don't have as much disposable income, and often have to tap in more to social programs. We need a balance but we also need to find that balance with Canadian companies, governments and workers. Leave the US mess in the US.

You're absolutely right. Only so-called Pro-Lifers believe that women take abortion so lightly.

If by 'Pragmatic Hypocrite', you mean 'Opportunistic Purveyor of Untruths", than you're right. I just want to stop this nonsense of the new Coalition as somehow being undemocratic. If it was democratic for Harper in 2004, it's democratic for us now, and his saying that he would NEVER make a deal with 'Separatists', should be served up at Burger King, because its a WHOPPER!

"I'm sorry, but there is no connection between the CPC's management of government and the coalition parties attempt to avoid an election enroute to taking power." We are simply following Harper's advice. Prime Ministers should not expect to call an election everytime they can't make Parliament function, or so says a man named Stephen Harper. Ever heard of him?

Nobody gets an abortion on a whim.

I'm with Melanie. The Social Conservatives are always protesting against 'state' interference. In a country so diverse, religion has no place in politics.

There are some things the government should be in, and some things they shouldn't. Healthcare, the military, jails and prisons, should not be for profit. I support user fees, even to some degree in healthcare. One area where my Tory leanings come into play is with the fact that while I will always support a good publicly funded healthcare system, we have to admit that it is being abused. Go to emergency or any after hours clinic, and count how many people are there for legitimate reasons. My niece is studying forensics and is currently working at an Emergency Dep't of a large hospital in Philadelphia. When she was visiting over the holidays, I asked her what the big difference would be between that job here and in the US (she worked at our local hospital before joining her husband, and yes they met online). She stated that she only ever dealt with actual emergencies now, while sniffles and colds dominated her work in Canada. My concern with allowing so many US firms to set up shop for profit, is exactly what's happening now. Companies like AIG, that Flaherty and Harper allowed in, are part of the US financial industry. If we experience the mass unemployment that many are predicting, these 40 year 'higher risk' mortgages could default. The homeowner has no equity, because what little they did have would get eaten up in real estate fees, etc. If large number of houses are put on the market, real estate values will deflate and if AIG falls the way of many US firms and they can't cover all the losses from the lenders; do we 'bail' them out or simply tap into the money we've set aside to guarantee the debt. Either way, the tax payer is out of pocket.

I agree. By now most Canadians know that the Conservatives have a cute little code word 'choice' which means 'private' and if in power long enough will privatize everything. 'For profit' providing of services is naturally going to cost taxpayers more, since ultimately it's our money going to private industry, who NEED to make a buck. In fact, they are even talking 'for profit' jails and prisons. I'm feeling much safer knowing that profit will be the driving force behind keeping prisoners locked up and the public safe. However, back to our own mortage crisis, yes the mortgage insurers cover the risk, but what happens if a lot of people all of a sudden can’t make their payments and the insurer who is supposed to protect the lender is unable to cover their insurance obligations? The Canadian government will guarantee up to 90% of the mortgage amount against this insurer default. and that's when the taxpayer gets hosed. We need to wake up and make government more accountable.

Oh, Mr. Canada. Are your referring to 2004 when Harper signed such a deal with the 'Separatists': http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004 Or 2005 when Harper said that a Prime Minister shouldn't eexpect to be able to call an election just because he's failed and the GG should look at other options? I'm curious, because you're one of the few left who still spew this rhetoric.

Exactly. But let's not forget: "He didn't say that, not only did his own government open the sheltered Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers, but it also doubled to $200-billion the pool of federal money it would commit to guarantee their business." Doubling 'to $200-billion the pool of federal money it would commit to guarantee their business' is a nice way of saying committing 200 Billion dollars of 'taxpayers' money. We now own this whether we want it or not. (and I'm assuming most Canadians do NOT ). Are we taking this seriously enough?

The key here is "conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service". Conrad Black's baby. However, a December 3 poll stated that 49 % of Canadians think that Harper should resign; 37% thought he should stay (exactly the same percentage as the election) and 14% undecided. Election intent remained the same, but bear in mind that if the Left unite (and I believe they already have a plan in place) for the next election and Harper still has just 37%; I'm no wizard, but you do the math. Mr. Ignatieff is just becoming well known across the country and so far we like what we see.

Pro Choicers advocate for killing babies then advocate for child rights the next day... ?????? Pro-Lifers protest against abortion and then advocate to have our soldiers kill women and children, including babies, the next day.

I don't know. Anything that serious being veiled in so much secrecy is a little un-nerving. A mortgage broker opened up in our little strip mall about a year and half ago; with much fanfare. Their marquee advertised 40 year mortgages with no down payment. They seemed to be doing a booming business but closed it's doors recently, no doubt after it was announced that Flaherty and Harper were closing the door on the scheme that they had opened. If the economy gets worse, we should expect to wear this one for awhile.

"The untold story of how elements of the first Conservative budget in 2006 encouraged big U.S. players such as AIG to make a push into Canada, creating our version of subprime mortgages" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tory/Front/home An interesting article in the Globe and Mail should have Canadians concerned about the vulnerability of our own 'Sub-prime mortages', which Jim Flaherty has guaranted to the tune of 200 billions dollars of tax payer money. "In the first half of this year (2006), as the subprime mortgage crisis was exploding in the United States, a contagion of U.S. style lending practices quietly crossed the border and infected Canada's previously prudent mortgage regime. New mortgage borrowers signed up for an estimated $56-billion of risky 40-year mortgages, more than half of the total new mortgages approved by banks, trust companies and other lenders during that time, according to banking and insurance sources. Those sources estimated that 10 per cent of the mortgages, worth about $10-billion, were taken out with no money down. The mushrooming of a Canadian version of subprime mortgages has gone largely unnoticed. The Conservative government finally banned the practice last summer, after repeated warnings from frustrated senior officials and bankers that the country's financial system was being exposed to far too much risk as the housing market weakened. Just yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty repeated the mantra that the government acted early to get rid of risky mortgages. What he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper do not explain, however, is that the expansion of zero-down, 40-year mortgages began with measures contained in the first Conservative budget in May of 2006. “These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership,” Mr. Flaherty said. The new rules encouraged the entry of such U.S. players as American International Group – the world's largest insurance company – and Triad Guarantee Inc. of Winston-Salem, N.C. Former Triad chief executive officer Mark Tonnesen, who spearheaded his company's aborted push into Canada, said the proliferation of high-risk mortgages could have been mitigated if Ottawa had been more watchful. “There was a lack of regulation around the expansion of increased risk,” he said. Virtually unavailable in Canada two years ago, high-risk mortgages proliferated in 2007 and early 2008 and must now be shouldered by thousands of consumers at a time when the economy is sinking quickly and real-estate prices are swooning. Long-term mortgages – designed to help newcomers get into the housing market sooner – are the most expensive in terms of interest costs, and least flexible when mortgage-holders cannot meet their payments and need extensions. The federal government waited until June of this year to slam the regulatory door on 40-year mortgages. In October, as the global financial crisis erupted, Mr. Harper lauded his government for its “early” response to the mortgage dangers. He didn't say that, not only did his own government open the sheltered Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers, but it also doubled to $200-billion the pool of federal money it would commit to guarantee their business. An investigation by The Globe and Mail found: – AIG's Greensboro, N.C., mortgage subsidiary launched a quiet lobbying campaign in 2004 with senior U.S. executives and a former CMHC official to push open the doors to Canada's mortgage insurance market, where some of the world's highest insurance rates are charged. Two years later, on May 1, 2006, AIG's mortgage insurance division registered with the lobbying commissioner's office. It was the day before the federal budget revealed new players would be allowed into Canada. – Banking and insurance officials were so concerned about the alarming rush to 40-year mortgages at the beginning of 2008 that one bank executive warned the Bank of Canada's chief financial stability officer, Mark Zelmer, in a meeting that “the government has got to put an end to this.” – Critics, including former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, say the lax mortgage policies only further stoked soaring house prices. As for mortgage insurance premiums, industry officials say rates remain virtually unchanged and could potentially rise as troubled U.S. players begin to retreat from Canada.

Couldn't agree more. Harper is a fan of the Laffer curve, but Art Laffer himself says that tax cuts only work if GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS REDUCED. Can't have one without the other. He must have missed that class.

I agree that the government should be a smaller, more effective unit. That's why I was so amazed that Harper is adding 30 more seats to the House of Commons after overstuffing his cabinet. I always thought he was for smaller gov't. Not very prudent.

You're absolutely right, that the fact that we have differing opinions on...well...just about everything, makes for spirited debate. However, you still can't accept that Harper is a hypocrite when it comes to calling the Coalition an act of treason. He DID KNOW THAT IT WAS LEGAL. You'll hear him say it. You'll also hear him say that an election IS NOT NECESSARY when the House loses confidence in the leading party. He could be Prime Minister without an election. All he had to do was make a deal with 'Separatists' and poof! (as per letter) Now, right from the horse's mouth. Hope it works. You can find the letter here: http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004

The Reform/Alliance wing of the Conservative Government, by pushing an Evangelical agenda.

Again with the "traitorous coalition?" Sorry, but Political Science professors all agree that it is the best safeguard against tyranny. Your beloved Mr. Harper said that he would never make a deal with 'Separatists' so I sent you a link to the letter he sent to the GG in 2004 asking to form a Coalition with the Bloc and NDP, signed by Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton. Sorry, but the whole traitor thing is getting old. Of course, unless you're saying that Stephen Harper was a traitor in 2004 when he tried to form a 'Coup' to overthrow Paul Martin, by signing a deal with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'. One negates the other, so let's move on.

He's a brilliant man but has too much integrity to be a politician; or at least head of his Party.

Exactly. There's a misconception that Republican style Conservatism is fiscally responsible, but they're always the ones to run deficits. The debt clock was taken down during the Clinton Administration because there was no debt. It was taken down again at then end of the Bush administration because there were not enough zeros to add to the end of the National debt. The Democrats are always cleaning up after the Republicans and the Liberals are always cleaning up after the Conservatives. Someone on one of the threads said that Flaherty was for modest spending, modest tax cuts and modest surplus. I checked my calendar to see if it was April 1. The only thing right in that was MODEST tax cuts; he just didn't cut them in the right place, so few of us benefited. Modest spending I guess means spending more than any other government in Canadian History and if you read his economic statement you'd see that we only have a 'modest' surplus if we sell 12 Billion dollars worth of valuable Real Estate in a buyer's market. Flaherty was a crook in the Ontario Mike Harris Government and now that he has more money to steal, I can't wait to see how much he's pocketed. It'll probably set records.

There seems to be some misconception that if you are a Liberal you can't be a Christian, or if you're Christian you can't be homo-sexual. Churches must INSPIRE goodness, not try to LEGISLATE it. You're right though about no Party owning the right to morality, humanity or economics. I like Michael Ignatieff because he best reflects my fiscally conservative, socially liberal and spiritually Agnostic views. I want my government to govern, not preach.

I'm so glad that as a young Canadian you are becoming engaged in your future. However, 'Liberal entitlement' is one of those often used phrases that most people can't really back up, like 'Western Alienation' and 'Welfare States'. I agree that Paul Martin was a very good Finance Minister but didn't really care for him much as PM. Part of the problem for young people concerned with the future; is our current electoral system, that doesn't reflect the Majority of our voters. The Conservatives get almost 170,000 fewer votes this time than in 2006 but get more seats. The Bloc gets 10% of the votes and net 50 seats, while the Green earn 7% and get no seats. We have a real problem here, which is why you will probably see proportional representation on the table soon. I attended a recent lecture given by the former head of the Political Science Department at Queen's University, and he discussed much of this and agreed that our Democratic System was in peril. Another problem he believed for young people is the pollsters. Pre-election polling has become almost biblical, but unfortunately, since only people with lan lines are called; represent the views of mostly older people. Many young people use cellphones almost exclusively. However, when they read the polls, they assume the election has already been decided so don't go to the POLLS! That's not Democracy. Good for you though, in doing your homework before voting and selecting your candidate based on your own belief. That's what it's all about.