Molly

And cutting taxes only 'stimulates' if taxation is the stopper in the bottle. It isn't. Jobs, or rather the lack of them, is-- as will become more and more apparent as stats start coming out to describe the here and now. Paying of taxes is easy where there is income. Where there is no income, it doesn't matter a damn what the tax rate is.

I think it's awfuly risky to assume that, after the events of November and beyond, Harper would manage to decieve as many in a new election, should his budget be defeated. (Everything I've heard him say about it suggests to me that what's likely to be offered should be.) He would not be running against Dion this time, nor presenting himself to a populace that believes in his veracity, competence, or benevolence.

LOL Is there anyone here who would not describe themselves as 'middle class'? It's an amorphous term, used politically in much the same way as the NDP would refer to 'the little guy', but even more folks identify with the term. Promises of tax cuts for the middle class are cynical pandering. Someone has to pay at least some of the bills. It isn't going to be industry or resources in the short term, and it sure as guns isn't going to be the poor who pay it all. It won't be the unemployed, and the rich aren't raking in a lot of income lately. It can't be transferred to property, which is losing value in any case. Sorry, but those of us who do have a reasonable living income are just goijng to have to pony up to at least the levels that we did last year, and anyone who figures otherwise is downright dangerous.

Gosh Bill, that report is so sadly... ONTARIO! (I live in Ontario now, and just shake my head over some of what I see here. ) I worked with/for the Progressive Conservatives, for a couple of decades, a tiny bit with Reform, and a couple of elections for the Liberal party (and a whole bunch of non-partisan and/or single issue stuff). I personally arranged for hundreds of scrutineers for the PCs- wouldn't even want to try to count up the elections, federal and provincial- and never once, ever, were any of those scrutineers offered a dime for their services, not even in reimbursement of obvious, recieptable out-of-pocket costs. The biggest (only) perk was supper delivered to some that pulled very long inside shifts at out-of-the-way polls, and it was supplied by other volunteers, not the party. We aimed for 3 or 4 outside and one or more at all times inside per poll.

"Some people laugh at the flying pig; some people laugh at what the flying pig has to say."

Bill, I understand what you are saying- truly do, since I've done enough political fund-raising myself, but know this: Firstly, everything over $20 is supposed to be reciepted and reported; secondly, there is no minimum contribution deduction, and up to $400, it IS 75%, not 'maybe', but just plain IS, so by donating an actual $25 of your own money and claiming a deduction for it, you are also commandeering $75 of taxpayers money. However, I think you mistake the real source of the cash your party spends. The real function of bake sales and car washes and the ilk is 'team building', through public branding and 'tribal' engagement. The actual money raised is minimal, and often not enough to cover the costs incurred- costs like candidates travel to be there to shake hands, site rental, advertising of the event. Often enough, cash collected from event participants is based more in the concept of 'percieved value' than actual cost-recovery. If it was free, it would be deemed not worth attending, but if a price tag is attatched, it is percieved as actually having value- more folks attend, and feel more as though they've done something important. So you are right in that those things exhibit/build commitment, but wrong, IMIO, in believing that they are a very important source of party income.

"...Canadas white, English speaking, Christian majority culture that never required descriminatory government policies to flourish." If it didn't need them, then why did it have so many? And if it doesn't need them to flourish, why should we reinstitute them?

If Alta4ever is correct on the '$117.10 a month', then the average Conservative donation is giving $695 of taxpayers money to the Conservative party-- the equivalent of 356 votes-- and only $710 of their own. So long as there is a generous tax deduction on political donations, Conservative partisan objections to 'giving taxpayers money to political parties' is entirely specious, and so are any claims that the Conservative party is living on anything other than the largesse of taxpayers.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

"but after a purchase you'll have more money in your pocket." If I spend my money, I'll have less, not more, in my wallet..... (Pa dump bump) When I said it wouldn't effect my spending, I meant it. If it makes $50 difference over the course of a year, then there will just be $50 more in my savings account than there would have been-- and that is a fact. Whether that is true of others, I can't say, but I am aware of my own spending habits. Behind the scenes paperwork has little to do with a decision to spend or save (a pittance of) cash anyway. I fail to see any logic that GST not collected would be any more likely to be spent than income tax not collected.

GST cuts would have a zero effect on my spending. You are optimistic, figuring that this recession will be short. I hope you are right, but doubt it. In the mean time, it's never a bad time to invest in infrastructure.

2 or 3 a week would be nice! I figure I get at least two a day of 'This is your second notice that the factory warranty of your vehicle is about to expire.'-- the one that has a cease and desist order in Saskatchewan. I'd be willing to bet that geography has as much to do with how many you get as anything else. I'm not registered on the 'do not call' list yet, but figure it should at least control the bulk food, hockey ticket, weekends at local resorts, and window salespeople. It will reduce some of the annoyance calls, but do nothing about the real fraudsters.

I wonder how much the 75% tax credit on political donations costs us, and how much of that cost is incurred through donations to the Conservatives. I was never very comfortable with that one. It seems to me that if you are giving money to a political party, it should at least be your own money, and not that of the taxpayers.

NPA?

Thank you. You horrified me with that comment. I'm glad to know that it was a miscommunication.

'Xcuse me? You are sure that Harper requested an election call when he went crawling for prorogation to avoid a non-confidence vote? No. He begged for and got an election the month before. If he dared ask for another, then he is even less deserving of his post than I think he is.

Toadbrother... correct me if I'm wrong (I live a long way from the Land of the Lotus Eaters, so may well have missed by a mile) but my understanding of the proposed STV includes the lumping of ridings into small groups, from which a group of representatives is preferentially elected. If this is the case then my criticism stands. In terms of balloting and parties- one highly desireable and easy step would be to remove party affiliation from ballots. It is a small thing, but would oblige voters to be aware that they are electing a representative to parliament-- not a party, and not a Prime Minister. (And if they don't know which is which walking in... I have little sympathy.) I figure that trying to equate overall popular vote to numbers of seats is a bit of a red herring. The fact is that the Bloc is very representative of the interests of regions in which Bloc members are elected, while the Greens do not represent the priorities and interests of any riding. As such the former truly is deserving of seats, while the other is not, regardless of the overall share of popular vote.

I couldn't go with it, because the collectivism of it blunts the direct responsibility of representative to voter. The little old lady from Moose Jaw must know exactly which individual bears the responsibility of reflecting her needs and interests. That duty must not be passed off as the decision of a committee, or 'everyones' (and therefore no ones) task. If I had my d'ruthers, 'party' wouldn't be acknowledged whatsoever within our voting system- each rep a stand-alone, and party affiliations irrelevant to actual voting, meaningful only as a platform commitment of individual candidates, not recorded on a ballot.

.......... _I_ sure don't remember very many unhappy farmers during the '70's, Things tightened up at the end of the decade, but the '70's provided a decent farm income for the first time since Lord knows when and the last time for 20+ years. If that's a crisis, we could have used a few more decade-long crises.

I hate the idea of proportional representation, because I really believe that every individual in government should have to look a voter to whom they are directly responsible, in the eye, to explain their conduct. We already ahve too many folks whose loyalty to a political party outweighs their loyalty to the folks who elected them. More of that is just an invitation to more abuses of the electorate. I could go with a preferential ballot, though. That would provide a lot of nuance, fewer travesties via unfortunate splits, and a lot of guidance to the chosen representatives, too.

I'm sure you always use lots and lots of K in your applications, Blueblood...... "Americans and others not wanting to buy"... More likely not able, credit crunch and all. Western Canadian grains are a pittance in global, or even North American terms. Like I said, less K will be felt in the North American crop, and the world will feel shortages from NA. Maximize production, Blueblood. This could be a seriously paying crop.

Ditto for Morin. He was railroaded for being odd. Evidence worthy of a conviction didn't ever exist.

There aren't a lot of places to get potash, and there is a lot of ground that needs it to be particularly productive. This is likely a cash-flow problem, but there will be repercussions. It's the sort of thing that will be felt in the north American crop next fall.

John A. built a railroad. We should be building a road(s).

And I'm still thinking that the real (the far greater ) problem is not prostitutes, but Johns. Someone who would engage the services of a _child_ prostitute is a pedophile, pure and simple. And anyone who would engage the services of an adult prostitute is (IMO) a still pretty sick puppy. If a 'drug addicted whore' is scum, what of the people who would prey on that desperation? Is a John any more upstanding than the drug supplier? Than the pimp? All are taking what they want, and to Hell with the person in the middle who provides for them all.