Icebound

...which is precisely why those things are glossed over or not mentioned in funeral eulogies. We come to celebrate the life of a man who was a staunch believer in Canada, protector of its economy, lover of its people, adversary to its opponents, whatever. ...NOTwhich particular budget cut did what benefit...... because that's when the people start seeing which cut did whatHARM... NOT the place or time, Mr. Harper. ...

I'll give him a break. But I am less conciliatory to his Prime Minister, who, at this very moment, is turning a funeral eulogy into a campaign speech.

Yes, the head-in-the-sand approach is good. So 900 SIN numbers were compromised. They will never be used to open a bank account, right? Maybe only one of them will. It won't disrupt the guys life ...much.... Collateral damage in the grand scheme of things. There is a big difference between plug and play.... (which is more convenience) .... and lost luggage (which is worse security) More convenience has ROUTINELY resulted is poorer security. When I had to walk down to the bank to cash a cheque, my face and my signature proved conclusively who I was. It is certainly NOT better now. Here is your lost luggage...26 million pieces of it : http://www.cntraveler.com/travel-tips/flying/2012/07/airlines-baggage-luggage-checked-fees-missing-bags And here is your missing money: 7.6 Billion of it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/credit-debit-card-fraud-more-common-banks-lose-ground-hackers_n_994690.html

So WHAT??? Maybe Trudeau should try to make the same gesture with the same shout of "boom", get belligerent if called on it, then deny deny deny... ... and we would then see "so what".... Solomon is not my favorite political reporter... not even close... but it is also a stretch to say that this gesture and response are somehow a "controversy that does not exist". ..... ... ...

This thread is being resurrected in honour of the Heartbleed bug... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-cybersecurity-internet-bug-idUSBREA3804U20140409 A year ago, this question was posed tongue-in-cheek because we already suspected the answer.... and now we KNOW...

We have this facade of democracy that is supposed to protect the minorities from the power of the Majority. The problem is that the minority is not the ones requiring protection. They are the ones with all the power. The REAL power that they have... is that they have pretty much sole say on the worth of labour vs the worth of management. Oh yeah, there are little tweaks like minimum wage laws and the like, but these are small scraps in the big scheme of things. So at one time management was 20 times labour, today it is 171 times. 2013 pay increases up 2.5 percent... CEO's up 52 percent. This is basically theft, and if you want to know where it is going .... should it continue ... just read "Leverage: how cheap money will destroy the world", by Karl Denninger. (Although it primarily deals with the Stock Market, it has broader financial implication as well) The scythes, axes, and pitchforks are already being sharpened..... ...

Dear Mr. Fisher It has come to my notice that you seem to have a Target problem: http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/11/22/cool_canadian_welcome_hurts_targets_profits.html I think I understand the reason that Canadians are having problems entering your stores. The answer is simple: Make the entrance bigger. Have you been to see your store in the Centrepoint Mall in north Toronto? The mall entrance to your store is like entering a cave. Or possible a hangar with the door closed 3/4 of the way. Not only that, but it looks like a hardened, fortified door... like you expect some sort of an invasion or missle attack or something. Even that bulls-eye on the door is intimidating.... as if it were daring the attackers to strike. And not a Christmas light or decoration to be seen on it. Do you seriously consider this a "welcome" entrance for your Canadian customers? Walk across the mall kitty-corner to The Bay. See that wide-open, airy, fully lit entrance... It shouts "come in, we love you; we have goodies for sale". Your store, on the other hand, says: "come in if you dare; we are hiding stuff in here; if you are really lucky, you might escape with some of it before the missle strike". Your Canadian Consumer, Icebound.

You may have been sayinjg it.... but it is not the truth. For every $1000 that a political party receives as "donations", the donors have donated only part of it (and are out-of-pocket for only part of it). The rest of it came from the broad body of Canadian taxpayers. You refuse to acknowledge that truth. That brings up questions as to WHY....

hmmm. some progress. The POINT is: The flow of tax dollars to the political parties... yes, all political parties ... is controlled by the donors, not the taxpayers. Since only 1.2 % of the population donates, this means that this flow is controlled by only 1.2% of the population. Thus the parties need to find wedge issues about which that 1.2% is sufficiently angry to continue the flow of money, even if those policies are unimportant, or even hurtful to the remaining 98% of the population. How much smarter would it be to fund on a per-vote basis, where the public funding would be completely based on the popularity and desireability of policies to the WHOLE population, instead of to just 1.2%? And yes, absolutesly the government subsidizes charites, and any entity holding a permission to issue "charitable organization" receipts, including religious entities. In exactly the same way. You give a "donation" for x amount of dollars. This "x" is made up of your out-of-pocket portion "y", and the government's portion "z"... and eventually the government reimburses you for "z" as your "tax credit". What seems difficult for YOU to understand.... is that you do give the government taxes, all right, but that money flows through the government to many places. One place where it "flows through" is my bank account as a tax credit and on to the political party of my choice as part of a "donation". The government did not give ME anything, but it certainly gave money... taxpayers money, YOUR money.... to the political party of MY choice, just because I chose to donate to it. Similarly, it may not have given YOU anything, but it certainly gave the CPC money THROUGH you.

Ah, the proverbial red-herrings are starting to appear.... The "middle class" are taxpayers. If they ARE being subsidized, then they are, in part, subsidizing THEMSELVES, since it would be taxpayers money doing the subsidizing. A Political Party is not the same kind of entity as a "middle class" taxpayer. We were not talking about what the donor "MIGHT" have done. We are talking about what he DID do: he donated "$1000" to a Political Party. OF COURSE, if he donated $1000 to a charity, then the charity would be getting (and the taxpayers would be out) by whatever the tax credit is for donations to charities, etc., etc. If he donated to both, the taxpayers would be out by whatever the tax credit is for both, etc. etc. etc.. But we are not talking about charities or RRSPs or anything else. We are talking about donations to political parties. There is ABSOLUTELY money changing hands. The political party has $1000 more than it had before. How is that "hypothetical"? The money did not go DIRECTLY from the government to the political party... But it DID go from the government ... to the political party ... through the bank account of the "donor". The "donor" paid his own share (the $550)... and he paid the government's (taxpayers') share ($450) up front. Then he sent in an expense claim to the CRA.... we call it his tax filing. Several months later, the CRA eventually sent real money to cover his claim.... we may call it a "tax credit", but is a re-imbursement for money he has already paid to a political party on our (the taxpayers) behalf. ..

This debate shows a wonderful example of how our governments and our lawyers and our political parties like to obfuscate the facts with language. The tax form says "Derek donated $1000 to the political party"..... He didn't donate $1000, He is out of pocket $550. THAT is what HE donated. The tax system says "We will give him a tax credit of $450".... The tax system gives him NOTHING. Derek doesn't get that tax credit. He has already sent it off to the political party hidden in that $1000 cheque. If he had not sent it off to the party, he would never have gotten it in the first place. He got N-O-O-TH-I-I-NG. The political party says: "We got a $1000 from Derek". Well, at least the cheque came from Derek. But what were the components in that cheque? Which parties are out-of-pocket to make up that $1000 cheque? And each of the parties are out-of-pocket how much? ..

Now we are into semantics. Whether it is a "subsidy", or whether it is a "tax deduction", or whether it is a "tax incentive", or whether it is a "tax credit", the result is the same: Which is: ... that the government of Canada... representing the whole of Canadian taxpayers ... has a reduced amount of money in its coffers. Where has that money gone? In the case of a political donation:..... (Derek giving $1000 to the party of his choice)... the situation is thus: He ends up being out-of-pocket exactly $550 AFTER he gets his credit. The taxpayers are out $450, because they sent Derek the credit. But the political party has $1000. Derek didn't give them $1000, he is out-of-pocket only $550. So no matter how you want to describe it, the extra $450 came from a reduction in the taxpayer's (Canada's) revenue, transferred eventually (via Derek's bank account) to the political party. SO... if we want to be fair and cut the per-vote subsidy to political parties, we should also cut this donations credit. Then Derek can send any amount he wants, and he will be out-of-pocket for all of it. Derek should be looking at this another way.... when I send $1000 to the party of MY choice, I am out-of-pocket only $550. HE and his fellow taxpayers are footing the other $450 for MY party of choice.

Oh, but it does. You are simply a pass-through. The $450 that you "saved" was passed through to the CPC. You sent it to them as part of the $1000. Only $550 of that $1000 was your own money. $450 of it was "passed-through" you, from the government of Canada (the taxpayers). The final result is that the CPC has $1000, but only $550 of it is your own money, and the other $450 is the tax credit which you received, which you in turn passed on to the CPC together with your own $550.

Please answer the question: You are out-of-pocket $550. Yet the CPC has received $1000. Where did the other $450 come from?

It is really too bad that I should have a life and not be able to stay here constantly and refute this drivel.... Let me try some basic math.... You send the CPC $1000 as a donation. The government of canada (taxpayers) return to you approximately $450 of that as a tax credit. You are out-of-pocket only $550. YET, the CPC has received a total of $1000.... Since you are out-of-pocket only $550, then WHERE DID THAT OTHER $450 COME FROM???? It works the same for a charity... when you donate, and get a tax rebate on part of your donation, but that charity still gets the full amount. NO, the government does not send it DIRECTLY to them.... they sent it to YOU, and you passed it on to THEM. But it is still TAXPAYER money. So what I am saying is: You give the CPC $550.... You are out of pocket exactly the same as before. ... but they should get NOTHING MORE.... NOTHING from the taxpayer.

Rolling up victim's compensation and perp punishment into one big ball does not serve society, the victim, or the perp. Those are two very different things and should be treated separately and distinctly. Victims should indeed be compensated. That may or may not involve the perp, depending on the crime and the circumstance. In my world, Society has an obligation to protect its citizens and when it fails to do so, it should compensate them, yes. .It might then extract its pound of flesh from the perp in a way that is most beneficial to itself, but that second part may have little to do with the victim... (again, depending on the crime and the circumstance) .... and suppose he is not. The "truth" is specific to each individual crime and circumstance, and that is for jugdes to sort out. If it turns out that he has robbed nineteen banks, or been doing stores and houses since he was 12, that is quite different from a homeless first-timer trying to buy a sandwich. That is what judges do. Again, rolling punishment in with victim's compensation is a useless effort that serves no one. There have been cases where victims actually met with the perp, and the conversation was part of the therapy to get over this and get on with life. There are cases where they can't stand the site of him, and live in constand dread. What they need is help to get through this... death comes to us all and it comes in unexpected ways, and some of us get over it better, or should I say differently, than others. What they get in the way of victims services should be tailored for them. As for the perp, society's responsibility is to ensure that this does not happen again, whatever that may take.... maybe that's a lifetime in jail... maybe its a significant period of rehabilitation followed by a lifetime of supervision... maybe it is psychiatric help... etc. etc. etc. Thats what judges do, (or should). .

"In finance, to corner the market is to get sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset to allow the price to be manipulated." Remember those last four words. The free market at its best.... or is that: worst?

I wonder what piece-of-crap conservative media broke THIS story.

Ah, the Soviet Gulag approach to justice..... Well nobody said it was going to be easy, but it is the hard things that are worth doing. As for "punitive requirements"... do we really mean "punitive" or do we mean "revenge"... ? A kid steals a car and robs a bank. The criteria SHOULD be, safety, and cost. What is the minimum that I need to spend, in order to keep this kid from doing it again. And some kids maybe SHOULD stay in jail forever, because they can never be rehabilitated... and some kids may need no more than a stern "don't ever do that again". That is why the concept of "minimum sentences" is so ludicrous. All kinds of studies will tell you that length of sentence has little bearing on deterrent.... what DOES create deterrent is probablility of getting caught, regardless of possible punishment. To that end, crime rates have been going down dramatically... not because of any "punitive" deterrents, but probably because of the increased surveillance.... use of sophisticated security systems, CCTV, video capabilities everywhere, etc., etc. For some offenders, absolutely. But for others, it will be just as safe for you whether they are in or not. There was a report on something like 114 murderers released on parole in the 20-year period to 2009. 95 of them have behaved themselves. That's 95 that taxpayers don't need to house and feed. Of course, serious, dangerous, and repeat offenders should be incarcerated. But treating every case as identical with mandated minimums is ludicrous.

...and I could be convinced to be FOR mandatory minimums if there were a shred of evidence that they were useful.... It may well be that the occassional judgment fails the common sense test, and that the occasional judge "is not much interested in justice".... but to make such a blanket accusation for all is, well, laughable. Find me some facts, as opposed to the unfounded accusatory speculation that you have posted. Perhaps a study such as this one, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/forum/e122/e122c-eng.shtml ... which explains why "Clearly, the prison as deterrent hypothesis is not supported. The opposite conclusion, and one that is widely endorsed in some correctional circles, is that prisons do increase recidivism, in other words act as “schools for crime”. ... and which ends with the summary: "In summary, the addition of this body of evidence to the “what works” debate leads to the inescapable conclusion that, when it comes to reducing individual offender recidivism, the “only game in town” is appropriate cognitive-behavioural treatments which embody known principles of effective intervention." It is not "justice" if the criminal harms society, then continues to cost society additional big bucks while you incarcerate him. "Justice" is for him to start working as quickly as possible to pay his debt back. And that means getting him to behave himself in the outside world.... Yes, there is the issue of which criminals are truly too dangerous to be let back out on the streets... and no doubt that parole boards have to do a better job to avoid them slipping through. But that is no reason to throw all "criminals" in jail forever. You simply cannot afford it. And it does nothing to keep you safer. You may want to lengthen their mandatory supervision, etc., but mandatory minimum incarcerations are useless.

. You (and the Conservative Party) are the ones that are confused. Let me try this again: The supposed reason for phasing out the per-vote subsidy is that "the taxpayer should not be subsidizing political parties". But the biggest subsidy is, in fact, the tax credit. If you are seriously trying to get rid of "subsidising political parties", they you must ALSO get rid of the tax credit.... and you must also get rid of the provision to rebate election expenses. (both of those are subsidies by the taxpayer) NOW... if you are continuing to ALLOW the taxpayers to subsidize political parties, then it should be fair.... and what is more fair than subsidizing according to the votes thaty a party gets??... the true measure of the acceptability of its policies by the public. Thus the per-vote subsidy makes a lot more sense than tax credits or election expense rebates. Getting rid of the per-vote subsidy actually SKEWS the political funding by taxpayers, instead of making it more fair.

Ok, then make sure that you eliminate the tax credit for political donations and the subsidy for election expenses.. Right now, for every $1000 that a political party gets from "contributions", about $550 come from the taxpayers... and the so-called "contributor" only pays about $450. Elimating the per-vote subsidy does NOTHING to eliminate tax-payer subsidization of political parties. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO... is make sure that the big "money-raisers" get to suck an even GREATER percentage of the total public political subsidy. The "reflection on party's policies" is supposed to be in the voting booth, not in the bank account........ and right now, when you look at the total number of votes that, say, the Green Party got, and the total number of votes that the federal Conservatives got.... you would find that the Federal Conservatives gets almost TWICE the amount of PUBLIC money per vote that the Greens do. That's PUBLIC taxpayer money....

Please let me contain my laughter. It you were to actually apportion the public money "according to interest by the public", you would find that the Green Party should be getting nearly twice as much public money as they currently are. Conservatives get about $9.00 of public taxplayer money for each of their votes, but the Green Party gets less than $5 for each of theirs.. That is becuase the current peculiar rules with respect to political finance have the taxpayer heavily subsidizing contributions and expenses.... but NOT VOTES... in other words, the taxpayer subsidy is NOT apportioned according to "public interest"; it is mostly apportioned according to the ability to raise money and spend.

Maybe this "Media Party" is true.... but it could be just a case of a "woman once scorned....." Here is a list of Major newspapers supporting Harper vs those supporting the Liberals in 2006.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006 22 to 1 for Harper. WHAT liberal media? I wonder what could possibly have changed? ...

That is part of the point.... parties DO NOT craft policy "that you deem important". They craft policy that will trigger a cash inflow. The two may or may not coincide, because cash inflows often come as a result of some wedge issue that may be pretty bad policy for society as a whole. Hard core fundamentalist Catholics, for example, will open their wallets when you hint at reopening the abortion debate. The "bad thing" about getting rid of the voter subsidy is that now, financial stability of political parties is dependant on wedge issues. Let's face it... middle of the road peasants do not donate much voluntarily. The bulk comes from the far extremes at both ends. The CPC is first at getting this right, but the others will have to catch up and now we will have bad policy from all of them, catering to those extremes. Legalize marijuana. Bring back the death penalty. Strengthen collective bargaining legislation. Weaken collective bargaining legislation. Abolish the Senate. Tax the rich corporations. Stronger military. Reduce military spending. Ignore environment. Shut down all nuclear plants. etc, etc., etc. Each of these can be terrible policy, but bring them up as a single issue, and certain wallets open... "YAH, that it! THAT's what we want!"...even though it is only 6% of the population making that shout. The voter subsidy might not have been a perfect tool, but it financed political parties more or less according to the OVERALL wishes of the COMPLETE Canadian electorate. Today, they are financed by the squeakiest wheels, and that is very definitely "a bad thing".