Dave_ON

Not at all skilfully I might add. Don't get me wrong I'm a firm believer in that we can all go to hell in our own way. I just don't think I should have to pay for your self induced health issues. But alas that's the way universal coverage works. Let's not be melodramatic about this; prevention is far easier and cheaper to achieve then fixing an issue after the fact. The same goes for your rather inane hit by a cement truck example. Look both ways before you cross the street, advice like that goes a long way.

Your argument is comparing apples to oranges, unless one is attempting to kill themselves by walking off a curb. Either way you can't very well compare an accident with intentionally, continually, and knowingly harming your body. Be that as it may, my central point remains the same. Regardless of whether we like/dislike agree/disagree with what/who is covered, it/they are covered all the same. So maybe you don't think abortion should be covered, well that's just ducky; until the laws are changed all you can do is whine about it. Changing the law might be a sight easier than for me to convince society in general that prevention through healthy living is the cheapest way to cut our rising health care costs.

Come on BC don't get bjre started...

Hrm... an Ad Scam post seriously? Any Trudeau era dirt you want to dig up while we're hitting these things at the height of their relevance? Can we say dead horse?

The fact of the matter is we have a universal system and as such procedures will be covered that we may or may not agree with. Should the tax payer have to pay for the treatment of a lung cancer patient who smoked for 30 years? How about liver issues for heavy drinkers? What about heart surgery for an obese person, or diabetes related care? Should people who are essentially responsible for their condition be covered as well? As a person, who exercises regularly, eats nutritiously, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink heavily I object to the above folks being covered. However, it's part of how our system works. Where do we draw the line and who is qualified to do so and on what criteria do we base the determination of qualifcations?

Ok I think we're talking two different issues here. No dispute on welfare recipients point. This is precisely why the very concept of income tax is archaic, consumption, not income should be taxed, but that's for another topic. I heartily disagree that someone who is getting a refund is contributing less then someone who owes or does not get a refund. Taxes are based on income bracket and are progressive. So if you are like most people and are in the mean tax bracket, roughly 40k to 81k your tax rate is 15% on the first 40K and 22% on anything over 40k but below 81k. Now if two people make 50k a year they both owe the same amount of tax. If person A pays 25% on the amount over 40K they have overpaid and are thus entitled to a refund. If person B pays 20% on the amount over 40k then they owe the government and additional 2%. In a sense the person who owes tax at the end of the year has contributed less, because they short changed the government 2% of their income. By contrast the person who contributed 3% more actually contributed more overall as the government had additional funds for the duration of the overpayment, they technically weren't entitled to. The trick of course is lowering your overall taxable income, which you do via RRSPs. The person who makes 50K a year ideally would contribute 10K to their RRSP, effectively dropping their taxable income to 40k and their bracket to 15%. For a more in depth look at taxation check out the CRA. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html?=slnk

Here's some free financial advice, start an RRSP or if you have one up your contributions. If you make that much money you should certainly be able to afford to squirrel some away. Everyone should have an RRSP regardless of how much they make. You could also have them take more money off of your pay check, any overpayment is money in the bank though the RRSP is a far better option as you actually make money loaning it to the bank as opposed to loaning it to the government. Getting a refund isn't free money, it means you paid too much tax and are getting it back, free of interest of course. If you owe, it means you didn't pay enough during the year. You can't compare a political party to a charity. Ending the tax credit for one does not mean you have to end it for the other and no one would ever suggest otherwise. Besides the two tax credits work differently. One is a reduction in taxes payable the other is a reduction in income, much like an RRSP.

It seems to me this process has already begun, was it not recently made a requirement for Hungarians to obtain visa's prior to travelling to Canada? Maybe that was another gypsie producing EU nation.

I don't think we should drop the appointment aspect of senators. We should definitely move this power to the provinces however, and I'm all for Equal representation by region, that just makes sense. I'm not a fan of this particular house being elected nor do I see the need for it to be elected. Honestly the commons is our elected body and represents the will of the people. The senate is not so much concerned with the will, or whims, of the people as it is with regional fairness. They're job is to ensure that the will of the majority doesn't overshadow the needs of the few. To make them elected is to politicize the whole thing and given their role I don't see it as necessary. The trick is how to manage this? Those who have the most to lose, namely Ontario and Quebec, are disinclined to give up that power. Of course the west is all for it, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from it. If you're ever going to get Quebec and Ontario on board, which is the only way any type of constitutional change will occur, you're going to have to toss some kind of a bone.

All are examples of foreign interference that exacerbated tensions in an already volatile region. The Ottomans maintained power by dividing the various power factions within the region at the time. It was effective for maintaining rule while they were there, but when they left, the tensions escalated and we see the issue the British ran into with the Kurds, the Assyrians and the Shi’ites. Again the British did precisely what the Americans are trying to do. They foisted their current system on a people that didn't set it up on their own. The Monarchy in Iraq was an abysmal failure. As for the Romans, upon checking again you're correct, I had thought at its height in 200 AD the empire expanded into the Northern part of present day Iraq. It appears it stopped just short of the Syrian/Iraqi border. Be that as it may my point remains the same. As you stated only the Ottomans were effectively able to rule the region, because they were willing to occupy it. The US is repeating the same mistakes as the British, you can clean the place up and leave but it won't be long before you have to clean it up again. Best to leave it be and stabilize on its own without further interference.

The division between CPC and LPC isn't one of income it's more of an Urban/Rural divide. Education/Income isn’t really a factor. Too often people equate people with higher education having a proclivity for more a liberal mind set with the Liberal mind set being more educated in general. It should come as no surprise that such is not the case.

Hmmm what makes you think the US can succeed where the British, the Ottoman Turks and the Romans failed? The stability of Iraq is yet to be tested.

I understand your point but I have to disagree. What if I want to vote for a given party, but I don't want to give them one red cent of my hard earned money? I'm forced to do so by this law, the fact that I voted for a given party on principle or on a whim should not translate to a tax subsidy.

That's the point they're both a subsidy in the end. You getting a tax receipt for your donation, means you're paying less in taxes. Those taxes you aren't paying are going to a political party directly, that's not right. Taxes should not go to political parties through either direct or indirect means. If you want to donate fine but it should be 100% your dime not 25%.

Honestly I don't see the difference in the two, both equate to the tax payer, paying. In both cases the tax payer has no control over where their subsidy is directed other then what they choose to contribute directly. I don't see why political parties are granted the same benefits and privileges that non-profit organizations are. I like TB's idea, tax them as you would any other for profit organization. It's time the tax payer got something out of the party system rather than always subsidizing it.

This is utterly immaterial. Of course they can pass the legislation that is after all the prerogative and mandate of parliament. Now as to their legitimacy or their constitutional compliance, well that is out of their sphere of influence. We need look no further than Mr Harper's own "fixed election law"; he in all technicality broke that law. A citizens group actually brought him to court for it, which the court dismissed as of course the law ran counterman to the constitution, and was utterly ineffectual. This law would be no different, and whether we are for or against a term limit on senators the fact remains this law will not be able to achieve that which it was created for. There’s no “easy button” when it comes to fundamental constitutional changes, and thankfully so.

The problem is shortening the term limits will not even begin to address the concerns you, and those who share your view, have over the current state of the senate. As Small C pointed out this would only serve to further concentrate power in the PMO as he could stack it sooner rather than later. Term limits in the form suggested are useless and anyone who favours senate reform should be upset by this move rather than happy with it. It's little more than window dressing and its sole purpose is to make it appear as though the CPC is doing "something" to make good on their reform promises.

Precisely, it's all part of the "We're not Brittish" mentality their country was founded on. Completely irrelevant in Canadian Politics. "Send Her victorious, Happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save the Queen."

Hmm it's quotes like this that stick in my craw when it comes to the CPC No democratic mandate? Come on they are appointed by elected members, because they are not elected directly does not make them undemocratic. I really hate when the CPC employers misnomers to make their point; shades of the opposition "coup d’états." It appears Stephen Fletcher is the minister of overstated political hyperbole.

Really this isn't surprising and it's just more window dressing legislation from the CPC much like their "fixed election dates". It's not really worth the paper it's written on and because it countermans the constitution can/will be ignored or stricken down at any time. Really this is only so that Mr. Harper can say he's kept yet another one of his election promises. What baffles me is that the LPC is going along with it, what possible benefit do they get out of it?

That's ridiculous, polling firms are not the same as telemarketers. It's a random sampling and while the occasional poll can be way out at times, they in general align with one another. If you look closely at the support the CPC has now you'll notice it's close to what they had at election time. If another election were held we'd end up with about the same results. These forums are not a good sampling of the general political mood of the country, regardless of what any one of us may think. /end rant.

Perhaps in about 150 years when they have the population to support it... but until then what to do...

This specific poll was 2302 people. It's always a random sampling and EKOS is gernerally one of the more accurate ones.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/17/layton-prorogue.html I'm generally not a fan of these non binding motions as they are truly meaningless when all is said in done, but I think this might have some political “umph” to it if the opposition plays it right, which they likely will not. The vote passed 139 to 135. I do like the idea behind the motion however, that the PM would no longer be able to prorogue parliament without the express permission of Parliament. Honestly what's truly sad about this is that, that was always an unspoken rule heretofore. It's sad that the concentration of power has shifted so far away from Parliament that motions like this, impotent as they are, are necessary.

New EKOS Poll CPC 33.1 (+1.2) LPC 28.9 (-.07) NDP 15.7 (-.03) GRN 10.8 BLOC 9.2 Other 2.3 Margin for error 2% 19/20 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/17/ekos-poll-mar18.html Only a slight change, too soon to tell if it's indicative of any real movement. This is one of the few polls in the past 3 months that have had the CPC and LPC separated by more than the margin of error.