Dave_ON

I'm convinced that all politicians are the same and all we can really do is vote for the least objectionable one. People said the CPC's were paragons of virtue, temperance, fiscal restraint and good clean governance. Heretofore that has proven to be vastly inaccurate, as I expected. I suspect the NDP would end up the same way, it's the nature of the beast, not that there bad people, but politics is the narrative of otherwise good people making poor decisions.

Indeed it is looking good for the CPC at this time. Considering there is no election in sight at this time the question remains can the CPC maintain the momentum until such time as one can be called. What is also unclear is whether this is solid support or a bubble. One thing’s for certain as of right now they're within striking distance of the majority they so desperately want.

You don't see anything wrong here? If that's the case why was Mr. Harper so quick to lay the blame on the MP's office and distance himself and party from it? Not to mention how can you not see anything wrong with the Conservative logo on a check from the Tax Payer's of Canada? It should have the GoC logo nothing more. This essentially equates to advertizing for the CPC on my dime. That's not even in the realm of no big deal. If the cheque doesn't come out of the CPC's coffers their logo has no place there. If the LPC had pulled a stunt like this would you be so cavalier about the matter? There are strict rules in place about the manner in which government programs and grants are advertized and they must always be party neutral. The comment that really got to me I will list below from the CBC report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story...ddy-cheque.html Seriously how dumb does he think we are? The cheque was 3ftx1ft how could you miss it?

As punked already pointed out your facts are a little off. The dollar has been at par with the greenback previously. The fact that parity with the green back has far more negative consequences than positive ones notwithstanding, this is more a reflection on the weakness of the greenback and rising commodity prices. The loonie's values vis a vis the green back has little to do with the sitting PM and much to do with world economic factors. You can be a Harper fan boy all you like, just ensure the reasons you state are accurate and reflective of Mr. Harpers actions, not this Harper Rules, Trudeau Drools drivel you're attempting to pass off as intelligent discourse.

The problem is you're lumping long term secured debt in with short term unsecured debt. The same rules do not apply. I don't think we can regulate credit cards the same way we regulate long term secured loans. You also can't simplify it to should the government have a roll as that's too broad a question. How limited that roll should be is an entirely separate question. You're operating from the premise that the banks are ripping people off. Should rules that apply in one circumstance apply in all circumstances? You're not looking at the big picture, or the nature of credit card debt. All services have a cost to those that sell it, they obviously sell it at a higher price then what they bought it for, this is profit. Now you're assuming that the profit they are making is ridiculously enormous but you're not basing that assumption on fact. Do you have a breakdown of how much it costs the bank to make credit card loans and what profit they make off of said loans? Do you know what the volatility, default rates, processing fees etc. are to be able to come up with a "fair" price? How can you say this needs to be regulated if you can't prove they're profiteering? My point remains, if you don't carry a balance you don't have to worry about interest. The only people that are complaining about this are those who are carrying a balance, chances are they're not responsible with their money as Mr. Canada pointed out. Not to mention these regulations you're asking for aren't even necessary, if you have good credit you can easily shop around and get a great interest rate and no annual fee if you so choose. The choices are there, there's no need to mandate what choices we should have available to us.

Responsible Canadians actually do get a good return for the money they loan to the bank. If all you have is a checking account that is empty except for one day every two weeks than you can't expect to get a good return on your "investment". There are many benefits to maintaining a balance in your account which I won't go into here. The main issue you and I are having is you feel Credit Cards are a valid means of sustaining a lifestyle and as such the bank should be the one who is forced to pay for other people's irresponsible spending habits. I disagree and feel people need to live within their means, save for their own retirement and pay their own debts. Comparing mortgages, i.e. a long term debt, to credit cards which are supposed to be short term liabilities is apples to oranges. Mortgages are insured and guaranteed, they are considered a secured debt. Therefore the interest rates can be lower as lost revenue due to nonpayment isn't a factor. Credit cards are not insured nor are they considered secured. If a person declares bankruptcy the bank, and subsequently you and I are out that money the borrower failed to pay back. That is why the regulation is not required, it is setup in such a way to ensure that credit cards are profitable and that loss of revenue is minimized.

Your suggesting the government is qualified to set the price of a service without knowing the costs. Do you know how a credit card works? Do you know the volatility, the high risk margin involved in a credit card? Pay day loans are another beast entirely. The point is Punked; if you're a responsible consumer you don't carry a balance on your credit card. The interest rate is immaterial if you pay it off in 30 days. If you can't afford to pay it off that quickly, chances are you can't afford whatever it is you bought. Over 85% of people DON"T carry a balance on their credit cards and never pay any interest. A good portion of those who do carry a balance generally other credit issues also. Our arguments are vastly different. You're attempting to alleviate personal responsibility for spending, and accepting that credit cards are an entitlement and therefore SHOULD be regulated. I'm suggesting that we are responsible for our own spending and that we don't need the government to save us from ourselves. The banks are not the problem, the people who misuse their credit cards, payday loans or depend on them for survival because they are living beyond their means are. It is not the right of anyone to have a credit card, it's not free money, it's a convenience and a service and that comes at a cost.

Actually this is a direct quote of what I said. In fact that statement specifically states it's not the role of the government to over regulate. I was referring to regulating profit margin specifically not regulation in general. It does not state, imply or otherwise infer that the government should not regulate business, just not to the point of excess. Care to retract?

Here in lies the fundamental flaw in your argument. This implies that people have the right to borrow the banks money, which is really the money of other Canadians at a minimal interest rate. To make life easier for them. Well here's the reality of it Punked, if they can't afford to buy whatever it is they are buying, televisions, dishwashers, cars all of which are luxury's, I might add, they shouldn't be buying them. If they are buying them on their credit cards which are inherently a short term loan they have to accept the fact that short term loans carry with them a high interest rate. People are not entitled to low intrest rates, that is not the way the world works. It's the Banks money, and if you want to borrow it you have to abide by their rules. Sure you don't like it, well tough. Credit cards aren't designed as a means to live, if you pay them off within 30 days you'll never pay a dime of interest, it's really that simple. If you can't pay it off in 30 days you likely shouldn't have one to begin with. Who decides what's a fair rate? What factors do you think go into setting the intrest rate on credit cards? One factor is it's intended to be a short term loan, less interest is accrued overall as a result. Also some of your down trodden "hard working" Canadians are actually deadbeats, they borrow money from the bank and never pay it back. Could it be the bank has to recoup some of those losses? You need to get out the "us" versus "them" mindset, it's blinding you to the bigger picture. Demonizing corporations and portraying the citizens as victims of corporate neo-feudalism is all to popular with the NDP. As I said many "hard working" Canadians are anything but, many of them don't pay their bills, don't work hard at all, and feel they are entitled to public funding. We make our own fate and we're responsible for our own choices. I can't feel sorry for some deadbeat who wracked up a bunch of credit card debt and now is complaining about the high interest rates. That just doesn't wash with me. FYI you're not suggesting a mixed market, it's what we already have, you're suggesting communism, where the government sets the prices and controls the market entirely. Regulation is one thing, dictating private policy and limiting profit margins is another thing entirely.

I didn't say the government doesn't play a role, regulations are of course required; but that role is not to the extent that the NDP or you apparently are suggesting. Limiting interest rates, fees, surcharges etc. for services rendered is not the business of government. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will convince me of that. There's a reason that communism failed, any price cap set is artificial and is not sustainable based on supply and demand. Whether you want to accept it or not, supply and demand affects all things, setting an artificial ceiling will by pass it temporarily, but reality always comes crashing back. The free market is not evil, big corporations are not evil and all workers are not poor, disabused and disenfranchised. Without large private corporations a good 80% of Canadians would be unemployed. I'm so tired of this NDP anti-corporation propaganda. It doesn't wash with most Canadians and until they let it go they'll never gain much more support than what they already have. It's time to drop the "evil corporations are out to get us" routine; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the way our economy works. We can't set an artificial ceiling on prices, that model has proven to fail time and time again. Supply and demand will always dictate prices. If you can't afford the interest rate on a credit card no one is forcing you to use it. You don't get charged interest if you don't carry a balance, if you are carrying a balance then chances are you can't really afford whatever it is you put on the card. Our actions are our own responsibility. You want a fully government regulated economy? Well there isn't one that exists at present; I'd suggest you move to Russia circa 1980.

It's not the place of the government to regulate private business to the point where they are legislating their profit margin. The first rule of a free market is, an item is worth what the consumer is willing to pay for it. It's not the business of government to limit how much money a business can make, the government's job is to administer public services not meddle in private affairs.

I think this is largely an assumption on your part. Unfortunately I don't believe any has taken actual statistics on the proportion of prostitutes that are drug addicted. I can't speak to stripers but that's a good example of part of the sex trade that is quite legal and highly regulated. It's not much of a stretch to extend these laws to prostitution. I suppose the question we must ask is does banning prostitution do any good? Does it stop the drug use? Does it prevent people from using the services? If the answer is no then we need to ask ourselves if we should be using valuable police resources trying to stop something that can't be stopped when we could reallocate those resources to more serious and violent crimes.

This serves to prove TB's point. You've clearly demonstrated the social barriers that exist. Nice sweet suburb girls don't become prostitutes only urban trash does? Come on man. Anybody can fall into destitution, even sweet suburb girls, and when the chips are down you do what you have to, to survive. Is a choice between prostitution and starvation really a choice at all? Are all people who fall into prostitution in this situation? No of course not, no more than all who fall into prostitution urban drug addicted city girls. People aren't that easily defined in the real world nor are situations as very black and white as you would have them be.

This is precisely where regulation comes in. The same arguments were made when alcohol prohibition was considered but look at the liquor industry now. Bootlegging is illegal; the same would apply to unregistered brothels, and prostitutes what have you. As mentioned in the thread we can't eliminate prostitution we can only really manage it. Putting regulations in place, which would pay for it and then some via taxation would make the situation better. Many countries have done this very successfully, when something illegal of course it's going to operate in the more seedy parts of town. If you legalize it you eliminate the need to hide in the less desirable parts of town. Amsterdam has done this with their zoning of the red light district. Similar measures could be taken here, it wouldn't change overnight but it would certainly do a lot to clean up the industry. Pimps, drugs issues and all the other problems you mentioned would be greatly lessoned if the industry were controlled just like gambling, liquor and tobacco.

Well you should already be disappointed considering Harper increased the size of his cabinent last election. Further there are many indications that taxes will go rather than down. No one wants to discuss taxes going up, and rightly so, but it will come eventually, and Mr. Harper may just wish he wasn't PM when it comes time to break the news to the country.

Income tax and EI premium hikes will quickly deflate any post olympic glow and the CPC's numbers with it. I sincerely doubt Harper would call and election prior to Fall 2010, not with the jobless rate continuing to climb with no sign of stopping until this time next year. Like I said, far too soon to call it, we'll have to wait and see what the fall brings us.

I'm shocked you'd accuse Mr. Harper of such a thing, that would require him to call an election to his advantage and that is distictly contrary to the very spirit of the 4 year fixed election law.

Indeed, it's funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. The CPC will have their senate majority, and find they like, even though they criticized the LPC so harshly for it. I do fully expect Mr. Harper to try and pass some window dressing senate reform legislation that will lack any constitutional clout. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I find it troubling that you think its ok for one person to have so much power. Mr. Harper or any PM should not be able to do whatever they want. That's one of the reasons why the senate is set up. That's why the separation of powers is enshrined in the constitution. As much as you long for Harpertopia surely you realize that even with a Majority the PM is constrained by the constitution. I'm not sure a majority will serve Mr. Harper as well as he hopes. Many of the reforms he has promised are impossible to fulfill unless you're satisfied with window dressing legislation that is. Further if he tries to pass any laws contrary to the constitution he'll find the courts there to strike them down. A Majority in the HoC and the Senate will only remove the legislative block that has been frustrating him these past years; I think he's ill prepared to handle the Judicial and Executive branches of government. Fixed election dates are a prime example of this. Without fundamental constitutional change the law is meaningless, the same will hold true with the senate reforms. No one in the legislative body has the power to change this without constitutional reform, Mulroney has proven that's nigh on impossible.

It's a little too soon to be calling a CPC majority at this time with no election in site. Let's face it I'm sure Mr. Harper is kicking himself right now for throwing the NDP a bone, considering his current numbers. However he can't possibly call an election until the New Year and likely the spring at that if not into the Fall of 2010. A lot can happen in that short time, and political fortunes change rather quickly. There have been rumblings that the CPC is looking at increasing Income/Payroll taxes, that's never a popular move regardless of how necessary it may be. Also these wonderful EI changes have to be paid for somehow, which will likely mean an increase in EI premiums. How quickly we forget the good when the tax man commeth.

You've hit the nail on the head, no MP would vote against it, that's why we have an appointed senate who isn't subject to whims of the electorate, it provides the balance of power in our law making body. The idea isn't to prolong the process, it's to point out what the senate sees as a flaw in the legislation. I personally don't like the 2 for 1 credit, but this demonstrates to me that the senate does work and is necessary and SHOULDN'T be elected. What's the point of having two elected houses? Both are subject to the whims of the electorate which change with the weather.

It was the same in New Brunswick, Oh Canada, God Save the Queen and I think we sometimes substituted a moment of silence for the Lord's Prayer. No pledge to the flag though, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. Granted I wasn't around in the 60's and missed most of the 70's also. I actually laughed out lout at this.

Bjre it's been ages since we've been graced with your anti-occidental posts. Where you been hiding? Interesting segue basing a post on "law and order" generally you have more substance then that in your posts. You really shouldn't base your opinion on a TV show, if I recall you always talk about how the Media controls us, is it possible you're falling under their spell also?

Gasp! You mean the Senate is actually doing its job by amending legislation how scandalous! There are two houses for a reason, because it sails through one doesn't mean it gets an automatic approval from the senate. That's not the way our system works, and thankfully so. It's funny, the main reason a lot of people give for senate abolition is that they don't "do" anything, this of course is an untrue statement, but when they actually do "do" something it's anathema to democracy and somewhere God kills a kitten in protest.

Correct it is funded separately by EI premiums; however those funds are not held and invested. The government sets premiums based on what they think unemployment numbers will be and how many will be eligible to collect the benefits. If they don't take enough in premiums there is a shortfall which is covered by other general revenue. If they take too much in premiums it's a surplus. That doesn't stick around year over year as CPP does as its considered part of the general operating budget. With an operating surplus you have two options you spend it or your refund it.