Dave_ON

I don't dispute that profits were not affected. However, profit and liquidity are two entirely different things. The Government plan was not to save banks from going under, but rather to ensure that liquidity was maintained. While they had a number of long term investments that had real cash value it was locked in. Trust me I'm the furthest thing from a Flahrety or a CPC fanboy but I have to give credit where credit is due.

Again I think you misunderstand the nature of the EI fund. It is not like CPP which is a trust fund that is invested; it's part of general revenues and is part of the operation budget. It is not just lying around waiting to be used like CPP is. At the money was either spent or it was reallocated, they don't stuff it in a mattress and wait to use it. The best course of action would have been to refund the overcharge or at the least spend it on EI related programs. However, that didn't happen but it also wasn't spent on adscam. Adscam occurred long before the EI fund issue.

It was $54 Billion actually and your argument is based on the erroneous assumption that EI is the same as CPP, a trust fund that is invested or stashed under the GG's bed. While EI does have its own source, namely EI premiums it is still technically part of general government revenues. The $54 Billion wouldn't have been there waiting to be used, so honestly we'd be no further ahead on the EI front. The ethical thing to do would have been to refund the overcharge to the taxpayers, however this was not done and it was instead used to fund other programs and pay down the debt. Again not entirely accurate, while the banking problem wasn't Canadian in origin there were Canadian funds that were tied up in the US fiasco, as such that left less liquid capital for the banks to properly fund our domestic needs. The government purchase of already guaranteed mortgages was a prudent fiscal move. It presents no risk to the tax payer while simultaneously it allowed the banks to continue to loan money and keep the economy moving. Having said that I find it hard to believe Flaherty came up with it on his own, if it doesn't involve selling crown assets it's not likely one of his ideas, however I digress. Actually a great deal of the economy is number crunching and most people would be shocked to find out how very little "real" value our dollar holds. However that discussion is grossly off topic.

That's true that in fact governments are accessories to people's addictions and vices. We can't simply limit this to gambling, the same thing happens with tobacco and alcohol. In terms of prostitution though, I think it's important to realize that the problem will be there regardless of whether it is regulated, decriminalized or illegal. So that leaves the question of what is the best way to manage the situation. To me it seems it should be managed the same way we do with all the other legal vices via taxation and regulation. On the bright side the legalization would really take the heat off the government in regards to the HST.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...inalize685.html This is an interesting article that raises several interesting points. One of which I didn't realize is that prostitution isn't technically illegal; just all activities associated with it are as the article explains. One quote I think really sums up the issue that is facing our Country today is the need to separate moral preference from secular law. I'm socially Liberal and believe that there needs to be a great many "moral preference" laws that need to be changed or repealed. This is something that has always been and always will be, it's my belief that regulation is the best form of management. The same would also apply to pot. Tax peoples vices like we do with gambling, liquor and cigarettes, and regulate them, history has shown prohibition to be vastly ineffective and expensive. Because it's unpalatable to some does not mean it should be illegal.

Only time will tell I suppose, there's no election called nor is there one in the foreseeable future. Fortunes change rather rapidly in the political sphere, as the CPC found out last election. Seriously what threat does the LPC pose to Canada? Please elucidate the rest of us; we're not all privy to knowledge. Why the seemingly rabid hatred of the LPC, you sound oddly like those folks that used to say Harper had a hidden agenda.

I fail to see how not voting would force any kind of change, that simply means that fewer and fewer people are deciding who the government is which would make it even less likely that change will be inacted. That sounds like the most undemocratic decision you can make. Even a bad choice is better than not voting at all, the only way you can make your opinion heard is by voting.

I mentioned a secret agenda? Cultural events regardless of what they are shouldn't be funded, save those of national interest as cited in my earlier post. However, if you are going to fund them, an assessment needs to be made of getting the most out of the money invested. Hardline on crime is over simplifying the subject as you should well know it goes far deeper than that. Again it's about return on investment. What is more effective preventative measures or reprisal? Is a "hardline" on crime effective? Evidence to south would indicate that it is not. Should we continue to throw away money on methods that have proven to be less than effective or should we start looking at alternatives? The long gun registry is another example of wasting money. One of their elections planks was to scrap the long gun registry, which is fine if that’s what they believe in. I can’t really comment on its effectiveness but their current stance is little more than playing both sides. Rather than getting rid of it they have extended an amnesty on it, so rather than the gun owners paying for the system, all tax payers are paying for the system. If they’re going to scrap it just do so and be done with it. No need to be flippant, it's unbecoming of a gentlemen. Suffice to say both matters are about how tax dollars are being spent. It's not a matter of "that's it?” it's a matter of how the CPC decides how to spend money. If they are going to allow a small group of religious folks to determine how and when tax dollars are spent I'll have not part of it. Bottom line is we're a secular state, and religion should not even factor into the decision making process. Until the CPC can purge the appearance that religious groups still hold a lot of sway in their policy, the majority they so desperately crave will not occur. Is this simply perception on my part? Perhaps but when things occur like the Divercite event having their funding pulled it seems to indicate an anti-gay pro-religious leaning.

Ok I'm confused, in your earlier post you said you're firmly pro-life and now you're saying you're also pro-choice? You can't be both the two are mutually exclusive. You said make sure they make the correct choices. This seems to imply to me that the "correct choice" would be what fits with your moral code. You can live your life anyway you see fit, and live by which ever moral code you deem to be correct. You can even work to raise funds for whatever cause you feel deserves it. But I find it hard to believe you practice what you preach when in one post you speak of causing other organizations to "fail" while in another post you champion free speech and choice. How is attempting to cause an organization to fail who counters your own moral code about freedom? Sounds like you're trying to limit people’s choices to just one, even as you so desperately want our political choices limited to just two parties.

The government shouldn't be in the business of funding any event regardless of the reason unless it is a state event. Namely Canada Day celebrations, the Olympics, the Queens visits etc. If they're going to fund the Calgary stampede then all venues should be open for funding. There are no public sex acts that occur at Pride that's a flagrant embellishment on your part. The Difference between the CPC and the LPC is their social policy is not influenced by the religious supporters. I think you're right the government shouldn't be in the business of running people’s lives. Morality is not something that needs to be legislated and religion has no place in politics. We're a secular state and we need to stay that way. As for you assessment of the crime issue, that's up for debate. If longer, more harsh sentences and more prisons are the solution why isn't the US a veritable crime free utopia? Investment in youth and the community are never a waste. It's a matter of pay now or pay later, prevention is always preferable to burdening the tax payers with more overhead to feed and house inmates for the duration of their lengthened sentence.

They've demonstrated on several occassions that the religious conservatives hold far too much sway in the party. Specifically I'd refer to the Toronto Pride/Montreal Pride festivals as a prime example of this. Mr. Harper is smart enough to not touch the abortion mind field, though there is a lot of pressure from the religious grass roots supporters to do so. The CPC's are also focused too much on sentencing to deal with crime rather than working on prevention. Prisond are already over crowded and building more isn't going to fix the issue, longer sentences only make people "feel" like something is being done, whether or not it is, is debateable. Mr. Canada is probably a prime example of the type of supporter for the CPC that turns myself and other like me off of voting for them.

Ah yes how very sanctimonious of you, so is it also your civic duty to tell others how they should live their lives and what choices they can and cannot make? Thankfully the CPC's aren't as draconian as you but they really need to purge the vestiges of your brand of social conservatism if they ever wish to capture their ever elusive majority. The anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women's rights folks will do them nothing but harm. Perhaps the Christian Heritage party would be more suitable to your line of holier than thou thinking.

I'd disagree, and I think Madmax hit the nail on the head. For most of us the NDP is too far left for our taste and in general they're more labor union centered. This is not to say they don't have a number of good ideas, they just generally need a little reworking to be palatable to the average Canadian. It's not as simple as Left vs. Right, the CPC is a centrist part for the most part, the only thing I would say makes them right wing is their penchant for social conservatism. If they could purge the last vestiges of this distasteful social conservatism and distance themselves from their Christian support, I would actually vote for them as many of their policies such as northern sovereignty, military investment, trade etc I'm in agreement with. Their day to day running of the country isn't so very different from the LPC. So what is left to me and many many more like me? The CPC are too socially conservative, the NDP are too socialist we need a third party to represent us. There’s no denying that currently the LPC is hurting bad and it may be the better part of a decade before they recover, but so long as there is no middle ground between the CPC and the NDP the LPC or some other party occupying that space will always be there.

Agreed, abstaining is indeed the coward’s way out, look how well that tactic worked for Dion. This was a golden opportunity for Layton to show the voters that he can make a decision and stick to it. He said he'd prop the CPC up until he got "his" EI changes so why not do so? You can't both support and not support the government at the same time, there's no real neutral ground in a parliamentary system.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/01/...ent-ndp305.html So no real surprise, the CPC survived the confidence motion. NDP decided to abstain from voting on the motion. I can't seem to recall which party leader it was that would abstain from confidence motions all the time... I'm sure it'll come back to me soon. Anyway if the NDP want to support the CPC in their EI reforms fine do so. Vote no on the confidence motion. Abstaining is the same thing given the parliamentary make up. It seems to me that, as usual the NDP are tyring to stand on priciple without having to deal with the consequences. They're not opposing the government directly and they're also trying to appear as though they're not supporting the government either, even though by default they did as both the BLOC and the LPC voted in favour of the confidence motion. So what excuse will the NDP use to the support the CPC come next confidence motion? The list is growing short indeed.

I'm in complete agreement Wild Bill; we are all responsible for the choices we make regardless of the ramifications. It all comes down to choice and I don't believe the government should ban tobacco or alcohol. If anything I'm a firm believer in lifting more bans in society and taxing them. As you said people have the right to go to hell their own way, and they will do so regardless of the illegality of it. Sadly the legal precedent has already been set. BC and NB were both successful in their suits if I'm not mistaken. It's only a matter of time before all provinces do the same. It unfortunate that they are suing the tobacco companies considering they tax tobacco so heavily, to me this is little more than double dipping for revenue. You've already taxed the consumer and the company, so let's hit the company up again.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...nt-tobacco.html The Ontario government is the third province to take legal actions on this matter, and likely the rest of the other provinces won't be far behind. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I'm inclined to believe that everyone is responsible for the choices they make, and if someone chooses to smoke despite the clear and well published health risks it's their choice and they have to live with the consequences. That includes any associated health costs. IMV the tobacco industry shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of their customers. OTOH we do in fact have a universal health system which all Canadians who have any illness are able to use. As this is publically funded it essentially means that as a non-smoker I'm paying for someone else’s poor habits. Should we then exclude smokers from coverage on any smoking related illnesses? If we take that approach where do we draw the line? Should those people who are overweight due to poor eating habits and lack of exercise who go in for heart problems, type 2 diabetes or other weight related health issues not be covered? Same applies to alcohol and other substance health issues. Where do we draw the line and is that a can of worms we really want to open? Should the government be allowed to sue the tobacco companies? Is it really their fault? The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act states they can in fact do this, but I guess I'm more inclined to make the smokers foot the bill rather than the tobacco companies. Again I'm quite back and forth on the issue and I'd be interested to know where some of the rest of you stand.

Per usual you ignore the facts that contradict your view that the NDP can do no wrong and all actions they undertake regardless of how much of a flip flop, or hypocritical they are, are beyond repute. The LPC has stayed in and around the 30% mark on average. If we average the NDP it's lower then there election results. Low mark being 12% the high around 18%, that puts them around their traditional 15% mark. I guess this goes to show that the NDP should focus on showing the electorate that they do stand by their principles rather than bad mouthing the LPC all the time. The NDP are supposed to be an opposition party, yet they've apparently lost their appetite to oppose and their support will only suffer over the long term as a result.

Two interesting things about this poll is it confirms the steady downward trend of the NDP and how the Greens are up or about the same in almost all regions. I can't believe the Green Numbers in BC I don't think they've been this close to the 20's ever before.

Umm there was a hidden federal sales tax prior to the GST, Federal sales tax is not new it's just simply out in the open now. I honestly don't understand how you can be a fan of income tax/payroll tax over a consumption tax that really makes no sense. If a lower income earner had their earnings wihout tax they would be able to better afford those essentials especially considering the tax credit that would follow. Food and rent are not subject to HST this is what I was referring to as essentials. Internent and even a car isn't an essential. As for the bus there is a federal tax credit for that also. The reason that Sales taxes are in fact progressive is because the reality is the more money you earn the more money you have to spend on taxable items, ergo you pay more tax. While income/payroll taxes are also structured this way, loosely at least, you don't have a choice as to whether or not you wish to pay these. Consumption taxes are for the most part voluntary. If I want to save my money and not spend it on big screen tv's, iPod's, vacations etc. I can do so. If I do I'll pay tax on those items. Are some essentials taxed? Yes, they are but that is why the tax credit is setup to protect lower income earners. Again its a little bit backward to tax what people earn as opposed to what they spend. I don't disagree that the definition of "essential" should be broadened somewhat, but that doesn't make consumption tax any less progressive just because it isn't necessarily implemented correctly at this juncture.

I agree. There's no sense complaining about taxes it's one of the only two certainties in life. This is definitely the most progressive taxation method. It's one of the main things that ticked me off about the Harper government when they reduced the GST. Consumption tax is the absolute best and most fair tax there is. Tax what people spend not what they earn. The more you spend on non essentials the more tax you pay. That's fair and it protects those in lower income brackets as they still don't pay taxes on essentials and will likely get an increase in rebate. Anything that makes taxation more efficient will save the tax payer money in the long run. Income tax is outdated and needs to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible. The only way to achieve this is through consumption tax.

So you honestly believe that the NDP will manage to squeeze more out of the CPC? How much beef do you think you'll get out of the committee? Where was this NDP "can do" attitude on previous confidence motions? Where was their drive to champion EI benefits then when they voted no? The LPC proposals were far more comprehensive then this weak sauce tripe the CPC is baiting the NDP with. Do you think the leopard has suddenly changed his spots and a new era of parliamentary cooperation will reign under the benevolent hand of Mr. Harper; rainbows and kittens all around perhaps? The sole blight on the whole socialist utopia being the evil, apathetic liberal dissidents? I don't doubt for a minute that most of the politicians want to help Canadians, yes that includes the NDP, the CPC, the Bloc and the LPC, but their respective versions of "helping" are often diametrically opposed, none more so then that of the CPC and the NDP. Mr. Layton himself was quoted earlier in the fall after his meeting with Mr. Harper that the NDP was the least likely to support the CPC because of the ideological differences and the fact they don't agree with the direction they are taking the country. Now with the direction the CPC are heading is relatively unchanged yet they're garnering the support of the NDP. Again "helping" Canadians is a term relative to your ideological perspective. Suffice to say it looks very bad that the NDP who were so adamantly against the direction of the Harper government has now reversed course now that the LPC won't support them. If the NDP wants to be official opposition, fine let them, but I think they're in for a surprise if they think Mr. Harper has been shown the error of his ways and will play nice. I guess we shall have to wait and see how this all plays out.

So the question still remains, if the ONLY reason Jack and the NDP are supporting the CPC is because of this lack luster EI bill what excuse will they come up with after that? You know as well as anyone else on this forum that extended benefit changes the CPC are doing aren't even close to what the NDP wanted. Not to mention the NDP weren't even consulted on the matter so they can't even claim it was their doing. The only principle Layton is standing on at this point is he's likely to lose seats if an election is called. Can you in all honesty say that the EI package is even remotely what the NDP wanted? Or is it a rather convenient excuse to start supporting the CPC, one Mr. Harper just happened to throw out when he learned the LPC were going to vote no confidence?

Well if the bill is expedited the NDP will have no reason to continue supporting the CPC, yet strangely they will and no doubt find an even flimsier excuse to do so. Please explain how the CPC's plan is even remotely close to what the NDP were asking for. Like I said this isn't the least bit about principles and every bit about not being prepared for an election. Funny how Layton's tune changes when he doesn't have the LPC to take the fall for proping up the CPC.

Actually that's a really smart move on Ignatieff's part. If the only reason the NDP are supporting the CPC is to see this motion pass they will have no reason to vote against the confidence motion in October. It will force the NDP to continue to support the CPC in spite of their principles or vote for an election come October. The pressure is really being put on the NDP to put their money where their mouth has been for the last year. Let's see if they have the wherewithal to do so. FYI you probably don't want to copy and paste an entire article as the mods don't like that.