nicky10013

That's exactly it. Just a few weeks ago, economists began predicting a W shaped recession curve in that we've had a collapse, infrastructure spending and other forms of stimulus essentially stopped us from a complete collapse but when these funds out people are starting to predict more often that despite this last bit of growth there's going to be another crash. Predicted for september/octoberish. Considering how the markets opened up september it isn't a good sign. Though, the fall months have historically been bad. In the end I don't think anyone blames Stephen Harper for the recession, people are just upset that, for an economist, he couldn't see this coming or didn't want to see it coming when EVERYONE else did. Sure our banking system is fine but when 85% of our exports in an export based economy mind you go to a country which is imploding, it doesn't take a fool to realize that we'll feel it too. This doesn't mean its the end of the world but still, the economy is hurting. Ironically it was Trudeau (I believe) who said that when the elephant sneezes the mouse catches a cold. Surely enough, this turned out to be the case.

Ignatieff like most Liberals seem to be more and more 3rd way liberals. Ignatieff, Chretien, Martin, Clinton, Obama and most importantly Tony Blair as he founded the 3rd Way, though all with different political abilities (some obviously better than others) have a general common thread in their ideology. They pursue the benefits of free trade and economic liberalisation (a more right of centre stance) combined with the social programmes, benefit and the general safety net at home. This formula created 23 million jobs in the states, many jobs here, and multiple governments for both Labour, the Liberals and Clinton. Seems to me to be a pretty solid basis for government. It isn't neoliberal or neoconservative. Also, ironically, there may be some workings of a deal between the Bloc and the Conservatives as per CBC news.

In the end, every single person the government refuses to bring back has been a person of colour. Not to mention the fact that they refused to move on many Canadians who were stranded during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. It took a month for Harper to get transport together even though it's the Canadian government's duty to help citizens get out of harm's way. We can debate what citizenship should merit, but until the tenents of citizenship are changed, Harper has the sovereign duty to help nationals stranded abroad. To contrast this example is the ONLY case of a citizen stranded abroad speedily brought home was that woman CONVICTED in Mexico (a democratic state, before abuse starts being hurled toward their court system). She was whisked away from those pesky Mexicans and brought home to a hero's welcome and she just happened to be a white Christian woman from Alberta. Furthermore, it DOES have a lot to do with the PMO. Decisions of this nature are, believe it or not made at the ministerial level. The immigration minister and the Prime Minister have the ability to stay deportations, get immigration through period etc. Examples of this scale would be dealt by the minister's office. That's how it works and considering how tightly he controls his cabinet, Harper is responsible. As for the original posting I think people are biting at fallacies. How can you spend and reduce the deficit? Well, you can. In the end, the stimulus money is temporary which is exactly what Ignatieff asked for to begin with. If all things go well, it gets the economy going, tax revenues will go up and the deficit comes down in addition to the these billions of dollars coming off the books for the next year. Here in lies the problem. NONE of the money has gotten out yet and these projects are waiting to start or communities have had to take out loans to start work before the construction season ends. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Conservatives are using recovery money for political gains, in that they're going to underspend (causing slower recovery) and claim this as sound fiscal management with tax payers. They never believed we were going into recession and never believed we needed stimulus and considering the fact that though countries are re-emerging from recession now (apparently) and Canada has the slowest growth rate in the G7 is proof of this politically motivated handling of our economy. It's a joke, really. The reason why Ignatieff needs to come up with a plan is because Harper, with his unwise tax cuts created structural deficits. The point is and will be that Canada was officially in deficit BEFORE the recession stimulus spending. People seem to forget that convenient fact. Now, Conservatives conveniently can point to the recession and say..."it wasn't our fault" and people will eat that up as well when it isn't really the point. The fact is these clowns have been mismanaging the economy since the day they entered office. "Oh no" says Harper "of course there won't be a recession, here!" Anyone with a brain knows that if the US goes into recession so do we. Even supposed economists. Clearly Harper dropped out of U of T a little too early.

It's not like Ignatieff wasn't leading at the convention. Gerard Kennedy decided to play kingmaker and that was that.

People like him because he says what he thinks and he says what he thinks because he has nothing to lose. It's not like he has the chance to be PM. Same goes with Jack Layton. He can sound like a dick because in the end he doesn't really have to worry about pissing voters off. He's going to get the same 10% as he always does.

I think he gets another kick at the can as long as he doesn't do as bad as Dion as another poster commented. The real reason behind this is because there isn't anyone other than Ignatieff that actually has a shot at winning government. There's Romeo Leblanc, Justin Trudeau which might do well but the biggest name out there as we all know is Bob Rae and there isn't a hope in hell of him winning seats in Ontario and there goes the election. I don't think Ignatieff will do anywhere nearly as bad as Dion however. The party is already infinetly more organized than it was under Ignatieff. They have all their candidates lined up, the party is finally debt free and actually has a few million in the war chest, they've got a campaign plane on standby and just finalized a massive ad-buy for next week. Furthermore, having a leader that actually speaks english is going to be a boon for the party (no offense to Mr. Dion, but we all know thats a pretty big reason for the past failure). Not to mention the fact that if Jumpin Jack destroyed Harper in the last election debate, how much easier will it be for a Harvard/Oxford professor? A lot of negativity swirls around Ignatieff simply due to doubt. People haven't heard much from him. Due to this fact I think for once the debate is going to be the swingpoint of the election. There's a possibility of 3 results. 1) Hey, this guy is actually smart and articulate I'm going to vote for him. 2) I don't care what he has to say, he's smug and arrogant and I don't need him lecturing me form his ivory tower. 3) He's not a Canadian and I was never going to vote for him anyway. I hope it's number 1 but time will tell. Anything can happen. The polls are essentially tied. It's going to be a tight election and unless there's a MAJOR scandal we'll have another minority parliament. Should be an exciting two months!

Thats fine and I didn't disagree with the fact that there are attacks against Harper. However, the fact that I'm new doesn't change anything; as if you stating facts magically changes something in this argument.

I did work part time through all of university; for 4 years....I said thousands which automatically turned into thousands and thousands. Even then, that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that you never get it back.

Oh, what a surprise...the "you're a newbie argument." Though I have no doubt some shill comes from the left, the fact that you're essentially accusing me of not being able to read is somewhat offensive. Furthermore, was my example exaggerated? Somewhat, but when you read gutter dwelling liberal vermin, there's no other example to turn to.

In some Toronto newspapers they have. Fact is, if you look at the two leaders professional qualifications, Ignatieff is more qualified hands down. He has taught at Oxford, Harvard and has been a journalist in the UK and abroad (covered the war and genocide in Yugoslavia). IF anyone understands the way the world works and how Canada should interact in the globe, it's probably Ignatieff. In the end, the world is globalizing at a rapid pace and being around matters less and less when one can keep up with national headlines and problems daily. The fact that the conservatives have become so anti-intellectual shows that they understand that this is Ignatieff's strength and need to turn it into a weakness by simply declaring that he didn't live in Canada and therefore isn't worthy as a Canadian leader. Understandably, this works to the conservative base and people who don't know much about Ignatieff. Though being outside of Canada could be looked upon as a detriment, the fact is the issues we face as a country today aren't that much different from those faced by other countries in terms of economics and national unity. The fact that he spent his entire life (whether in Canada or out of it) lecturing on these issues shows that he has a greater ability to produce a plan towards a possible solution (lets be honest, everything we face is a long term problem). Finally, the way the anti-Liberal hatred on this site is espoused is absolutely appalling. Everything anti-Harper is Liberal fabricated lies. I even saw one post to the effect of calling Liberals gutter dwelling vermin. All Canadians of every stripe, whether we agree with them or not, is trying to do what's best for Canada. There's no need for this propaganda. We can disagree without bringing up these extremely disturbing stereotypes. I'm currently reading Saul Friedländer's Nazi Germany and the Jews. Without trying to sound too dramatic (which is impossible when making a reference of this kind), some posts you could substitute liberals with jews and things read here would be absolutely Hitler-esque, which to me is infintely disturbing as to how much of a divide there is between left and right now-a-days. It used to be that the Liberals and Conservatives were essentially the same party with some differences here and there. Now, the discontent being fostered by many is leading to this kind of garbage.

You don't get EI back on your return. As an ex-university student I paid thousands into EI working part time and never saw a cent back. That and CPP. If you don't pay anything labelled "income tax" on your paystub, you don't get it back. The most you get, at least in Ontario, is a 150 dollar school credit which is laughable.

But your first point proves mine entirely. There are companies and corporations donating money, just not enough. We know 1,000,000 people come to Pride Toronto every year. How can the government stand idly by and not give money that would go to security knowing that the sponsors won't be able to make up the difference in terms of cost? People might get hurt and less people show up the next year. For that little bit of money, the economic return is huge! It's an investment that comes back through tax dollars anyways. If Canadians are so tight that they can't see the economic benefit and only the fact that its tax dollars being spent, then what's the point of having a debate? Since when SHOULDN'T the government actually be making sound economic investment decisions? Is it going to have to come to the point where we get rid of all government spending to make conservatives happy?

In the end, his position supporting "liberty" would've wreaked havoc on the Canadian political system and it doesn't take a political scientist to realise it. The right of political recall? Really???? There's a difference between best theory and best practice and republicanism surely isn't best practice. Despite how nice he is, he still goes in the nut job camp for me, at least. On Mulroney, the point is true, however, the fact remains that his government was heavily punished on its' record which is what democracy is all about. To turn the republican = democracy argument on its head, I had a professor give an interesting overview of the American system. His argument was that the system itself is anti-democratic at its core. The only thing democratic about the system was the fact that people are voted in to office. The founding fathers were so afraid of tyranny, that they wouldn't allow people to vote in majority governments like we do here. In essence, they didn't want their leaders to do much for fear that they'd steal power.Canada weathered the storm, we never reverted to authoritarianism. Why switch to a system that has outlived its use?

No, the reform was started by a group of right wing nutjobs unhappy about the way Mulroney was destroying the Conservatives. Also, I fail to see your point about Mulroney. He went from the largest majority in history to 2 seats in the HoC. He lost his mandate. Democracy in action.

I think regionalism has become an ideology in and of itself, not to mention the fact that the conservative base is more or less regionally distributed. They can pander to both their western AND religious base by hating on the east and gays at the same time. Also, in the end, what people are forgetting is that these festivals put this stuff on for free and private backers have already been found. You can't tell me that Pride, Caribanna and the Stampede DON'T already have corporate backers. The money is there to make up the gap and ensure that festivals with a reasonable chance of success and growth in the future make sure they can put on a successful show. The economic benefit is through restaurants, bars, touris shops and local business. If 150,000 in government spending, despite people's ideological rhetoric against government spending of this nature, boosts profits in business by a million or two the investment is completely worth it. I honestly wonder how much is recovered through tax revenue; I'm willing to be a lot. The fact that the Conservatives are using the programming politically isn't shocking but it sure is disgusting since it's supposed to help bolster the community's economy. I thought as government they represented ALL of Canada? Oh well, no votes lost anyway.

Says the guy who has never gone through it. Oh wait, you don't need to be told. You just know.

I had a CT the next day.

Possibly. I think it needs study which is why I think town halls are the best way to go about it. And I don't think that it's COMPLETELY as two tiered as people think in Europe. I remember seeing a global news spot on Swiss care and from the spot it made it seem as if as far as it went was paying for private rooms in hospitals etc. Though I clearly could be mistaken.

Personally, I blame geography. People in Toronto like me won't wait at all whereas people in the north have gigantic wait times. It's something we need to fix, for sure. There are clear problems with the system like this. Personally, if I were in parliament, I would hold town halls across the country to discuss our system in comparison with systems like Britain and France and which areas the cover better and which areas they cover are worse, but granted also don't suffer some of the geographical problems that Canada does. Town halls themselves might not get much done at first but discussion is the first step towards bringing non-essential, and yes, even essential wait times under control. It's everyone's health care system and although I despise populism, talking to everyone is needed simply due to the fact that we need to know what works the best for each community.

If the Liberals had a majority and a mandate, doesn't that mean they therefore have the voice of the people?

Telling people to get a job doesn't admit the fact that a vast amount of people who can't afford care do have jobs and can't afford care because costs of skyrockted so much despite it being a free market system. But who cares about them? I also do believe that people deserve health care. Though we can't physically provide care for people in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite how unpragmatic my position may be is that everyone regardless of where they come from or where they go should be given health care when they enter the country. As you say, it's the humanitarian thing to do. Also, how dare I question your knowledge of the Canadian health care system when not only have I gone through the system but all of my family. Of course there are waits, however, they're no where near as catastrophic as you or other free market conservatives believe. Non-essential services you wait for, but you will be seen if you're ill. What's the point of defending the Declaration of Independence when you clearly don't uphold the values it proscribes? Why not go all the way? Let Blackwater take over the entire pentagon. Get rid of it all! Government fire sale! Soon enough, libertarian conservatives will get their wish: the United States of Somalia.

Health Care is a right. Being helathy enables people to actively participate in the economy or in politics; to have their voice heard. Health Care is something that transcends human economic activity. In the end, farmers making money off of crops and housing developers making money off of houses isn't the same thing as insurance companies making money when people die. And though of course you're family may not be better, the fact that you have more money, like you said, makes you better off. In the end, if a person with less money who can't afford health insurance isn't any worse of a person than you, and say you both come down with cancer at the same time, why should he have a greater chance of dying? Because you have more money? In essence, you're for the government limiting the choice of 45 million Americans who can't get insurance. How is that any better than the government limiting your choices. In the end, you get health insurance. Under the free market, they do not. Also, you're talking as though the government actually limits your options. Here you have the choice to choose your GP or which hospital to go to, or what specialist you'd like to see. The system works in the exact same way as it does in the states, with the exception that instead of the bill going to a private insurer, it goes to the government. Another fallacy you've probably eaten up from these phony anti-Canadian health care ads you see in the states. What will I sacrafice for the sub-saharan Africans? There's not alot I as a person can do. In the end, I would imagine that providing them with opportunities to grow their economy through free trade and more open markets would be the first step. A second step would be alotting more refugees access to Canada. The demographic shift is going to be huge in upcoming years and immigration is one way to help cushion the effects. In the Charter it actually reads life, liberty and security of the person. Also, Communism is when the ENTIRE system is under control, not just a sector like health care. If you hate "communism" so much, why don't you contract out military, police, or fire services to private companies? If anything, they save lives like health care does. So what makes them different?

Alright, I must've misread. It also sounds like we're on the same page.

I'm all for the saving of history and wouldn't argue against looking at the history of Catholicism in Quebec, but please, I'm ignorant on the matter, which unfinished endeavours are you referring to?

No offense, but your family is not better than the rest of society and have no more right to medical care than anyone else. I agree with private markets but people's lives can't be trifled with in that way, in the end, we're all people and all have the same right to live. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I guess that doesn't really matter anymore. If it's illegal to sell organs then why is it legal for insurance companies to be making money off of people with cancer? Whether you think its communist or not, it's not something that should be left to profiteers so they can scalp money from dying people, especially when the private market neither helps people get coverage or makes it cheaper. The fact that you think your family would be stiffled in a queue also shows how little you know about socialised medicine. Fact is, , despite Canada's shortcomes, and there are a lot, government is the best way to distribute health care. It's equitable and it costs quite a bit less. There's no libertarian argument that can make that untrue.