takeanumber

Meh, Free Trade is Good Trade, IMO. But concentrated free trade isn't so much good trade.

Thx for the primer on the Federal Budget August. I don't think we have what I'm proposing now. I don't see why you'd be so hostile towards the proposal. Some of the current incentives (labour hoarding) are wrong. If you want to explain to me why labour hoarding incentives are right, please explain why so. I never said I was God, nor did I imply it. Lobbying? True. For more on how the Federal Budget is put together, please refer to "Governing From The Centre", Savoie, 2001, Chapter 6, "Let There Be No Light" is especially relevant. When it comes to socialism, I have one stance: it denies market forces. And any system that ignores market forces is one condemed to failure. Apparently the world does have too many 'system builders', probably because too many people self-style themselves as such. Now really August, you must stop these personal attacks. The whole "Quite something! War Room type of stuff" and implying that I'm a socialist is really quite too much. Moreover, I suspect I know quite a bit more about the history of budget making than the average citizen, so I'd appreciate a reduction in your sarcasm. Regards, takeanumber.

Equality is a pretty fundamental value when it comes to Canadian healthcare. It's not just for a captain of industry like Milton or Martin to get superior healthcare while retired soldiers would get inferior healtcare, all on the basis of incomes. As we've seen here on these boards, a few people have a problem with equality, so for them, this point will be moot. But just because it's moot point for them doesn't make it so. It's a value call. If a captain of industry is so incredibly superior, they can afford to go down to the United States and burden their system, just don't expect the rest of us to pick up the tab, compensate them in any way, or lay awake crying into our pillows for them.

You can't have a private system without starving the public system.

Well, you asked for the quotes, I delivered. I was careful to select the quotes that were in context. They're your words, regards, Takeanumber. I don't favour blanket tax cuts. If there are tax cuts to be made, then they should be used as incentives for future objectives. For instance, 1.tax credits for cutting emmissions. 2.Tax credits for the armed forces. (One way to increase their wages would be to exclude them from taxes.) [if you're fighting for this country, maybe you're doing your duty as a citizen and deserve to be excluded from taxes?] 3. Increased tax credits for people with kids. 4. Increased tax credits for single mothers/fathers. (Might reduce abortions if they got better support.) So, those are just my ideas on how tax policy can be used as a carrot to effect change.

3 way race in BC. And here John Renolds was on last night saying that they could sweep the province. Thank you for posting the SES polls.

WRT Taxation policy. Taxation policy is a powerful tool that can be used to cause all sorts of change. I believe that tax incentives are much more powerful than government grant and subsidies in achieving objectives. (The Carrot is superior to the Stick). Here are some ideas: 1. Tax seasonal industries that abuse EI for labour hoarding. (If you're from Atlantic Canada, and don't know what labour hoarding is, you need to PM me so I can explain the effects of EI on the Maritime economy.) 2. Give tax breaks for companies conducting research in Saskatechewan, Northern Ontario, Eastern Quebec, and Altantic Canada. 3. Give a 1 year tax moratorium for all first time entrepreuneurs, phasing in the taxes up to the correct amount over 5 years. (This would include a 65yo who is starting their first business.) 4. Give plastics companies in Alberta a break on taxes. 5. Introduce negative income tax to eliminate the 'traps'. 6. Work in tax incentives into a national Kyoto carbon credit market.

@Argus/August: sorry for the Eatme remark. I shouldn't be pandering to personal attacks. From Argus to Take (This thread, May 30): First personal attack from Willy(This thread, May 30): From Argus (This thread, May 30): Willy on Citizenship (Intergenerational) Argus on 'my generation' (intergenerational). Argus, next post, on 'my generation' (interngeneration) Takeanumber, to Argus (intergenerational) Anti-French sentiment, Argus (Billingualism) More from the same thread. There are more blanket statements with a similar undercurrent. Argus on Immigration (Immigration thread) May 22 Another one, same post. In the same post, Argus writes: This statement is somehow supposed by tempered by the next: Hiljamer (May 23) same thread: Argus, on Muslims (ibid.) Argus, on rights (ibid.) Argus, generalizing immigrants (ibid.) Here's August responding to Argus (good job!) Argus (Ibid) (emphasis added by me).Here's Argus (Ibid), anticipating how his Chinese statement should be defended, in a way that's classic: And another.... And another.... And another.... Argus....again, trying to defend his previous statements: Another one, this time we're going economic: A repeat of the 2000 election statements. (Argus, Ibid) Argus, expressing another classic conservative mantra. Takeanumber, on relative rates of return. (This should have been prefaced with a discussion of tax wedges and ingrained culture in the provinces of NB and Sask.) Yeh, it was a mean thing to say, and I feel aweful for disparaging my own people. I still think it's true though, por lo generale. More by Argus (Ibid) Argus showing off his Academe, combined with personal attack (again). Mongomery Burns (This thread) Alright, so I'm going to back down from my blanket assertion that all small c conservatives window dress their true feelings. I now realize that there does in fact exist a decent small c conservative. However, I am going to continue to attack positions (not people) who: Use patriotism (arguements along the lines of "who are you to <<blank>> when our veterans died for <<blank>> not for your <<blank>>.), to bolster their positions. Use Jonesism (arguements along the lines of "robbing Peter to pay Pierre", resentment of hearing French, resentment of any program designed to improve the use of French, and the spread of French influence in general.), to bolster their positions. Use xenophobia (arguements along the lines of "preservation of 'Canadian' culture, accuse others of being bigots for pointing out their own bigotry.) Use blind populism to justify policy (arguements along the lines that jews/homosexuals can be sent to the ovens if the majority decides to do so, or any other violation of the Charter.) Misuse market economics to justify positions (arguements such as 'the market doesn't apply to us', markets don't fail.) I won't be egged on by personal attacks. I'm not going to use personal attacks from now on. Regards, Takeanumber.

Doesn't that defeat one of the core purposes of PR, one person one vote? That is of course, if you believe that one person is entitled to one vote.

No: I wouldn't go so far to call moderate conservatives 'Nazis'. I said that the lines of logic have been reminiscent of an intellectual COR-Nazi-Conservative shin-dig. The denegrading language about women, immigrants, jews and homosexuals are also very similar to what has been said repeatedly by aptly named 'small c conservatives'. d00d, that is so 1986. Nice attempt at trying to be 'hip'. I think why the main offenders, Argus, August and AllianceF are getting so mad is because I'm not supposed to actually reveal how true conservative logic works. I have a conservative friend. He's a great guy. But when you make statements that are very strongly similar to the COR party, or neo-Nazi rallies, or at Conservative luncheons, you know, you're going to get called on it.

I'd say they're over the edge on that front.

It's pretty neat how they do polls. Because the way the math works out, they only really need 3100 people for a good national sample. The problem is that these national samples suck for inferring regional results. I've done data analysis and found that they only interviewed 8 francophones outside Quebec etc... Chances are good you'll go your entire life without anybody ever calling you. I've been called exactly once. I agree. 'bandwagon effect'.

I'd hazard to say only around 20 percent of all Americans label themselves a 'liberal'. (and not 'liberal' in the small 'l' sense either, it has a different meaning that's nuanced.) That said, I don't think there's too much support for making Canada a 51st state. 26 million more liberals to deal with. (And 3 million moderate republicans, with 750,000 hard republicans and 250,000 very hard, right wing republicans) Moreover, there are a few other issues...Western Alienation is a pretty strong force down in the States too, but it's way more acute. I should make another post on that topic. That said, I don't think there is much danger of takeover. As for 'are we too dependant', I think we are 'dependant', and it becomes a question as to how much dependancy is too much dependancy? What is it? 85 percent of all our trade is with them...is that too much? I'd like to see is lower, because of hedging. I mean, I'd love to see MORE TRADE with the US, because free trade is good trade, but I'd like to see the proportion of trade go down, which means getting MORE TRADE with other countries too. It's like keeping your eggs in one basket right now, and it's not a sound hedging strategy.

Stop saying bigotted things about women (calling them whores now, are we?), immigrants (especially muslims), francophones, jews and homosexuals, and I won't have to call you a bigot. But when you give me cause to say that you're a bigot, then you're a bigot. And by me refering to you as a bigot isn't bigotry, it's merely pointing out a fact. Every single Conservative here has either posted something bigotted outright, or has used lines of logic which are reminiscent of an intellectual COR-Nazi-Conservative shin-dig. Are we clear?

They get the government they deserve in Alberta. (The map is also gettymandered.) It's a shame that Echo-ists won't vote/don't vote. If you think Gen X is pretty cynical, the Echo-ists will be worse. It's kinda circular logic. You can't get people to vote unless they're talked to about issues that matter, issues that matter won't be discussed unless the youth get out to vote. Aw well. And Age Bubbles happen. They're exogenous factors. But, you can certainly control how much a generation chooses to pass on (or chooses not too.). Still, boomers shouldn't get a tax cut on the basis of age/health/infrastructure policy options. I'm putting my solution forward, I havn't heard anybody here give a good answer. (Just more red herring throwing.) Regards, Takeanumber.

Eat me. Every respondant has tried, and failed, to justify their pillaging on the next generation. Lower taxes today, and they'll have to go up by 2012. The Echo-ists will NOT be able to benefit fully from those tax cuts. You can't justify them, because they're unjustifiable.

And Conservatives can? lolz, kee, kee, kee.

Agreed.

@Sully. Congrats for graduating. Alright, let's compare the contribution that somebody born in 1920 made to somebody born in 1950, and then we'll compare what that 1950'ite handed down to somebody born in 1980. Sounds fair? Alright, somebody born in 1920 spent their childhood during the roaring 20's, and then spent their early adulthood during the great depression. They went off to fight world war 2, and defeated the Nazi's. The returned home, breeded, and then built dams, massive amounts of infrastructure and so on, all while reducing the debt from 140% of GDP to 50% of GDP in just twenty years. The Boomers inherited a country that was fiscally sound (low debt/GDP ratio), a terrific education (that was cheap too!) and tons of new infrastructure. They also inherited some debt, but not too much because of their parents efforts. Now, what did the Echo-ists inherit? Let's see: an 80% debt/GDP ratio (when you take into account provincial and municipal debt), no new infrastructure really to speak of (No new dams, overcrowded schools, universities, highways, hospitals, old Nuclear plants). The Boomers, instead of making wise investment decisions with the debt, instead chose to live high on the hog, using money that the previous generation had used to build things, and instead used the money for day-to-day expenditure. And when the interest rate - growth rate differential reversed in 1981? Nope, you guys just kept right on spending. The Echo-istes got screwed on their education by cutbacks just as it was their turn to be 'carried' during the first years of their lives. The Echo-istes got really screwed by University because suddenly - the rules were different for them. And we still get saddled with your debt, for which, you really have little show for. Does it feel good? Now, we're in 2004. We're getting ready for you to start retiring, and what do you do? You want more tax cuts at a time when we're supposed to be saving and getting infrastructure ready for your transition into your senior years. I know of several boomers who are quite aware of this inequity, and they don't want tax cuts. They don't want tax increases. They know what's comming up. But, I know several boomers, mainly conservatives, who dare to say, "Suck it up, cupcake, because it's our right not to pay taxes, and you should be thankful for us, because of all the wonderful things we did, and even though we sold out, and, er...er...YA!" Anyway, nobody here has said anything to justify Harper's or Martin's tax cuts on the basis of intergenerational equity. If you're so 'wise', why do you avoid the question repeatedly? Not my generation. Echo-istes havn't. Need we revisit the aboriginal question? Didn't think so. It's all immigrants and PC'ers that are causing the trouble. I'm simply too tired right now to discuss how immigration relates to intergenerational equity, and I doubt that you'd even read it. So I'm going to assume this was just a red herring to distract me from the real point of this thread: intergenerational equity. First time anybody has ever asked. If I type it out here, based on past threads, nobody will read it, and fewer will respond, instead choosing red herrings. If you're really interested, PM me. There are about a dozen policy options that are quite attractive. My boss is actually a boomer, and he knows all of this, lol. I explained all of these points during a workshop. And he agrees on the fiscal side of the intergenerational equity aspect of the arguement. It's fiscally prudent to prepare for the big demographic shift that's about to happen. I don't mind *most* boomers. Most boomers havn't sold out. It's the small 'c' hypocrite types that are the funniest. Sadly, government and opposition are dominated by them. NDP incompetence is no excuse for Conservative incompetence. They both suck.

I'm a person, not a peacock. And you confuse intelligence and confidence with arrogance and self-filling. I suspect that you're not used to being presented with alternative policy choices by somebody else. White males 45+ don't have a monopoly on public policy and politics. It must be very distressing for you to see somebody challenge you from an angle you can't quite work around.

Agreed.

Alright, here we go again. I have the right to call a Conservative a bigot if they are bigots. It's called pointing out a fact. I'm not desparaging an entire group based on a few people. I'm desparaging 15% because THEY ARE exactly like all the ones I know. If I meet a few people who defy what I've seen so far, that 15% number can be revised. So far, havn't met anybody who has surprised me. Nice try though. I enjoy arguing with the Grade 12 set. That you did. I'm not NDP. I think I dated a Reform-COR person back in the 1990's. She was pretty anti-French and really, really racist, but in denial about it, you know, kinda like you Argus. What's going to continue to drive you crazy is that you can't identify which political party I belong to, as these positions are very strange because you can't quite think properly. And I'm having a good time with it. Where do we start on this? Alright Argus, you're on record here. lolz, kee, kee, kee. Hmmmm. I think the best thing to say at this juncture is that I buy my clothing mainly from The Bay. I havn't shopped at the GAP for quite a few years. I really like Docker's pants and they have these pretty neat jean-like materials. I do own a PS2. But I'm not addicted to it. Let's tackle the newspaper issue shall we? Ah, I read the Globe and Mail and The Economist (a habit that a friend of mine's father, a university prof., got me doing back in the mid 1990's.) I read the daily telegraph. I watch 'Politics with Don Newman' everyday (I tape it), and I watch the BBC World Service (Not on PBS or CBC, but the real deal, in the morning and late at night.), and I watch 'The National'. Occassionally I pick up the Herald if there's a major article by an elite, but most of the time it's just shlock. The fact that I'm very familiar with the Church abuse scandal, the denial of voting rights to aboriginals, the Alberta Eugenics program, Japanese internment, the Caraquet incident, the Assumption, Botsford, George Brown, et al., should be proof enough of my knowledge of Canadian history. For instance, can you, sir Argus, tell me which party George Brown belonged to? Can you relate to me the similarities between then and now? What are the key differences? Explain your answer. I don't think you can, even if you try to use the Internet. Be sure to reference your answer correctly, as the Klein method of writing (Internet) just won't do. Now that you have met somebody who is an exceptional Echo-ist, perhaps an apology is in order, hmmmm? I am clearly not like the rest of the Echo-ists, but I posit that your continued ignorant attitude towards anything non-English and non-Old-Fart is very representative of your political creed.

I'm not a Dino either. It's called citizenship. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept? (Although I know your generation has the habit of denying citizenship to any minority you see fit.) Yes, all of this in spite of the cut backs. Certainly, not thanks to, the cut backs. I wouldn't say that. Check out the Atco 'centre of excellence' business school and compare it to the Molson Business School. The business community here is chincy, and not particularly good citizens when compared to other major centres. Bingo. Had to leave the Atlantic Provinces because of the unemployment rate. Again, 'go where the jobs are'. I'm a member of entrepreunerial 'class' of my generation. The only sh1t I see is comming from your mouth in trying to justify your pillaging of another generation. And it's funny that you still can't come up with a good justification, so you just go on these little rant-attacks. I'd argue that Klein is just as inept as the NDP in running the province's finances. I mean, the only reason why Alberta isn't in the same boat as BC is because of the oil. Klein just can't contain the pork, always handing out the goodies like paying for RCMP services for some towns etc.. So, don't pat yourself on the back. You've done a terrible job as generation in that you have very few achievements to point to as a legacy. I've already PROVEN that I'm wiser than you. Take a while to appreciate that point. It should have been eliminated 3 years ago. It could have been paid off this year. You know why it wasn't? So he could take credit for it during an election year, costing the Alberta tax payer 300 million dollars. Think about that. Thx mr. Klein for blowing up hospitals and schools. Happy? Alberta is in a dangerous positiong going into the future. Oil don't last forever, and the economy isn't diversifying fast enough. Moreover, there are other extremely serious issues facing Alberta that you don't want to hear about. No arguement there. But the title of the thread is 'Intergenerational Equity'. What I'm not understanding is why life should be made intentionally more fair for you at my expense. Life isn't fair. I'm saddled with a war on terror. Most Canadian boomers got off easy. (No vietnam, and lets face it, it was mostly Busters who fought in the first Iraq war.) That's fine. But this is a factor you boomers CAN control, and yet you're intentionally doing it, and what's worse, you know that you're doing it.