Evening Star

I'm not even sure what b_c's point is. This example (the infant on life-support) is not going to convince many people that socialized health insurance is a failed or unjust policy.

OHIP ('ON bureaucracy') was even willing to pay for him to receive a tracheotomy in Michigan if the Detroit hospital were to accept him. That this American hospital came to the same conclusion as doctors in Ontario suggests that the decision was based on what made the most sense for the child, not based on some cost/rationing principle.

I don't think it's fair to bring up the October Crisis when considering a potential present-day election. But I also haven't seen much yet to suggest that the CPC was responsible for the police abuses in Toronto. Perhaps the inquiry will reveal something but so far, it is the provincial government, OPP, and (especially) Toronto Police who have been implicated. And I say this as a McGuinty voter, not a Harper one.

Bush_Cheney2004 is right insofar as that the Kent State shootings, a much worse abuse of police power than the G20 violations, did not dampen Nixon's political fortunes in the least. He won the 1972 election by a massive landslide.

I'm not sure the rights violations by G20 security can be pinned on Harper though. And Capricorn is right that stimulus spending was largely the opposition's idea. I think opposition to corporate tax cuts would work as an election issue. The NDP is working the HST, which might get them some mileage. Mainly, I think the opposition parties could, and perhaps should, also make the election about their ideas and what they would do differently.

Ha, I didn't notice how old the thread was.

This is extremely unsurprising to me.

I feel like we're speaking different languages. The receipts were on Retail Media letterhead but Retail Media didn't know anything about them and didn't even think they looked like their standard invoices. How are those not faked invoices?

Seems pretty clear.

See post 28 here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18195&st=15

Hm, that makes sense.

What about the falsified receipts, Bill? Does that count as an attempt to hide?

That said, if we want to keep our wages significantly higher and our unions significantly stronger than those in other Great Lakes jurisdictions, it does make some sense to keep corporate taxes lower. It's worth noting that the Nordic countries have relatively low corporate taxes and high consumption taxes and income taxes.

See, they've been saying that the HST is 'revenue-neutral'. (Incidentally, I've never understood why that's supposed to be a selling point for any tax!) So if that's true, then it seems that total tax revenue would actually drop with the corporate tax cuts. (I guess we have 'health premiums' and higher energy rates?) I defend McGuinty's govt a lot but I've got to admit that their tax policies mystify me a little.

Hm, well, it may be interesting to see a Western trade union guy leading the NDP.

Seems unlikely to me. He's way too undiplomatic and focused in his interests/capabilities. Does he even speak any French? (Maybe he does.) Mulcair, for example, seems like a much more likely future leader.

They submitted blatantly false receipts, according to my CBC quote upthread.

Some interesting points there... I'm not convinced that the NDP/Liberal examples given there are actually examples of "in and out" though.

So is this healthy venting or grounds for resignation and a sign of "serious issues that need to be dealt with"? You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for the link. (I'd been searching carefully through the CTV Power Play archives. ) Come on, there's no way that was misogynist. Angry, aggressive, sure. Obnoxious, maybe. But what's the worst thing he said? That she's "full of it"? That she's a disgrace? People say worse in politics all the time. You wouldn't think twice if he'd been speaking to a man. Besides, Hoeppner did seem pretty full of it and seemed to be deliberately antagonizing and provoking him. He didn't need to rise to the bait but it's not grounds for resignation.

Link?

Yes: from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/01/weston-conservative-raid.html

This seems to make it pretty clear that other parties have not been found to pull this particular stunt of transferring money to local campaigns and transferring it back out right away (and then collecting taxpayer-funded rebates): http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1829499694

That chart is amazing, Topaz. Basically, every increase in the debt has come under a Republican president.

Katie O'Malley gives a pretty good explanation of the in-and-out issue in this podcast of The House (click on the audio): http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/05/pol-the-house-layton.html It does seem that no other party has been found to have moved money into riding campaigns and back out. It seems pretty nakedly crooked, right?