Esq

What gets me in all this, and I would hope the G20 might learn from it, and any other major groups is. For the amount of money embezzled or spent on security a small city could be built on a remote island or one of many islands and the overall cost would be considerally less, with much fewer security issues. Tapei 101 cost $1.8 Billion to build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101 They could build one of these things on Say Anticosti Island and house the whole G20.. and be done with it.. why enrage and disrupt local communities with this nonsense. There are many to choose from but what about wolfe island? Why not collect the funds for this from all the members then host there each year? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfe_Island_%28Ontario%29 It doesn't even need to be as big as Taipai 101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Obamacare.

amero anyone?

and naturally buy back the dump.. hoping it might recover or heat my home one day.

If they did raise them by 18% I'd suggest the government just offset the loss of mortgages by stealing them by offering lower rate mortgages from new supply.

Also if you just divided the 1% inflationary increase by about .3% and adjusted interest rates by this same amount I'm geuss the banks would see neglible reason to raise it to 18% for a paltry 1% inflationary supply increase with an eqaul interest rate increase. That 18% sounds like fear mongering to me for a paltry 6 billion over 3 years.

To the government.

To better understand this.. The Conservaitve Party of Canada's irresponsible debt load is really 25 cents on every dollar taxed in terms of "actually economic effect" meaning every dollar has 25 cents less than it did when they came into power (this reflecting a 150 billion dollars in debt spending since they came into office (and yes i realize the number is actually higher) But in the matter of where is 6 billion coming from a 1% inflationary increase would solve the problem. Yes it is in part illusion but if it is "direct costs in Canadian dollars" it would basically nullify the loss.

To more clearly explain this.. 1% inflation works out to 1 cent from every dollar general tax that isn't raised through taxes but instead by creating credit and currency.

Not that I am aware of can you explain this? Inflation is ongoing almost every year but it is the rate of inflation. 6 billion works out from $600 billion about about 1% inflation increase --- I had second thoughts instead of direct paydown it would be better to short the market for example buy a lot of USD and euro, watch the dollar drop and speculators dump then buy back in and pay down.

Sorry French Speaking Quebec only votes for the bloc anyway.

Who cares Quebec only votes for the bloc anyway.

Hows this they buy a stake in pickering airport and land there at as many gates as they manage and operate and pay to build? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Airport

I had the thought they might legalize drugs and tax them to make up the deficit shortfall also. This might produce 6 billion in taxes. Like look at everything that is illegal then put a price tag on it. Easy way to generate revenue from the corrupt rich. Like indulgences.. It worked for the church It might increase tourism too.

Growth. I think it may be a false hope though, there is too much focus on importing of finished goods and too little capacity for canada to produce its own. So most profits go to external sources- that may very well be linked to transnational conglomorates. With a 2 to 3% growth factor though in a tax basis of 200 billion that amounts to 4 to 6 billion revenue per year- However the conservatives are cutting corporate taxes - hoping this translates into increased personal revenue perhaps.. but since the dollar is rising incentive to raise pay rates by this same amount may not be identical. It also means that inflationary printing is more catastrophic because of wage freezes. It has to come from growth - unfortunately the stimulus won't be there as it is compeletely offset, little more than fudging the books because it went to short term almost naught Return on Investment - if this money instead went into capital producing projects. Growth in returns might be realizable, but I am skeptical to see it happen. If the government wasn't spending on debt interst - and they paid the debt down the money spent on stimulus would have been secondary. Provinces would have been forced to create work programs that actually generated income for the provinces, and it would have avoided the need for all the profits going to private companies. In the end essentially it maintained a privatized model of management as opposed to public works capable of return capital. The bottom line here is that NO government can afford to raise taxes. Also tax raises may just be offset by economic slowdown. This whole thing is mostly about who controls the money - not about conditions. The government could print 6 billion if it wanted to elimitate that deficit, but it should be done now while the dollar is still high. Actually deficits should be printed out of existence every year.

The Social Party link seems to indicate some concepts of a responsible society that seems linked to Thatcherism; however that commonality seems to end on the public/private divide. The Social Party talks about heavy monetary controls to adjust the economy at the Federal Level, as opposed to market Keynesian Economics - that is instead of borrowing money, it is created. Instead of having loans, you deflate the economy and redistribute it. Since generally lack of employment does not equate lack of resources, but lack of demand or lack of ability to persuade production. So by redistributing capital by creation of capital exchange - you create the potential for wealth redistrobution. Since money may always pool with the same individuals, monetary creation much like taxes forces the people who hold the most wealth to redistribute it - however letting the government decide what segment of the economy to stimulate, rather than the person pooling wealth to reduce the effect of monopolization of wealth. Taxes are much the same but there are equalized thresholds based on performance of tax legislation. Monetary creation does so without the requirement to conform to people who play the tax game, instead it allows the government to determine what needs to be stimulated. This does not require the banks or wealthy individuals to loan money or buy bonds - all it requires is a willingness to inflate the economy by depreciation of the currency. This is not an anti wealth - it is anti hoarding. Since people who produce wealth will be able to reaccumulate it, and are actually at a greater incentive to accumulate more relative wealth due to decreased cost of production based on non variable employment contracts and term contracts. Since the cost factor takes a little time to catch up due to stocks, the effect is not immediate on the lower classes either. Some areas of the economy need to be insulated though such as essential foreign imports - so that domestic need can be met without drastic increases in costs of essential goods such as gasoline and foodstuffs. The Social Party also advocates for more populus based forums and direct accessable mediums for regulating some laws, as well as public corporations. The social party is very fiscal conservative, actually fundamentally so by a couple main measures: -Removing the debt -Removing income taxes -Allowing the public to create and fund their own programs -creating or modifying to protect "self funded" programs for major tax burdens like Medicare and OAS/CPP -allowing private competition for previous federal programs - without privatizing, instead competition would be between self funded programs and private companies. -shifting to public private crown corporations for major agencies that are non essential, such as development organizations, through designated publically decided "pay for" projects, as well as public support for governmental programs This I think except for overt privatization is very Thatcheristic. It does provide for "market regulation" by the people. Allowing them a medium to pool their resources for programs through a central bank to serve the public without simply handing things over to the chaos of deruglation. Clarity is important in many close to essential programs. The social party does recognize though that social welfare should be a provincial concern, while the federal government is suppose to delegate disagreements among the provinces, and conduct the security and wellbeing of Canada on an international basis. It does not advocate for a lowering of programs or well being of Canadians, it rather allow Canadians to determine what they are willing to pay for, rather than the government running a century old debt and having interst on top of that so Canadians pay more for what they would pay less for if they actually had the money. The social agenda is to let it rest with the law - such as public safety code for physical attacks against persons or the state, as well as civil litigation protections - but for free. With more access to individuals interested in access to the courts. Through free electoral courts - facilities space provided - and determination/ruling paper/eletronic document access, this all underneath appelate courts where the old court system existed. If provinces were not willing to accomodate this it would be soley at the federal level. Since it is clear the provinces are failing miserably at access to justice with many month waits for court determinations and hearings. Likewise there is a massive divide between lay law and supra legal law. The notion of "cases to correct social ills" vs. supra legal context is badly problematic. There should be more of a focus on social correction not criminilization of minor offences. Restitution for monetary crimes, recognition and reparation of accidental crimes related to emotional disturbances. Just bridging a problem with time doesn't remove it, all it does is allows it to fester. Justice must concentrate on healing society, so the Social Party puts out with their Social Agenda. This is essentially the extent of social correction - since it effecitvely, the whole social aspect is a provincial matter. But since Canada itself could be deemed a pennitentary, so to can application of sentencing be done on a federal basis. However ultimately the provinces through preemption of courts control social policy - it is left to appeals to federal courts such as electoral courts or appealate courts to correct any difference. Ultimately I think the social party to a certain extent describes what you are speaking of in part. I think it may be far more radical than what you have in mind though. I'm guessing libertarianism isn't what you are after with your discription.

Ironic you mention this since John A McDonald was a lawyer by profession, and Stephen Harper is the first PM without having a legal background.

S Someone should tell the next PM what the heck he did.

To be PM you must generally: 1. Get a Majority of Parliament to support you for the post. (hold the confidence of parliament) 2. Convince the Governor General to appoint you (most likely on recommendation of Privy Council) That's it.

Anyone can be PM, the Governor General picks them. The criteria is generally that they shall hold the office so long as parliament has confidence in them to perform the post. Any member of Privy Council may advice the Governor General, however the Prime Minister is seen as "first among equals". That is generally why relevance of position and cabinet tends to dominate "current affairs". However a majority of parliament can "veto" the PM, by proposing an alternative government (and usually PM as a result). That is if they elect someone to form an alternate government. Canada is only partisan as an effect of developments in the standard of parliament. Parties tend to be able to create more stable goverments becuase they are relatively static compared to groups of independents on a short term basis. There are contradictory rules for executive positions. There is a trend towards commons rule since around 1900. This means that the PM and cabinet are from the "current" commoners. This is not universally true however. The PM sits at the grace of the Governor General and may be removed. The PM is not an elected post but an appointed one.

Isn't that a prequalification for being PM these days, not knowing constitutional law?

It is funny you bring the guy up when he is currently doing a 20 riding tour of Canada... how out of touch is that to you?

A lot more than oil seems to be going down that pipe...

Saipan you are a revisionist. Harper started in the Mail Room of Imperial oil.. now he is potetntially bringing in the Mackenzie Pipeline deal... some things don't change too much.