Scotty

Why do we refuse to recognize the existence or even the concept of a failed immigrant? We used to, or at least, the system used to quite frequently. In my view the move which shorted the time spent in Canada to attain citizenship to a mere three years was short-sighted and misguided, to say the least. It used to be seven, and ten would have been preferable. Failing that, we ought to be screening these people's attitudes a lot more before ever allowing them to come here. And I don't mean merely for Muslims.

I thought you might feel that way. What do you think a poll taken in Canada would say to that? I'm thinking the majority would agree.

I think it's fair for us as a society to tell newcomers that we have certain standards of behavior, backed up by law, and if their cultural ignorance - er, prejudice, is so deeply rooted they can't abide those standards they have no business in being here.

Maybe the 'facilitator' might point out to the other poster to play the ball instead of attacking the poster.

Cite? Name?

What I realize is that all they do is make a recommendation which cabinet is not bound by, and if by some chance they recommended against the pipeline I see virtually no likelihood the government would go along with that. Harper is determined to push a pipeline through to the coast and that's that.

What the hell difference does it make? It's not like they get to make any decisions anyway. The cabinet will decide, and we know they've already decided. So the whole hearings thing is just a big waste of time anyway.

Consecutive sentences are not part of the law at the moment. However, they are part of the omnibus crime bill Harper is intent on passing.

I'm really not sure how anyone SANE can suggest from my previous posts on this that I have accepted the numbers given by the PMO.

I think the consensus on that was it had to be done.

To be clear. You're saying that in that press release, where they said the cost would rise to $108 billion dollars, they simply fabricated the number, made it up, lied openly on something which can be fairly easily verified by any number of professionals. And then you accuse me of being ideological for not dismissing it out of hand like you do?

I don't think attacking pensions is going to be forgotten in a few years, not when the results will live on for seniors. So I don't see any profitable reason why he would do this if it weren't necessary.

North Korea is all rhetoric, and I'm sure there have been any number of considerations given to bombing hell out of them in the past. So what? You can't attack something you have no ability to attack. You think the Iranians would have been as restrained if they had the power to attack Israel? Maybe you could ask yourself why Israel would even be a threat to Iran. They don't even share borders. Why would Israel even care about Iran? You don't have to have much knowledge of the middle east to know exactly who the instigator is in the hostile relationship between those two. Caplan apparently studied under the Nevill Chamberlain school of Peace In Our Time.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting the US has a better record of fair and respectful treatment of Blacks than Canada?

And I'm sure that will happen. The government will, I trust, have to respond to his statements and present evidence which supports the need for reform. He will, no doubt, then respond to that. And the opposition will find economists which counter the government, as well. Economists seem like lawyers, these days. You can always find one to say what you want him or her to say. So I think it foolish for us to base any real decisions on the initial pronouncements, or to dismiss either side of the case. I will say this of Harper's motivations. The overwhelming motivation would be, I presume, to stay in power. Cutting back pensions is not likely to be politically profitable for him, especially given the percentage of seniors who currently vote Conservative. I would assume, then, that only overwhelming need, and the certainty of being able to demonstrate that need, would cause him to attempt such a thing.

To start with, the variation in costs between what Milligan gives us and the suggestion costs would rise to $108 billion annually by 2030. That ought to be fairly simple.

Yes, I read rather better than you, I believe. But the proper evaluation of an economist's work is unlikely to be fruitful without a lot of economics background. I could easily find it nonsense simply because I lack the requisite training in certain key aspects. That's the problem with evaluating the statements of any of these professionals, be they doctors, lawyers, economists, or big financial experts from the banks. We lack the background to properly evaluate what they tell us. That's why we need to see counter-arguments from those who disagree with them but who do have such background. It's good that Milligan has made such an argument countering what the government has said. But we can't really determine which of them is correct without more information and more opinions from economic professionals. In considering the array of opinions - and what motivations might be behind them - we can perhaps make a proper judgement call.

I don't think anyone is happy about Pakistan having them. But Pakistan's government is not made up of religious wackos, and they have not made any efforts at extending their influence abroad the way Iran has. In particular, they haven't named themselves as the deadly enemies of a nation which don't even border them. Their nukes are all aimed at India, and that is their focus. Iran has made Israel into an obsession over the past couple of decades, and at least one former president openly declared that the moment Iran gets a nuclear bomb it must use it on Israel. That president lot to Ahmadinejad in the last election. He was considered the moderate, btw.

Read it. I find it curious that he gave no alternatives, no ideas or opinions on what we ought to do. I was impressed by those he said were opposed to military action, but curious again that he gave no direct quotes from any of them. So I looked up a couple. I believe Caplan seriously overstates their opposition to military action. In one case it was merely that they didn't believe Israel itself had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. In a second case, he believed the time was not yet right, not that the time was not coming.

Clearly your ability to understand written English is sub-par. I have not dismissed Miligan. Nor can I, not having an economics degree, delve into the methodology he used to come up with his numbers. However, unlike yourself, I'm not ready to completely dismiss the statements on costs from the government out of hand either. That would be... what did you call it... crazy. Given the complexity of such things those of us without masters degrees in economics look for the motivation of the different sides. Failing that, we await further pronouncements of opinions from those who DO have masters or doctorates in economics.

I don't believe I ever pretended or suggested I was smarter than this gentleman. I believe all I did was suggest that I wanted more idea of what, if anything might motivate him to tweak his findings. Again, I did not say he did. I have two different statements and am attempting to reconcile them. This might startle you, I know. Your own predilection is to immediately assign full integrity and approval to whomever agrees with you, and dismiss the opinion of anyone whose politics or ideology diverges from yours. I'm sure you find that entirely satisfactory, but those of us smarter than you like different methods. And yes, while I make no claims about Milligan, not being familiar with him, I think I have seen enough of your postings to make that claim with a pretty solid degree of confidence.

I did not say it had no validity. However, I think we have seen now that economists, like other professions - lawyers, as example, or even doctors, are more than willing to lend their names or bend their professional ethics towards viewpoint they might support for fame or profit or political/ideological ends. So when some professor or other appears in my newspaper telling me that his special, magical powers - which I, of course, cannot understand - have discerned something - I want to know more about this professor. I know what Stephan Harper's political sympathies are. I know where his money comes from. I want to know both those things about this other economist in order to determine whether that ought to impact whatever credibility I give to his work.

You know, I just watched a documentary this morning called Inside Job. It was about the housing crash. In it, they pointed out how many economists at big universities made most of their money from speaking engagements, and paid studies from the financial industry. These economists had nothing bad to say about the financial industry, of course, nor any of the investment issues which led up to the recession. On the contrary, economists from Stanford to Harvard were all big supporters of the deregulation which led to near catastrophe, and big supporters of everything else the financial industry liked. So forgive me if I'm not impressed by economists this morning. I bet I could give you the CVs of the economists from Harvard and Stanford and other places and they'd be even more impressive than his. I don't want to know his academic credentials. I want to know what his political sympathies are and who pays him money.

Thirty eight billion is a ton of money. On an individual basis, you might not think $500 a month or so is a ton of money but I assure you it's a lot for most middle class people, not to mention lower class people.

We know something about Harper's biases. We don't know anything about this anonymous economist from BC. What are his biases?