err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
Harper said that Martin hadn't cut enough.... Maybe he didn't specifically say "from health care"... but that's one of the areas that Martin had to rob to give his cronies (Corp-Canada) their tax break...
In other words, they never said the Liberals should have cut more from health care. You simply made that up.
The conservatives, in the last election, stated that Martin "had not cut enough"
You were going to give me a cite to support that statement about the Conservatives, were you not?Then don't vote Liberal... And don't vote Conservative, because they think that the Liberals haven't cut enough from health care..
I take it from the first sentence in your answer that you agree that they're spending less on health care than they used do... It sort of tears a little hole in your argument about "throwing more and more money at health care" doesn't it??... when you've as good as admitted theyre spending less.And in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, % of GNP, or just about any other way you want to look at it, we're spending less than in the 70's....You mean the 70s when the reigning philosphy of federal fiscal management was to simply borrow whatever was needed and let someone else pay it back at some future time? Health care spending is consuming ever greater percentages of provincial budgets. Are you suggesting all of them - incuding the NDP ones, have been run by evil "neocons" who don't care about public health care?
Duh... are you Corp-Canada... because they've been getting massive tax cuts.... I haven't, and from what you say, neither have you. But Paul Martin cut transfers for health care and for education so that he could give Corp-Canada more tax breaks every budget.
You know, you don't have a lot of credibiilty on these issues. Maybe you should try and cite someone more reliable on tax cuts and health care spending. I haven't seen a lot of tax cuts lately, not ones which have anyone shouting hurrahs.Our fearless Liberal and Conservative leaders say "no, we cant keep throwing money at it"... "it costs too much"... etc... but at the same time, they're cutting taxes to corporate Canada... deep cuts... and because these cuts have taken revenue from the coffers... "there's just not enough"...
When you steal from the poor to give to the rich... as Paul Martin has done since day one... there's something wrong.. The only ones to benefit from the Corp tax-cuts are the stockholders.... which usually comprises a minute percentage of the tax base... everybody else loses... Giving a corporate tax break is the same thing as writing them a cheque... And where does the government look to find the money to re-coup this money.... at your pay cheque... that's where.... and at the services that our existing tax pays for.... by removing some of them, they can afford to give bigger tax breaks to that minute section of our population...In any event, corporations are soulless entities. They are, however, owned by individuals - their stockholders. Corporations have only two things to do with profits; pass them on to their stockholders, who can be taxed, or put them back into increased production and expansion - which means more jobs. So tax cuts for corporations aren't neccesarily a terrible thing. -
The conservatives, in the last election, stated that Martin "had not cut enough"Then don't vote Liberal... And don't vote Conservative, because they think that the Liberals haven't cut enough from health care..You were going to give me a cite to support that statement about the Conservatives, were you not?
And in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, % of GNP, or just about any other way you want to look at it, we're spending less than in the 70's.... Our fearless Liberal and Conservative leaders say "no, we cant keep throwing money at it"... "it costs too much"... etc... but at the same time, they're cutting taxes to corporate Canada... deep cuts... and because these cuts have taken revenue from the coffers... "there's just not enough"...
Unfortunately, originality is not the NDP's forte. I have listened to them over the past few years for any contribution to the health care problem and heard nothing but "Spend more! Spend more! Spend still more!" .. blah, blah... I said it would call for much more money, and more bureacracy to ensure the provinces didn't violate the Canada Health Act in any way. That is more or less what it said.If you want to see real improvement in health care... try NDP next time...And then you have the Mike Harris Tories in Ontario, who knew they were in big trouble due to their "tax cuts", having cut over 8000 nurses jobs in Ontario, decided that they'd show the public that they were committed to health care spending. So they gave construction contracts to Tory-friendly construction companies to tear down a few hospitals... build a few hospitals, put on a few new wings on hospitals... One of our biggest health-care providers was Ellis-Don Construction if you went by dollar value.... The money didn't go to doctors, nurses and MRI machines...
Then we have loudmouths like yourself saying that "throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it".... How about trying to fix it... that's a good start.
Well the problem isn't fiscal, it's fiscal policy of the reigning government and its predecessors.
They aren't spending more, they're spending less, and trying to give the impression that our health care system is emptying the cookie jar... even though corporate Canada now needs dental care for all the cookies they got out of the same jar....
Do we need a system like the USA, where over 100,000 people die each year due to the lack of health care ???The last group I expect to make any real contribution to resolving the health care crisis is the NDP. On the contrary, their obstinate refusal to even consider alternatives to the present Communist-style system is one of the impediments to real progress.
Distorting the truth is the same as lying....
Who is "they"...They no longer believe there is any chance of changing the system for the better. All the money put into the system so far will make _zero_ difference. In fact, wait times are getting worse, and will continue to get worse as the boomers age. Canadians are tired of your wretched, broken, incompetent system.That would be the majority of Canadians - the ones who, according to surveys, now want access to more private health care.
-
And do they not still help ensure safe working conditions and better wages ??? Would they look more honerable if they came to the bargaining table with holes in their shoes ???OK, Unions of yesteryear were important because they brought about safe working conditions and better wages...But but now they are HUGE organizations that collect millions of dollars a year in dues.
Imagine that,They represent people that aren't even in their industry..(look how many people are with the CAW that don't work in the auto industry)...helping "other" people... they must be commies or Christians or something....
That's right... auto workers and airline workers would be making $7.95 per hour now... what would they need a union for when the provincial government will guarantee you great wages like these....The labour laws federally and provincially are strong today.
You forgot to mention other frivoloties such as job security.....The only thing unions go after is frivolous things, such as rating hotels that pilots stay at, because they need to meet certain criteria...which is bull, because they are staying at the Hilton...also daily food moneys, which is $52.25... -
The majority say they want health care... but a large segment of these people want someone else to pay for it... Or have this "pay as you go" attitude.... until they need the system.... It's human greed at play...
Ah so what your saying is that if that is what the majority choses to do you don't think their wishes should be followed.Some part... what part... the majority...
but that is not the case, is it...If noone chooses to support healthcare then its death is warrented.
Until you need it.... People like you, I might be inclined to say "cut them off health care", but I know that you'd be whining like a baby, louder than anyone, about how foolish you were... and "you'd never do it again", etc... "where's your compassion"... as soon as you needed it... But if we were to support this option, the revenue loss might be great enough that the system could collapse, and then there'd be no life boat waiting for you....My sentiments apply to all social programs... People are inherently greedy... you are our poster-boy for this... you don't want to help anyone else do you... or sorry..... you want the choice not to help anyone else...
I am quite used to you resorting to name-calling when you have no argument to make. And yes, I do want the choice to help or not help if I so choose. That is freedom.
The laws in this country have been made by elected officials over a great period of time... to try to appease everybody. I'm not crazy about every law thats on the books, but I accept that having the book is a lot better than not having it. We're better off for the laws and enforcement thereof.What you instead advocate is dictatorship based upon your own sense of morality. You don't give a damm about what what anyone else thinks they ought to do, you want the govenment to be your own personal thugs to force people in a behaviour which you deem appropriate.It would appear to be you who doesn't give a damn about anybody else, or the the laws and systems that keep our country running.
Try living in the USA if you want to be like the 100,000 people a year who die from the lack of health care.... we won't miss you...
I think it is you who want to wreck what all Canadians have right now. It is you who wants to dictate that poorer people cannot have health care... shame on you...
Then quit the group.. move to the USA... .being considered as a unit does not mean making all the same choices does it? Where does it say anywhere being a member of a group precludes individual choices? Maybe you are thinking of a cult.
So your desire to take health care away from the poorest in our nation is not immoral, it's criminal ??? I think it fits into the immoral category too...Then you think it's ok for people to murder and rape... steal, malign, extort, and all, because God knows, we'd hate to be called Iranians.....Perhaps you didn't see my previous reply:
Those acts should be enforced not because they are immoral but because they infringe on others individual or property rights.
You're drawing blurry lines now. Whose standards of morality, and whose standards of criminality are you using... publicly defined ones, used by our courts.... Iranian ones, or your ones, which are bound to be the best ones....Behavious which are immoral but do not infringe on people individual rights should not be enforced by anyone but only by the moral standards of that individual. -
and do I infer that you learned the hard way ??A lot of Canadians are bright enough to understand that if you hit your head into a brick wall a few hundred times without damaging the brick wall, your chances of accomplishing anything by doing it again are pretty damned slim.
Then don't vote Liberal... And don't vote Conservative, because they think that the Liberals haven't cut enough from health care... which is what they have done.. You shouldn't believe politicians (especially Liberal ones) when they say the've put "more money than ever" into health care... If you want to see real improvement in health care... try NDP next time...The public system is in the toilet. It was in the toilet last year too. It was in the toilet ten years ago. Canadians have heard liberal politicians bleating about their determination to save the system for too many years - while the system gets worse and worse.
Who is "they"...They no longer believe there is any chance of changing the system for the better. All the money put into the system so far will make _zero_ difference. In fact, wait times are getting worse, and will continue to get worse as the boomers age. Canadians are tired of your wretched, broken, incompetent system. -
And there are more people living in abject poverty in the USA than there are people in Canada... Similarly there are more Americans without any health care than there are Canadians. You seem to have a fixation with money.... and would forsake heath care, help for people around you, etc.. just to have more money... Maybe you should move to the USA... or are you afraid to, because they don't support people in need....I've said before a "pay-by-use" system would be a more appropriate way to capture use of each of our use of public infrastructure.You would think that in Canada where there is high investment in "infrastructure" you would see a higher payback in income, however you seem to disregard the fact that the US, Hong Kong and other places provide less "infrastructure" yet many of the high-earning population earn more than the would in Canada.
Poor economic circumstance is a self-imposed restriction... I see... So you "restrict" yourself sufficiently that you have to complain about our taxes, because you don't have enough left... Let that be a lesson to you... Stop restricing yourself so much, and then you'll be wealthier, and so it would follow, happier.Does that include the restrictions imposed due to economic circumstance ???Absolutely, but since that is a self-imposed restriction, the people who are restricted by economic circumstance are free to change that circumstance and earn more.
It is my sense that there are a lot of people that you would disagree with... I apologize if I falsely though you to be a Conservative, and attributed this to your lack of care for your fellow man... I'm puzzled to think of what other party espouses your kind of ideas.... Would you care to share it with us.????
My party??? It is getting somewhat irritating that you are making statements on behalf of me which I have never said. I don't consider the conservative party my party and there are many of their policies I disagree with.Even your conservative party says they want ONE PUBLIC SYSTEM !!! -
... once it's out of your possession, it's not...Tax money is not MINE it's the public's!?
Have you tried reading your own posts ???Holy crap, if that's not the single most ridiculous thing I have read on this forum, I don't know what is.
However, with the principle of equilibrium, when your taxes go up significantly, wages seem to follow... Many companies resist this, but because there are so many unionized employees out there, it ends up happening.... (the wages following)I get paid X dollars per hour or X salary per year as part of my contract with my employer, which includes the money the government takes from me. When taxes are raised, my income doesn't rise...it comes out of my pocket.
And if you don't pay the internet company, do you still have access to the services ??? The government is large enough to enforce collection, and so are some internet companies... Rogers for instance. You, yourself are not the government's "boss" or "employer". You are a tiny part of a collective "boss"... but they're much bigger than any component of their "collective bosses"I PAY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SERVICE. Just like I pay my dry clearner to clean my suits, or the phone company to allow me to communicate, or the internet company for web access.
And do you not have nice clean roads to drive on, when you are going to power-trip over the guy at the dry-cleaners ?? Do you not live in a reasonably safe, policed community, with safe drinking water.... Is that not value for your money... (I bet if you were drop-shipped into the jungle, you might sing a different tune).When you pay someone for a service, you expect to get a certain value for your money. Taking as much money as they do, one would reasonably expect top notch services from our government.
You say that our police services, education, etc.. are being underfunded... and your solution is not to pay as much tax for those services, because they are underfunded.... This does appear to be consistant with the rest of your argument....You may think they provide that, however, I would argue that they don't. Considering we can't defend our own land ourselves, we don't have the best healthcare in the world (based on statistics such as infant mortality rates and average lifespan, etc), police services are vastly underfunded in cities, education has been flushed down the toilet, etc. etc.The list is endless. The government since the beginning of timet has completely mismanaged our money and as Renegade is saying it is better left in the hands of the users. Pay for what you use and we wouldn't have this problem anymore.
Maybe when you get a raise, you will get a car, and then that parking garage will come in handy. Or maybe you'll meet a girl who would marry you, and she likes to take the kids skating... Or have you resigned to the fact that this will never happen, and you're too mean to support anyone else in society benefitting from these things....The government should take a small portion of money for things like streetlights and roads, etc. But when the cash hungry at city hall take my money so they can build a concession stand in a park, or fund an art gallery, or build a skating rink, or build a parking garage (all things that I will never use), then I get ticked.
... then don't vote Liberal or Conservative if they bother you that much...The same can be said on a national and provincial level. When my tax dollars go to pay for extravagant vacations for an appointed figurehead, or worse yet millions of dollars get laundered through an advertising program in order to fund future campaigns by the leading party, it makes me angry.I can see that you have a bitter attitude, and have a hard time wanting to help and feel a "community spirit". I recommend trying to lighten up, be a little more generous, then you'll be way more likely to meet that girl, and have a great time at the skating rink... have hot-dogs with the kids you might have at that nice concession stand in the park.... These things are all fun, and make life better...
-
Some part... what part... the majority...I agree that left to themselves some part of the population would not contribute to social programs. I doubt it is becaue they procrastinate. I believe it is because they are making a deliberate choice. But isn't that what freedom is? The are speaking louder with their actions than with their words.
"if it is their priority" if my aunt had ball, she'd be my uncle...And then there's the business side of it. A public company has to please their stockholders... and won't be donating any money to health care... I'm sure there are lots of business owners who would, but they would be a small minority...Again the shareholders own the business, if it is their prioirty for the business to contribute to social programs, management will follow those priorities. If it is not their priority to do so, why shouldn't they not have the choice to vote on where to spend their funds.
You know damn well that there would be negligible conribution from business... You know that the general public won't donate if they don't want to... So what are you advocating... the demise of health care..
My sentiments apply to all social programs... People are inherently greedy... you are our poster-boy for this... you don't want to help anyone else do you... or sorry..... you want the choice not to help anyone else...I think logistically, the only way to pull it off is to force payment... or forget about having a health care system....I was thinking more of social programs in general than health care in specific. I think with health care in specific people woudl contribute because they would recieve a benefit, namely health coverage which they would not have without a contribution.
Do you know what the word "group" means... here's one definition: any number of entities (members) considered as a unit If the "members" choose not to be members of the group... they aren't members of the group ... are they.... If there are no members in the group, then it isn't a group is it.... maybe you should think about that for a while...And we cannot be a noble group ??? Who share a desire to make life better for everyone ???We can be a noble group if we respect eveyones free will and choice. Nobility doesn't require that we force choices upon people which they wouldn't have made on their own.
Then you think it's ok for people to murder and rape... steal, malign, extort, and all, because God knows, we'd hate to be called Iranians.....I don't agree. I think that, although you and/or I may not need to be "controlled" to stay within certain moral bounds, there are many who do need to be controlled, or we would have anarchy. Thus, I accept the control under which I must live, as I know it is for the common good....It is hard for me to believe you want a govenment which dictates moral standards to you. Do you want a government which tells you you must go to church, must not "live-in-sin", must not commit adultery, or only marry people of the opposite sex, and then uses its force to punish you when you don't abide by its moral code? Perhaps you prefer a religious state like Iran.
... and then they can CHOOSE whether they want to rape the cute girl next door, or maybe rob the guy down the street..... or maybe they could CHOOSE not to...Most people would agree that ours should be a secular state where our government doesn't dictate its moral code to us but our morals are the result of our own concienience. -
err, legislating morality is a terrible idea.
Certain aspects of morality should be enforced. For example, rape, murder, assault, blacmail, etc... are all immoral acts... And you don't think that some form of enforcement of standards relating to these behaviours is appropriate ???
-
Is anyone really naive enough to believe that both the FTA, and NAFTA were really about trade? This whole deal is all about multinational corporate interests being able to export raw material to third world countries and shipping back the finished products duty-free into North America. This is all about corporate profits, and has really nothing to do with bing of benefit to you and I as individuals.
Excellent Post.. I agree. Free trade is about "breaking down barriers to trade"... Most people naively think this means taxes. Well, taxes are only the tip of the iceberg that you see sticking out of the water... The most of it is hidden... And that's the way the Mulroney government sought to have it in its inception.
Barriers to trade include laws that protect people from toxic chemicals in our environment. There are plenty of examples of NAFTA overruling our own environmental laws.
Barriers to trade include subsidizing our own industries (what the yankees are accusing us of doing with softwood lumber)....
And PUBLIC HEALTH CARE is a barrier to getting American private health-care providers into Canada.....
Free trade is overall a bad thing for Canada....
-
If it were left to people to volunteer money for health care, there would be no health care... except for the wealthy.... You know that lots of people around you, maybe even yourself, would like that extra week at the cottage, or maybe a new flat-screen tv, or whatever... and procrastinate your good intentions.... This is not to say that there is anything wrong with people wanting to improve their personal comfort, but the reality of it is that the funding wouldn't be regular enough to support the costs.What I am against is not the sentiment. It is a noble sentiment to help the poor. It is charitable, generous and for many part of religious faith. What I am against is the forcible funding of these programs by the government.And then there's the business side of it. A public company has to please their stockholders... and won't be donating any money to health care... I'm sure there are lots of business owners who would, but they would be a small minority...
I think logistically, the only way to pull it off is to force payment... or forget about having a health care system....
And we cannot be a noble group ??? Who share a desire to make life better for everyone ???It is only a noble sentiment when it comes voluntarily, where each person's individual concieience dictates if and how much they should contribute.
I don't agree. I think that, although you an/or I may not need to be "controlled" to stay within certain moral bounds, there are many who do need to be controlled, or we would have anarchy. Thus, I accept the control under which I must live, as I know it is for the common good....We would all agree that we don't want a government to dictate to us in areas of morality. Why should this be different? -
Good post. I certainly agree that our medicare system should not be treated as a "business", with business models used to make all of the decisions. Our health care system should be run with an aim to provide a fully functional, decent system, with an eye on the economics of the whole situation. However, the goal is to provide health care, not turn a profit, operate on a budget dreamed up by a slick business man, etc...That may be what's happening in your neck of the woods but in my province, New Brunswick, the government has set up I believe 7 healthcare corporations around the province, each with it's own Board of Directors, and an Executive team to run the everyday operations. Our provincial government has actually made it law that medical doctor's cannot sit on any of these Board's. When decisions are made concerning the delivery of medical services there is no actual input from the medical community even though it is the medical community that will be expected to live with any decisions that are made. In essence decisions are being made by people who have expertise in either business or law. That scenario certainly doesn't make me fell all warm and fuzzy.I think, if we are to fix our health care system, we have to reverse much of the damage that Paul Martin did to it while he was finance minister (and Prime Minister...) The Conservatives said that Martin didn't cut enough from health care, so I guess we have to look to the left if we are going to rescue our health care and turn it into the system it was intended to be ....
-
And the "pay for two systems" + $10 scheme that you're promoting... Most Canadians aren't dumb enough to fall for that one.....Canadians are willing to pay more for a system which will work. Clearly they no longer have much faith that simply putting more money into the public system will make it work. -
One of the scarier things about the possibility of the Conservatives getting in is that they might implement "conservative" policies like those touted by yourself and Renegade....I think there's a limit to the damage that the Liberals will inflict.. I can't say that I feel that's the case with the Conservatives..Lets just hope that Jack can make the difference, like he did in the latest budget... Canadians aren't happy with either of the two mainstream parties, and Layton's shown where his priorities are, so let's hope...
Hmmm, the Liberals have proven the damage they will inflict. The Conservatives potential for damage is all illusory scare-mongering that ultimately helps the Liberals.
Harper's flip-flops on abortion in the run-up to the last election were all the proof that I needed that he (and his party) are completely untrustworthy. First "They are going to change (abortion) policy"... and they see the public tone is against them ... then "Harper won't, but he won't stop a private member's bill", then "We aren't against abortion".... It tells me that they are liars....
The Liberals are liars too. But the conservatives are right wing liars. The Fiberals at least pretend to have the public interests in mind pre-election... with socialistic sounding speeches from Martin... but when he gets in, he's a conservative... (fiscally). It scares me to think of what Harper would do once he got in and took off his mask....
Just because the Liberals stabbed Layton in the back, it doesn't take from what Layton tried to do. But think of this... He did it on front of a watching nation.... That will help to kill Martin in the polls at the next election... and it can only increase Layton's popularity...How much of the "difference" Jack made has been implemented so far? Zero. What you say none of it will be instituted before February 2006 when Martin has promised the next election?Boy what a great difference indeed.
-
And the roads, the schools, the hospital, and the infrastructure aren't to be paid for... or you want the "choice" to pay for them.... Maybe you should live in the jungle, where your sort of system might work... as long as you don't live near another tribe...The money that is in the public's purse is the public's .. not yours, and not mine... Take a look at your pay stub next week... There's a part that's for you, and a part that goes to the public purse (taxes)... That part is not yours...To justify that the money is not mine because it is forcebly taken at source is ludricous. So if your employer decided that he should withhold an additional 50%, does that action justify that it is now the employers money? Of course not. The fact is I earn it, not the public. The fact that it is deducted at source is nothing short of robbery.
Most of our society does believe in the system we have....Yes, the wealthy are able to afford more than the poor. However, there is a certain minimum standard that we, as a society, should afford our weakest.The funding for that minimium standard should fall to charities, churches and other organizations which are funded via voluntary donations. If there isn't enough funding which can be provided by these organizations, then that would demonstrate that the public doesn't feel strongly enough that the poor should be supported beyond the level they have already contributed. I don't agree that the poor have a "right" to a minimium standard.
Does that include the restrictions imposed due to economic circumstance ???Perhaps it's time for YOU to take a reading comprehension course. I have not called you are jelaous of the rich. I have stated that in reality, despite what rules are enacted, restrictions are not applicable to everyone. Let's remove the restrictions for everyone.
Even your conservative party says they want ONE PUBLIC SYSTEM !!!I think it is foolish to elect politicians who are myoptic enough to think that there is only one solution to health care and that is increased funding. We can certainly better use the current system by implementing deductables, and givng people a better idea of how much their tax dollars go toward health care. -
Frankly I don't know where you have derived that any human has the absolute natural right to equal care. For virtually all of history and today people have had unequal positions in life and unequal care. It is self-delusional to think that it will ever be otherwise.That is humanity and the human experience. Today's reduction of everything to economic inputs and outputs is a modern form of barbarism.
It is exactly NOT the human experience. The human experience and history is that there have always been wealthy and powerful who have had access to better services than others.
And do you see this as the right direction to continue in???
I think that morality dictates that we try to even the playing field as far as the basic necessities goes... Basic necessities of life that is... because we can, as a society, easily afford to help our poorest...
Sadly, it would seem to me that the good will to help is harder to get than the actual money to pay for the help...
-
Earlier you had mentioned P3s. It sure seems like McGuinty is playing a lot of games here with his gobblygook. It sure seems there is no difference between the right wing Martin Liberals or provincial Liberals for that matter, and the right wing Harper Conservatives. Why bother changing the federal government for the Cons when you get the same thing with the Libs?
I think there's a limit to the damage that the Liberals will inflict.. I can't say that I feel that's the case with the Conservatives..
Lets just hope that Jack can make the difference, like he did in the latest budget... Canadians aren't happy with either of the two mainstream parties, and Layton's shown where his priorities are, so let's hope...
-
And what Canadian company manufactured all these typewriters ???
Tens of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs were lost with the arrival of computers and the demise of the typewriter. For all intents, NAFTA and computers are the same thing. Do you want to bring back typewriters?Tens of thousands of Canadian Manufacturing jobs were lost because of NAFTA. We should use the opportunity to get them back.
Good fences make good neighbours. Letting NAFTA have control of Canadian internal affairs is not a good thing.
What other reason would the Canadian government cancel NAFTA than to restrict sales between Canadians and Americans. Let's be clear here. The purpose would be to tell a Canadian that he or she can not deal with an American. IOW, create a barrier.Cancelling NAFTA will not significantly increase trade barriers between Canada and the US. NAFTA did very little to remove barriers. It mostly regulated how our economy would be organized and who would control it.With NAFTA gone, we could make sure that laws designed to protect the health and safety of Canadians could not be superceded by clauses in the NAFTA agreement. (Ie. the chemicals we are forced to accept in our gasoline, banned in California, but we cannot ban them here because of NAFTA). The list of negatives is huge... but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see the negatives...
And you think that we should have only one customer???
IOW, you think the government should force Canadians to diversify - it should force them to trade with non-Americans. I think individual Canadians are best placed to decide how to diversify their dealings in life.Yes, August, we should be diversifying our trade and I have said this before.
When you always say "lets be clear" and then distort the opposing position, you lose a lot of credibility... I think that eureka has stated a position against the Bush administration... Yet you try to distort his position and state that he "doesn't like Americans".... it's a childish strategy...
eureka, you don't like Americans fine. No truck nor trade with the Yanquis. I get it. So you should be happy that the US government is making it difficult for Canadians to deal with Americans.The world should be demanding that the US abide by international agreements and that it should be forced to consider the harm it does to the rest of the world in its international actions.
I think that eureka has expressed a strong distaste for the Bush administrations's policies of unfair, uneven trade practices, breaking their deals, etc.... I cannot help but agree that this would be a good opportunity to tell them where to stick their NAFTA agreement....You wish ill of America? This current US government softwood duty is hurting the US economy.eureka, you should wholeheartedly support the Bush Administration's softwood lumber policy and want it extended to other sectors. That is precisely what would happen if we abrogated NAFTA.
NAFTA is an agreement that nearly exclusively benefits the USA... They want unrestricted access to our resources... We have something that they want...badly... and we will therefore have a solid bargaining position... which NAFTA has stripped from us...
Sometimes you should stop blabbing and read what he wrote... You criticize his position, but you really don't know what it is.... It's not that eureka's against there being barriers to trade... It has more to do with their hypocritical position, where they force Canada to adhere to the terms of the bad deal, but they do whatever the $%^& they feel like.... And don't respect the terms of the agreement when they don't feel like it...eureka, you can't have it both ways: You can't criticize free trade and also criticize a barrier to trade.----
-
Uhm, no. The majority want health care that works. Right now that's not public health care.Because the MAJORITY OF CANADIANS WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH CARE!!!
And by your response, are you suggesting that Canadians would want a "pay for" system that will cost them more money ??? Get real...
-
The money that is in the public's purse is the public's .. not yours, and not mine... Take a look at your pay stub next week... There's a part that's for you, and a part that goes to the public purse (taxes)... That part is not yours...You seem to treat the money in the public system as your trust account. It is not. The money each of us contribute is ours not the publics. We earn it, we should be allowed to spend it in ways which beneift each of us.
Yes, the wealthy are able to afford more than the poor. However, there is a certain minimum standard that we, as a society, should afford our weakest.There are many other necessary services in life which we allow people to purchase according to the ability to pay. Arent the wealthy able to purchase better food than the poor? blah, blah, blah...
The middle-class are getting screwed ???? Now I find it truly humorous that you called me "jealous of the rich" when it appears this is truly your position...In any case you should know that there is already mullti-tier health care in Canada. The truly wealthy can go to the US should they need to. Polititians and elite athletes seem to go to the front of the line anyway. The middle-class are gettting screwed in this deal by not having the same choices others do in a system which they provide the bulk of the funding for.If the truly wealthy can afford to go outside our system, and they can pay to do so with their own money... let them... why not... However, we shouldn't let them talk you into abandoning our system just because you can't do the same as they can... If they go elsewhere, they are not promoting our system... and wouldn't we be foolish to elect politicians who don't believe in our system... and don't finance it.....
-
I think you'll find that disparity does not just lie between corporate Canada and the citizens of Canada... There is HUGE disparity between the treatment of the wealthy and the poorer classes. A good percentage of the wealthy pay less percentage tax than the poorer and middle classes... because they can make avail of capital gains exemptions and so many other vehicles to "disguise" income...Let me quote from my previous statements:A major inequity in the income tax system is that corporations are taxed on profit and individuals are taxed on revenue. It makes no sense to me why there should be this disparity. If individuals were taxed on "profit" they could deduct all their expenses (eg mortgage interest, food, clothing, cars, etc) from their income and only pay on what was not spent. Conversely if corporations were taxed on revenue, they would lose the ability to avoid paying taxes by hiding profits.However, you somehow don't see this reality... granted, the wealthier, the business community, et al. aren't exactly going to publicly advertise their advantages, for fear that a public outcry will force the government to fix the gross disparities...
I disagree with much that you have to say... It is nice that we do agree on the quoted statement that you provided above.So it does seem even when I agree with you, you're still looking to quibble because you disagree with my position on other issues, and you insist on making assumptions on my position.I think you could easily expand your perspectives. I recommend that you read more. I highly recommend Linda McQuaig.... and then we'd probably agree on a great deal more than we currently do.... because the way she exposes the realities of our tax system, our culture and attitudes (the way our many of our politicians and business leaders will not) is revealing... I can honestly tell you that I have learned a ton from her books, and that is why I continually plug them... (although I have to admit, a royalty would be nice)
Everybody has some risk of having to use the system. Insurance is a "for profit" business, and hence it's business model should not apply to health care. And pay as you go... come on man... that's Russian roulette... and trying to change our system so others are forced to play Russian roulette is downright evil...Personally, yes I would prefer to pay for systems as I use them or based upon risk that I would use them. That is the principle of insurance, and if I had my way, health care would be structured as an insurance.
Those who make more money ususally don't do it by themselves. There is an infrastructure that allows them to do well... an infrastructure that was primarily built and paid for by "other people".... They (the wealthy) have a duty to support our infrastructure that allowed them to get where they are....I would suggest a brief course in reading comprehension... I think we need more government... not less...I guess it is hard to read the sarcasm in my response. Of course I know you think we need more government. Of course I know you think we should remove any incentive to earn income by forcible redistribution of income.
-
RETRACTION
For once, I agree with you mirror. The basic exemption should be raised to nsomething like $15,000 or even $20,000 and the GST should be extended to all items, including food.I would like to see a tax decrease for those with less than $50,000. annual income to offset all the tax loopholes that those above that income bracket are privvy to.Many, many people wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all.
And I will have to agree whole-heartedly as well.
(The NDP's last election platform, did something like this, and also raised the child tax allowance considerably)
I spoke too quickly. I completely disagree with the GST statement that August1991 made. The GST is a regressive tax. Poorer and middle income people live cheque to cheque. They spend pretty much all their income. Thus, they pay value-added taxes on pretty much all their income. If August1991 had her way (at least I'm assuming August1991 is a she, sorry if I'm wrong) these poorer people pay value-added taxes on ALL their income. Whereas wealthier folk who do not spend all their income every week.... are taxed only on the portion they spend. Thus, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on tax than the wealthy with GST/PST.
-
How about the investor who borrows $8 Million, adding it to his own $10 Million, investing in a portfolio that will pay him $900,000 per year in dividends. He can deduct the $900K interest cost from his $900K dividend and end up with a zero tax bill. Then, he can take out a small number of stocks out of his $18 Million portfolio and cash them in as a profit... tax free of course, because it is a capital gain. Meanwhile, his $18 Million continues to grow in value. All this has been subsidized byu the government, which has allowed him to deduct interest costs. This kind of thing goes on all the time...I would like to see a tax decrease for those with less than $50,000. annual income to offset all the tax loopholes that those above that income bracket are privvy to.Hey mirror, why don't you give a couple of examples of these "tax loopholes" you find unfair?
Another example could be Shell Oil. In its 1982 statement, it reported income taxes of $152 Million on profits of $302 Million, giving the company a staggering tax rate of 50.4%. However, in smaller print, further down the report, we see that Shell deferred $199 Million in taxes that year through writing off investments in plant and equipment at an artificially fast rate (2 yrs). This wiped out the company's $152 Million tax bill, and we actually ended up owing Shell $47 Million. Then we have Conservative mouthpieces like yourself telling us that business pays too much tax.
-
For once, I agree with you mirror. The basic exemption should be raised to nsomething like $15,000 or even $20,000 and the GST should be extended to all items, including food.I would like to see a tax decrease for those with less than $50,000. annual income to offset all the tax loopholes that those above that income bracket are privvy to.Many, many people wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all.
And I will have to agree whole-heartedly as well.
(The NDP's last election platform, did something like this, and also raised the child tax allowance considerably)
Let's put nurses in charge of fixin' healthcare?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted