err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
I should buy you a beer mate... I agree with you 100%.It is imperative that we retaliate and retaliate seriously. That does not mean negotiaiting quotas or taxes on a few imports that will have very little effect.We can impose taxes on export of oil. That will hurt the Americans but we do not need to do that. We can, and, in my opinion, should, cancel NAFTA. The agreement is now a joke as the Americans ignore every provision that is fair to both countries. The effects of cancellation will not be very harmful to either Canada or the US and we will be on an equal footing with the rest of the world in our dispute resolution mecannisms.
Cancellation of NAFTA will have a far more restraining influence on the cavalier methods of the US. It will also restore Canadian sovereignty over our important resources and financial industry.
Recommended reading to help turn you off NAFTA: Linda McQuaig's "All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust, and the New Capitalism"
-
I think a strong dollar will be fairly damaging for the Canadian economy... at least the manufacturing sector. Way back, when the NAFTA agreement went into effect, our dollar was plummeting.... rapidly... And the Conservative were sure to tell us about the sudden and growing trade surplus with the USA.... which they attributed solely to NAFTA...
However, our lower dollar was incredible for Canadian business, not just exporters. Considerable chunks of our service sector, contract manufacturing, etc.. were flooded with American business due to the weak Canadian dollar.
Now let's see if the tide's going out with the higher dollar....
-
One would wonder, with all of your huffing and puffing about "proving that the poor carry their weight", what you have against the poor... When, as we have already discussed, corporate and wealthy people are able to "legally" avoid paying huge sums of money... yet you have not once commented on a need for tax reform... just that the poor don't carry their weight, and that they get too much... Your protestations (above) seem rather hollow..Not at all. I despise corporate welfare as much as individual welfare. I don't have two sets of standards regardless of the dollar amount. If you can find one statement in any of my posts which suggest I don't mind corporate tax avoidance, I challenge you to show it. If not, back off accuations when you don't know my position.
Would you rather pay for all services as you use them... supposing you need a pacemaker... and just have to come up with $20,000 to pay for it... or die... You say that you like choices, which one would you choose ??? And what if you didn't have the $20K... Then what's your choice... I like the fact that I live in a system that I may pay more into than I receive... if I'm lucky.... that I don't have to be the recipient of such services....Of course I have used some our social programs, it has just never been worth anywhere near the tax dollars which are forcibly extorted from me to pay for those systems. Many others I have never used, nor forsee ever using. What's your point here, that if I minimially use one system that I should be forced to over pay for it all?
I would suggest a brief course in reading comprehension... I think we need more government... not less...Yep... and our governments haven't had the moral fortitude to fix the injustices in the system.... They, like you, want to blame all of our financial woes on the little guy.... Because the little guy doesn't have the resources to fight back.. (It's sort of a bully tactic).Since you don't think much of government policy either, so I'm sure you would support me when I advocate that the government should minimize its interferrence in our lives. -
And I also give the full amount that I am required by law to give, the full amount of taxes that are tabulated by my accountant, according to the prescribed tax laws. And my guess is that this amount exceeds the average...
I would suggest that the laws that my accountant adheres to require change. If even a small percentage of current tax avoidance schemes were cut out, the health care system that we could easily afford would be phenominal.... and we wouldn't have mean-spirited people like you, willing to take away the health-care system from our poorest citizens so you could afford to pamper some of your own selfish interests with the few dollars you save.
I will guarantee you that my taxes are completely and totally legal. I get away with what our system lets people get away with....You have alreay admitted to being a tax-cheat. Your only excuse is that you rely on your accountant for tax advice. You can turn a blind eye to your accountant's tax antics if you want to, but that doesn't make you any less culpable.
Without knowning the technical details of my tax situation, how could you possibly imagine doing so... The auditors who audited my taxes last year found nothing untoward. (I'll give you a hint though... My wife doesn't technically work for me... she's an independent consultant.)I'm going to prove to you you are a tax-evader:
You really don't get it, do you... My taxes are completely legal. The tax system gives me the choices that you don't have, including the ability to go to the front of the line, with a high-end accounting firm who can get me the best service (because I'm willing to pay for it). Sort of like what you are advocating for our medical system.Given your demonstrated hypocracy it is hard to take your advocacy on changing the tax structure seriously. -
And what choices do they (the USA) give the person who makes $8/hour... they aren't eligible for free health care because they make too much money... Is that one of the things you respect about the USA's system ????You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice.The system you appear to be promoting, is one in which you can pay for superior service, by taking the money intended for the public system, and augmenting it with money from your pocket. Effectively, you've taken money out of the public's pocket, and added a few dollars from your pocket to buy the service that you want. This leaves less money in the public pocket.
The money that the public purse pays for hospital service is more than just giving the doctor who looked after you his dues. That money also pays for administration, maintenance, laundry service, heating, and much more... The funding received for a specific service, such as setting a broken arm accounts for these factors. Only a prescribed percentage of this 'fee' is for the doctor's compensation.
I see a problem with taking public money to pay for the administration and running of a privately owned, for profit hospital... If, for example, 25% of current patients elect to go to a privately owned, for-profit hospital, that gets paid from the private purse, then the public hospital has suddenly lost 25% of its funding for heating, administration, equipment, etc...
The public medical care system could compensate for the loss of income required to run the infrastructure of our health care system by charging 25% more tax to keep the system afloat.... If that is not a viable option, the public system will have to cut costs... by that, I mean services, staff, etc...
Neither scenario is favourable to a right-wing conservative like yourself... So you should really think about what you are wishing for before you start advocating such a foolish option...
-
So there you have it folks, three of the four national political parties in Canada are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system.
Once again the Conservatives are the odd person out, and people wonder why they are sinking in the polls. I don't.
Quit lying!
Could you please elaborate on what the lie is.... Let's here the truth, according to shoop....
-
Yah... maybe we could make work camps for them... where they could do laundry for the hospitals or something, like at the Bernardo orphanages... but you could pay them $3/hour so they feel useful. Then they could fire that overpaid bastard who makes $16/hour doing the job now...Disabled doesn't mean unemployable. We shouldn't write them off, just because they have a disability. There will of course be some disabilities so severe that they preclude the person working in any capacity. The disabled do face much larger challenges than the reset of us, not just because of their disability, but also because of biases in society, so they are due special consideration. -
I don't know how much you know about manufacturing cars, but the more options they have, the more expensive it is to make all of the cars...One nice thing about the Canadian car lot, is that there's radios in all of the cars... So if you're so cheap and mean that you can't play music for your fellow man, maybe you should go to the US car lot, where it's "survival of the fittest".... And if you need help, tough shit for you if you can't afford it.You are quite right that the status quo is that we have no choice. And just because it is the status quo doesn't it make it right. I for one am advocating change and choice. The biggest reason you are against it is that you favour the choice of the factory default radio.
My interest is in the common good. You could go to the USA where you have the choice to die because you chose not to purchase medical coverage... but what about the person who couldn't afford it..... They don't have a choice... So you want to put in a system that gives you more choices for you personally, at the expense of someone else's choice...Further you are against anyone having their own choice. Why not advocate dictatorship so that you can force your choices down everyone else's throat.
And I also give the full amount that I am required by law to give, the full amount of taxes that are tabulated by my accountant, according to the prescribed tax laws. And my guess is that this amount exceeds the average...So if I understand what your response is, you would give away when it makes you feel good to do soI would suggest that the laws that my accountant adheres to require change. If even a small percentage of current tax avoidance schemes were cut out, the health care system that we could easily afford would be phenominal.... and we wouldn't have mean-spirited people like you, willing to take away the health-care system from our poorest citizens so you could afford to pamper some of your own selfish interests with the few dollars you save.
-
... did you mean assumptions that you choose not to believe...You're making assumptions that simply aren't true.
And why might they be too long... because there's not enough staff ??Self-checkouts have acatually increased business (customers don't dump carts when the lineups are too long)
Why, are you going to come around sniffing???You're going to need a muzzle for your ass
And what part of the business do you specialize in... Draperies ?, plumbing, lumber... or business management....It's a moot pointi though, I don't know as much about bank tellers as I do my own businessYour loyalty to your employer is admirable, but you have to draw lines and look at reality. Automated tellers replaced tellers... Automated checkouts will replace checkout staff...
-
Quite the contrary... You seem like you've got a "mad-on" for the poor, struggling people who may rip the country off for a few hundred bucks here and there, but don't seem to mind huge corporate tax avoidance... billions of dollars worth...Again you seem to believe I am a proponent of corporate tax avoidance. I am not. So you may have one example, you may have a thousand, there is no need to convince me of this.
I don't think it was ever a question... The people whom I call poor are the ones who can't carry their weight...At least you are honest enough to admit that the poor do not carry their weight. That was consistant with my original comment. Perhaps I'm more blunt in my comment than you, however it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
and you've never ever benefited from our social programs... or education system.... or health care.... Wow... you're really an incredible example for the rest of us...You may be glad to live in a country which is socialists, however I resent being forced to pay for services which I don't benefit at all.
Yep... and our governments haven't had the moral fortitude to fix the injustices in the system.... They, like you, want to blame all of our financial woes on the little guy.... Because the little guy doesn't have the resources to fight back.. (It's sort of a bully tactic).BTW, its only corporate tax evasion if it is illegal. If it is legal it is called corporate tax avoidance. -
It can go down..... but it doesn't... does it... And it won't, will it ????What we have is dramatic price swings that can take the price of gas down as quickly as it goes up.But if it does go down in your neighbourhood... let me know...
-
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA DIDN'T EXIST IN 2002 !!!!!
Answer the question, yet again what did SES consider to be the "Conservatives" in 2002?
And hopefully IT WONT EXIST IN 2006 !!!!!!
But seriously, the party keeps having to morph into something that it thinks can survive.... I think the SES poll has taken that into consideration, and ignored all of the name changes.... but they just added up the redneck right-wing players.... (Sorry, I should have said "extreme right-wing players", because Paul Martin fits into the "right-wing player" group...)
-
I must be overtired, because I'm finding that I'm in agreement with shoop for once...Totally right. Alas, they did start it and we have to do something to stand up for ourselves. -
And these private oil companies got no exploration tax credits, r&d tax credits, investment tax credits, deferred taxation ??? Because it would appear to me that the Canadian governement gives a LOT of money to the oil companies, albeit mostly in the form of tax deductions, but a tax deduction is as good as a cheque for the same amount... If true accounting were done, you'd find that there was significant public investment in the technologies necessary to get it out of the ground....However, all of Canada's oil reserves are commercially viable because of private sector investment into the technologies necessary to get it out of the ground. This is especially true with oil-sands oil. These companies deserve to earn profits on the resource that would have been worthless otherwise. -
In my neighbourhood, it was about $0.60/litre last year... Let me know if it dips into that region in your neighbourhood.... It'll be worth the drive to fill the tank in your neighbourhood if that's the case...I find the constant harping about 'fixed' gas prices defies logic. If there was really collusion between the big players then you would expect to see steady, gradually increasing prices - something that would not get the attention of the media and politicians. What we have is dramatic price swings that can take the price of gas down as quickly as it goes up.
So there's no collusion... You've put my mind to rest...If this issue was coming up for the first time then I would agree that it would be worth looking at, however, generations of politicians with axes to grind have gone after the oil companies and have never found any evidence. -
Funny how the SES poll data is good when it serves your point... and not otherwise...
That's a very convenient analysis of a very misleading graph.That poll shows a very interesting graph as well.... Where only one party has had a (pretty much) constant growth in popularity over the past three years. The Liberals' trend is downward, and the Conservative trend is downward.
And now they're at 4%... If my calculator is correct, they've lost 87% of their support since then..... wow....The downward trend for the Conservatives only manifests itself because of this most recent SES result. Looking at the results up to 05Q2 you see a much more solid 30 percent vote for the CPC.Thanks for pointing this out.....
-
I bet "survivor" and "fear factor" look really good on that set....These kinds of assumptions in your arguments show the limitations in your perception. You have indicated that you are a public employee, fourth down on the chain..... From this, I highly doubt that I could be jealous of your financial position....Ah, but I have outside income - and a brand new 50 inch TV!! Yaaayyyy!
Problem with that is the money would go through channels and wind up sticking to the fingers of every layer of bureacracy between the hospital and the deputy minister leaving just about nothing to hire another doctor. Also, being public, the hospital has no particular reason to seek efficiencies. A privately operated hospital, on the other hand, would operate for less, and be able to turn a profit even while providing better service.Again, your defeatist attitude shows through.... I think that you should read one of my previous posts comparing efficiency in the American vs. Canadian systems.... Comparison of Efficiencies of Private vs. Public
-
This is quite remarkable. Young Quebecers are stating that if Layton were our national leader they would consider dropping their push for sovereignty.
No wonder more and more Canadians are connecting with him.
The NDs have lost 4 points in Quebec from the previous SES poll. (That would be the poll you tout in your signature, so that means you do believe it's validity, doesn't it?)
I'll have to agree, the liberal party has surged a bit in Quebec over the past few months, and yes, the polls show that the NDP has dropped from 15 to 11%... That's where your conservatives were four months ago.
Funny thing though, because your conservatives have dropped 7% (to 4%) since then, and have less than half of the support that the NDP has in Quebec...
That poll shows a very interesting graph as well.... Where only one party has had a (pretty much) constant growth in popularity over the past three years. The Liberals' trend is downward, and the Conservative trend is downward.So they are losing support in a poll you are advertisng yet you ignore it to talk about the overwhelming evidence provided by the reaction of several young Quebeckers. -
Maybe to your paycheque.... but Martin's cut $100 Billion in corporate taxes.... that's not much ??? Harris cut Ontario's taxes by over $14 Billion, creating a deficit greater than $5 Billion.... That's not much ???? Your assertion that these cuts are minimal demonstrates clearly that you are not in tune with the realities of the situation...Tax cuts have been minimal. The yearly surpluses are far higher than the amounts lost through tax cuts. At least at the federal level. At the provincial level things are different, but even there tax cuts have been minimal.
How about 8000 nurses in Ontario... (or was it more .. Quebec cut 13,000 nursing jobs)... 14 hospitals in the GTA... plus, plus, plus...I think that they've realized that the Tory strategy of severely cutting health care budgets did not cause a significant improvement in medical care in Ontario. They're trying a new approach.... financing it....Would you care to cite the cuts made to health care? In round figures, please.
Paul Martin is a Tory, disguised as a liberal... His fiscal policies should make that obvious to you....How many billions did the Ontario Tories take out of the system? Oh, right, they never actually cut it at all. They actually increased funding by a very substantial amount even while the federal Liberals were slashing health care transfers. People like you never understood that it wasn't the Harris tories who were responsible for health care problems which were nationwide. The only real cuts came from the Liberals - from Paul Martin, in fact.You say that the Tories actually increased health-care spending. Giving construction contracts to Tory-friendly construction companies to tear down a wing of a hospital here and there, build another few hospitals... and at the same time cutting real health-care services -- that is not increasing real health-care spending... Harris's actions should be punishable by jail time - padding your friends' pockets with public money is wrong.
I'm trying to use "simple" language so you understand it...Suppose your dad owns a candy store. He says that you can get free candy from the "family store", but if you want to go to the competitor's candy store, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Using your logic, you think that you should be able to go to the competitor's candy store and charge it to your family's candy store....Your analogies continue to be quite "simple" or perhaps "simplistic" would be a better term, and highly innacurate.
Your assumption is probably as wrong as your argument. Just because someone is left of centre, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are poor. These kinds of assumptions in your arguments show the limitations in your perception. You have indicated that you are a public employee, fourth down on the chain..... From this, I highly doubt that I could be jealous of your financial position....We're not talking about my "dad", were talking about government money, much of it contributed by me. I contributed more, I'm guessing, than you did. The middle class overall contributes substantially to the tax coffers. What you're saying is that even if we have more money we should either stick with your failing system, or go our own way without the government which we fund contributing anything. That would only be fair if we got to deduct 100% of the taxes we pay which goes towards your health care.Again, there is no logic behind your argument, just resentment towards those more economically successful than you.
Following your argument, why don't we just pay the extra $10/visitor to our public hospital.... If $10/visit will do the trick, then lets pay for it (through our taxes)... because it will probably be a lot cheaper than your idea of paying for 2 entire systems..... plus the $10.Let's even take out the additional hospital concept since that proved too difficult for you. Imagine that a hospital has just one doctor on duty every night - which most do. If you go there at midnight you wait six hours for treatment. Now imagine that hospital was permitted to charge additional fees on top of what it gets from the government. Because it is primarily funded by government these fees need not be onerous, just enough to allow them to pay for a second doctor to work overnight. Say, ten dollars per visitor. Now I don't know about you, but if a second doctor would lower my wait from 6 hrs to 3hrs I'd certainly pay it. Most of us 'rich people" would. -
-
It seems to me, and to many Canadians (through published polls) that Mr. Layton's proposals, like the recent budget amendment, are to benefit Canadian citizens....When Jack Layton continually makes policy proposals that would hurt ALL Canadians economically it only goes to prove why he will NEVER be a realistic contender for 24 Sussex .... thankfully!
Did you read Mirror's Globe & Mail link... where even the NAFTA negotiators think that Canada should do something along these lines... Maybe you should advise them, since you're obviously way smarter than everyone else.Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 1 - Slap Tariffs on Canadian oil exports. -
Remaining a doormat probably hurts more though.... and for longer...But the punishment hurts us as well. Trade wars benefit no one. -
... The fault was originated in Ohio , at a "private" electricity generator who came online, not synchronized with the grid, an did incredible damage. This fault took out the grid for a large portion of the USA as well, so it's not just Ontario's outdated equipment at fault. You try to speak authoratatively on this matter, but you're speaking anal excrement.For state-run business in Canada, see Ontario Hydro. Last summer there was a massive blackout and more are forecast this year (it has not gotten really hot yet, thankfully). This was squarely blamed upon the failure of the state-run hydro company to invest in new equipment. -
Did you mean "were willing to accomodate" at the same time that they were cutting the tax base. (ie. Tax breaks for corporate Canada and the wealthiest is more important than health care for all)
Plundered it by pouring more and more money into it, you mean? It isn't that the system was "plundered" it's that health care costs rose enormously, far beyond what governments could accomodate without drastic raises in income taxes (uh oh, all the lefties just had an orgasm).Over the years, conservative arguments have said "we can't afford this" (free care for the poor).. And they have contiually plundered the system...
Doctors salaries are too high ???? I don't know if you pay attention to these things, or just like to try to talk authoratatively and bluff the other people who don't know... Doctor's salaries are probably a little too low... hence the shortage of doctors... the slow service, etc...Doctors and nurses and all health care workers down to the level of cafeteria staff and cleaners now make very big salaries and those salaries have been escalating far above the rate of inflation. That is what really drains the system. That and bad management, of course.
... and buildings.... I think that they've realized that the Tory strategy of severely cutting health care budgets did not cause a significant improvement in medical care in Ontario. They're trying a new approach.... financing it....... I don't think you need an economics degree for this one.... Let's fix the bus...Okay, by all means, fix the bus. Unfortunately, you can't. Your mind is incapable of even imagining how a bus might be fixed other than pouring more and more money into its fuel tank in hopes that somehow will encourage the bus to work better. Ontario recently pumped billions into its health care sector, but most of it just went to increased wages.
I don't think that I need argue too much... You're doing a great job of making yourself look _______ (fill in the blank yourself).
You're showing your ignorance, big time....The NDP, the "middle class" is made up of anyone who makes more than minimum wage, while the "rich" is anyone who can afford their own home.Don't think so. Let me give you an orgasm... tax increases! Tax increases! Big tax increases! There. Was it good for you?
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the difference between public an private, so I'll type "real slow" for you. Maybe we should use a simple analogy.If a lot of people get treated at the private hospital you won't need as many public hospitals. And since those people who want to get treated privately are taxpayers, there's no reason the government should not fund their health care treatment to exactly the same degree, no more/no less, that it does every other taxpayer.Suppose your dad owns a candy store. He says that you can get free candy from the "family store", but if you want to go to the competitor's candy store, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Using your logic, you think that you should be able to go to the competitor's candy store and charge it to your family's candy store....
Let's put nurses in charge of fixin' healthcare?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Because the MAJORITY OF CANADIANS WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH CARE!!!