err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
Maybe you should hit yourself it the head with a hammer.... It might knock some sense into you...... If you got the jist of the article, it would appear that even the guys who negotiated the free trade agreement and US senators all think that Canada should retaliate... Now, maybe you're smarter than all of them, but somehow I don't see it... Would you like a hammer...Let's make sure this is clear.The US government is hitting its own head with a hammer. The Canadian government is about to "retaliate" by hitting its own head with a hammer.
To call it a trade "war" is to abuse the language: "I will stop hitting my head with my hammer when you stop hitting your head with your hammer."
-
That's OK... because most granola is almond coloured... or straw coloured. Green granola never really got popular, so I don't think Layton will mind losing that small sector...Layton is going to lose the green-granola vote if he goes in this direction.PS. Read Toro's post, just below yours... It might help you understand the logic behind Layton's statement.....
-
August... I think it is you who has missed the point... re-read the post. My point had to do with both teams playing by the same rules....err, I think you've missed my point.
If you don't approve of NAFTA, then you must be in favour of barriers to trade between Canada and the US. Well, the US government has done precisely that, imposed a barrier to trade. You should applaud.I don't approve of NAFTA at all. -
The correct analogy would be me, still waiting for the bus, while the rich are already driving by in limousines. But I can't buy a Toyota Echo.
Exactly... that's why we have to pressure the government to FIX THE BUS !!!!!
-
We've never paid as much for a litre of milk as we do now either. If you adjust for inflation, etc.. (or % of GNP...) you'll find that we actually don't spend as much on health care as we used to...We have never put more money into health care than we do now. To blame our health care problems on "conservative arguments" is singularly lame. It's like blaming the newspaper for the bad weather.Even the Ontario Tories desperate last minute attempts to say that they spent more on health care than any previous Ontario government is a joke... but not a funny one... Construction of hospitals, wings of hospitals, tearing down wings of hospitals... all money that went to "Tory friendly" construction companies.... That isn't what I call "health-care spending"....
BTW - I don't just blame Tory governments, I blame Tory fiscal policy, implemented by Paul Martin as well....
-
I find it truly ironic that you bemoan NAFTA because it allows Americans easy access to our natural resources, but then when Americans don't buy our natural resources (softwood lumber), you get upset.Did you mean by COMPANIES in the USA ??.. American Companies that have great access to Canada and its resources throug NAFTA ??... You know, that agreement that the USA follows only when it is in their favour...I don't approve of NAFTA at all. Not one tiny little bit. However, being as Mr. Mulroney got us into this deal, where the surface of the iceberg is the taxation portion, we are obliged to live with it. Even though we got the shit end of the stick, we've been committed to following its rules. Now the United States, who has the upper hand decides they don't want to follow the rules in one of the few areas where Canada can actually benefit from the deal...
I would love to see NAFTA scrapped over this little argument, but there's no way the USA will allow that to happen.... It guarantees them our oil, even if there's not enough left for us...(and we all know they like oil)
If they get to win 39 times out of 40, and don't accept the rules in the one game we win at... I'm sorry... there's a lot of pejorative terms for players like that...
-
Caves in... who caved in... Mr. Martin had to delay a big tax break for corp Canada and help Canadian citizens... I can see why you conservatives are against that.... But it was a good reflection of the souls of the three parties....Let's consider what Layton has done in this parliament. After the election he said that his caucus would only support the Liberal government instituted democratic reform including proportional representation. Yet he caves and totally gives in merely to for a one-time outlay of 4-5 Billion on social spending that the Liberals have reneged on.Conservatives - down with the poor... lets join the USA in IRAQ
Liberals - Talk socialist before election, govern conservative when in
NDP - Priorities are citizens of Canada....
-
My original argument said "limosines"... it was you who changed it...So what he's really saying is."If your buses don't work do you repair the system or let people buy their own cars to get to work on their own."
I think the more people use their own cars the less strain on the bus system.
And since the people who operate the buses have been standing around shaking their heads trying to decide how to fix them for about ten years now I'd say we should let people buy their own cars.
I note again this typical leftist tactic of insinuating that private medical care is something only sought by the "wealthy". I said "people" should be allowed to buy their own "cars" and you immediately shift it back to "wealthy" buying "limosines".
Prompt and effective medical care is sought by the wealthy and poor alike. We have a system (a bus) that once was the best in the world. Over the years, conservative arguments have said "we can't afford this" (free care for the poor).. And they have contiually plundered the system... and it doesn't matter to the wealthy Conservative, because the rich can afford to buy 'front of the line', (limo) service.... as you have stated (quote below).
Now, if our medical care system was as good as it once was, nobody would be seeking private care, would they... So why don't we expand our analogy... We have a run-down bus that works... Rich people take private limosines.... So do we fix the bus, or do we continue to run a bus service with a poor bus, and also publicly pay for a private taxi system for when our bus is broken down... I don't think you need an economics degree for this one.... Let's fix the bus...
Your verbal diatribe then went on to list prominant liberals and conservatives who don't care about the system.... The answer is simple... DONT VOTE FOR LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES IF THE AREN'T INTERESTED IN FIXING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS... VOTE NDP.The wealthy do not give a rats ass about your public health care system or privatising it.
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.
What did you have to smoke to come to that conclusion.... I'm a big supporter of fixing our health care system... And if that means they have to close a tax-loophole to afford it, then I say, "lets do it". It has nothing to do with much more than common sense....Really, this whole argument boils down to nothing more than jealousy and resentment towards the rich, towards those who can afford private insurance and medical care.
"Thus while the poor are no worse off get insensed that their service is not as good".... Common sense, in line with your argument....If there is one hospital and the wait is ten hours to get a broken bone set everyone is "equal", ie, equally miserable. If there is a private hospital sitting next to it, then those with money don't have to wait. Thus while the poor are no worse off get incensed that their services is not as good. In fact, a second hospital would improve waiting times at the first by streaming off those who can afford to pay.If there are to be private hospitals, I'm not against them at all. What I'm against is the public paying a single red cent to one of these private hospitals. They can build them, but not with ANY public money.... for building it... maintaining it, or running it... Private is private, and public is public...
Wow... So the public purse should pay for two sets of doctors, two sets of nurses, two sets of administrative services, two sets of maintenance staff, two heating bills, two air conditioning bills... and I suppose the "profit" is the pay-for part of the bill with your idea.... ???The most equitable system, however, would be that the second hospital, since it serves taxpayers, is funded exactly like the first hospital. However, it would be able to charge fees to cover an improvement in services.It would be much cheaper to fix our existing public system....
-
I think Chinese translators are fairly economical. The big supply contract that you're worried about is NAFTA..... you know, that deal under which there aren't supposed to be any softwood lumber duties....How much will the added costs of getting the oil to your "prospective new buyers" be? What will the legal costs be when U.S. companies sue Canadian companies for breaking supply contracts? Who will pay these costs?
And what nasties do you think Uncle Sam will have for us... more softwood lumber taxes ???I think we need Martin to act more like Trudeau, and stand up to the USA a lot more than he has...That would be great ... for the Conservatives. Piss off the Americans to the point where the start being really nasty. That would probably tip the balance away from the Liberals. Enough to get Martin out of the PMO....
They don't mind killing their own for oil... It's what IRAQ is about.... didn't you know ???Again, I miss the self-evident nature of your reasoning.
err "The Iraq war is about oil." shoop "Why do you say that?" err "Because it is!"
I applaud the well-constructed and laid out argument on that one.
And I am amazed at your ability to look at what's going on in the middle east and completely miss the point...
Were there weapons of mass destruction... no... and they knew it... They wouldn't have attacked if they thought he did.... They knew he used all of the biological weapons that the USA provided Saddam on the Iranians... And he didn't have any at the end of the first war....
Did they (the USA) think Saddam was an awful tyrant, gassing his own people with the helecopters that the USA provided for that expressed purpose... (Ie... did they suddenly feel bad they helped him kill his own ???)
Did they not like the fact that the guy they installed in charge of Iraq was a dictator...
There's so much evidence out there if you care to take your blinders off...
I recommend "It's the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig if you really want to know about Iraq... and the USA's intentions there.....
-
It's not like we'll have trouble finding another buyer for our oil.... And with all the efforts they are putting forth to assure themselves of a steady supply... I think they'd stand up to attention fairly quickly if we were to threaten their supply...Yes, we do have cards to play. But let's play to win. Taxing the oil hurts us more than it hurts the U.S. Sure they will still take some of their oil from Canada, but they will cut back on how much. Besides, what's to stop the U.S. from using that money to 'buy' a more stable oil supply from Venezuela?
I think we need Martin to act more like Trudeau, and stand up to the USA a lot more than he has...The belligerence of the Martin regime has strained the Canada-U.S. relationship. Let's avoid confrontation and work constructively.
They don't mind killing their own for oil... It's what IRAQ is about.... didn't you know ???
The unquestioned 'truth' that the U.S. is willing to "kill" for oil.I think it is a wonderful bargaining position.... We have something they're willing to kill for... restricting access until they follow the rules... what's so childish about that.... -
Maybe you should listen to what the NDP is screaming about... Then you and you likes might have some credibility when you put them down.
Oh I'm just kidding. I know what the NDP is screaming about. They hate me. I'm a white, English traditionalist; straight and middle class. If the NDP had its way I'd be in a re-education camp.
I think you've given us a good idea of your mindset.... and your mind in general....
Have you tried prozak....When they refer to the "rich" with righteous indignation in their beady little eyes they're talking about me. They want to take as much of my hard-earned money away from me as they possibly can to give it to non-productive bums and losers on welfare, and to inspire pride in ethnic groups who'll vote NDP, and "artists" who would all be sweeping floors if they didn't have governments to pay them for their "art".
Really... Maybe you'd prefer to live in a concentration camp ???? Try the prozak first...And which programs are "useless and waste"... ones for people who aren't in your situation....That would be any program which isn't neccesary. Note that word "necessary". It's not one in the NDP dictionary. Because to them anything they think is a good idea is "necessary". Doling out money to cultural, arts and entertainment groups isn't necessary, and that includes the CBC and NFB. The gun registry isn't necessary.
-
If you'll look at the timing, Wilson was promising GST at the same time he re-shuffled the tax scales, reduced tax rates, and came out saying that they (Mulroney's government) "were going to get tough on those individuals and companies that paid not taxes"..... and the business community didn't complain. ????? I wonder why ??? (they were promising GST to allow them to afford to drop the tax rates... )GST is a horrible regressive tax. It was brought in by Mulroney so that they could reduce income taxes... Who benefits most from reduced income taxes.... The wealthy...err
I believe the GST replaced a manufacturers excise tax. It did not replace an income tax.
The manufacturers exise tax was removed.... and the theory was that manufacturers would drop their prices correspondingly, so with the GST added, we'd be no worse off.... Ha Ha... did you buy that one too ?
PS. If you really want to know more about this stuff, read Linda McQuaig's "Behind Closed Doors". There's some really eye-opening stuff in there...
-
Did you mean by COMPANIES in the USA ??.. American Companies that have great access to Canada and its resources throug NAFTA ??... You know, that agreement that the USA follows only when it is in their favour...The reality is that the Canadian economy is totally controlled by the U.S. since most of our major industries are either owned outright or are controlled by the U.S.
You say that we have a loss of freedom of choice... In some cases, you may be right... In the USA, they can choose to cough up enough for health care, or just die when they get sick... Maybe just go bankrupt.... If those are the kinds of choices you want, well we're not with you on those ones... There's a huge list of things that make Canada a better place to live than the USA.... I think that you'll find that the citizens of the USA would rather have our health care and social safety net...We are socialist enough already with successive Liberal governments. The only thing this has gained Canada is dependence on government for just about everything, and as a result of that mindset we continue to lose freedom of choice, and our government bureaucracy continues to be one of the fastest growing segments of our society. The more control government has the more it will cost to operate the bureaucracy to support it, and the less disposable income that will be available for the citizens to purchase the necessities of life.(I think perhaps you've been reading too much neo-con tripe)
The "commie" argument show how many card you have left....If we keep on we will be just handed a pay-stub on payday, and government will give us whatever they feel we need to survive. We will end up like Russia and the other communist countries where everyone works for the State. The Liberal's are that different than the NDP in that respect. -
They need our oil... They're willing to spend billions and billions to get their hands on Iraq's oil... and they've got a guaranteed access to ours through NAFTA. However, the neighbourhood bullies think NAFTA's good only when it works entirely in their own favour... So lets play their own game... TAX the OIL...Let's look at the 'hurting' involved. To draw a physical analogy they could punch us so hard as to put us into a coma, but they would break a few fingers in doing so. While lying in our hospital bed recovering we could take solace in the fact that at least those buggers were injured in the attack. What a tremendous moral victory.
Their economy is TEN TIMES the size of ours.The answer is shrewdness, not belligerence.
Do you think it's fair that they don't have to play by the rules, and we do ??? We have cards to play, so lets play them...
I think it is a wonderful bargaining position.... We have something they're willing to kill for... restricting access until they follow the rules... what's so childish about that....By 'turning off the taps' we are not in a negotiating position at all. Deal with them professionally, not like children.Unions go on strike and get raises (and other benefits) for their members. If they didn't... do you think that companies would voluteer the same benefits for their employees if the employees had acted "professionally" as you would call it... You're naive if you really think so...
-
He doesn't, save more media attention. I just said Layton's in an easier position as the 3rd place leader. Also Harper is alot higher profile as the "alternative" to Martin.
Don't underestimate him... It would be foolish, considering the budget we just witnessed. Remember, Tommy Douglas was in third place... and he got us all health care.... No small feat....
-
Maybe you should listen to what the NDP is screaming about... Then you and you likes might have some credibility when you put them down.
The opposition paties are screaming about surpluses? I think the Tories are screaming about govenrment waste and demanding a tax cut. Dunno what the ndp is screaming about as I don't pay them much attention. Probably that taxes are too low.Sure, the opposition parties are screaming and wailing about the surpluses, but just imagine the ruckus they would make if it was in the other direction!
And which programs are "useless and waste"... ones for people who aren't in your situation....The books are supposed to be balanced, but ideally this would be by ensuring that you spend only as much as you are required to spend, not increasing taxes to pay for useless programs and waste. It would also be better to do it honestly rather than by cooking the books. -
Hardly. Taxes on income are the job-killers since they reduce the incentive to work and save. Taxes on consumption will reduce consumption, however, they encourage saving which increases investment. The net result is the economy is better off.The GST is a punishing, job-killing, economic-growth slowing tax. It's unbelievably bad and unnecessary. It should be eliminated, and personal income taxes should be reduced.GST is a horrible regressive tax. It was brought in by Mulroney so that they could reduce income taxes... Who benefits most from reduced income taxes.... The wealthy...
Who does the sales tax hurt the most... well, a guy living cheque to cheque pays GST on pretty much 100% of his income, whereas the richer guy who can bank some of his cheque... pays GST on only a portion of his income...
The lower income bracked loses in both counts.... The savings that the wealthier get on their income tax can easily offset their additonal costs in value-added taxes, so the rich don't lose with Mulroney's tax shuffle....
-
They always underestimate the surplus, so when the budget comes around, they have a surprise bigger surplus. They always say theat they are almost out of money in the piggybank, but they are clearly not. That's whats wrong with the Liberals.
The real reason they always underestimate the surplus should be obvious... "We don't have enough money for health care", "there's not enough money for post-secondary education, so we'll have to raise tuition...".. They aren't going to finish sentences like these with a line like "even though we've got billions of dollars in surplus..."...
They don't want to have to bend to social pressure... They want the public to think "Tough times require drastic actions"... like the closing down of how many hospitals a few years back.... the laying off of how many thousands of nurses a few years back...(12,000 in Quebec alone).... They don't want to say... we have money now, so we're going to give back what we took away...
-
How exactly would we turn off the tap?
Taxes.... exactly like what they're doing with to our softwood lumber.... contrary to the NAFTA agreement.... It shouldn't be hard to find another buyer for our oil.... not hard at all, given today's prices.
What about the thousands of Canadians thrown out of work by doing so?How would we replace the loss of income to the Canadian treasury?
As funny as you may think it at first, they need us.... What will they do... They can't invade Canada.... They can hurt us economically for a short time, but not without further hurting themselves.... and God forbid, have us get into bed with China or another large power instead of relying on Uncle Sam as our major trading partner... And we actually have all of the resources to be self sufficient.... they don't...
Are you actually saying we should smile politely, turn around, and bend over... I don't think so... If you don't stand up for yourself when you're right, then who will.Do you honestly think the United States is going to back down in the face of Canadian belligerence?They are bigger and tougher than us. Best not to try and get in a pissing match with the U.S. or we will lose every time. If we sink to that level the U.S. is totally justified in doing so in return.
But if we maintain professionalism and courtesy in the relationship then perhaps we can arrive at an agreement that leaves both sides happy.
Further, the USA would never risk losing the NAFTA agreement... the one that allows them to rape our country of a lot more than it's natural resources... We are actually big losers in NAFTA, so the threat of ending it is scarier to the USA than it should be to Canada.
We have stuff they want and need (oil, various other natural resources, a 'buddy' that helps look after their undefended border, etc...) If we don't recognize this, we are not in a negtiating position at all, but rather are in the bending over position...
-
Maybe I am missing something, but where is this whole the wealthy want the public to "mostly pay for" a system that will be out of reach of the poorer and middle-class segments of our society coming from?
P3's. and other privately owned hospitals that will get a large part of their funding (and profits) from our public health-care system's funding....
-
It would only be a great analogy if someone was suggesting the public "buy limosines" or in other words, pay for private health care.
So what he's really saying is.
"If your buses don't work do you repair the system or let people buy their own cars to get to work on their own."
I think the more people use their own cars the less strain on the bus system.
And since the people who operate the buses have been standing around shaking their heads trying to decide how to fix them for about ten years now I'd say we should let people buy their own cars.
If the wealthy can afford their own limosines, let them drive them... but we should not subsidize the purchase of the said limosines with ANY public capital... not one red cent.
But the wealthy don't want to pay for their own independent system... they want the public to "mostly pay for" a system that will be out of reach of the poorer and middle-class segments of our society. Either that, or a private system that can soak up public money... that was supposed to be used for maintenance of the bus...
The public system should remain "totally public", where everyone in our country can make avail of its services.
If there is a problem with our system, it is due to the government's fiscal policy, not its ability to pay for a "fully functional" system. The government continues to give more and more tax breaks to corporate Canada, but there's no extra for health care.... In fact, health care monies were cut to give the tax breaks (to corporate Canada, not the lowly citizens), if you'll remember Paul Martin in his former post.
-
This example does not support the case that the poor are paying their share. I have already stated that I support the view that there is an inequity between corporate and individual taxes which allows corporations and self-employed individuals dedcutions and deferral opportunities the indivdiual taxpayer does not have. I would support removing this inequity by either making those deductions and deferral opportunities available to all or to none.
The middle-class and the rich individual taxpayer shoulder the bulk of the tax burden. Giving an example of a corporation which manages to avoid taxes in no way proves that the poor are paying their share.
The example I provided was one in... thousands... Canadian companies pay about 20% of all taxes collected in this country.... and we pay the rest... It used to be 50-50....
The poor may not always be able to carry their entire weight, and I accept this. I don't need proof. I am not, at the same time, going to tell them to go starve... "You're poor because you're lazy", etc... I am glad that we live in a country that helps its weakest. Sure, there may be some percentage abusing the social assistance services, but I'd rather keep all of our social services intact for those who really need it....
The amount of money spent on abuses of our social services pales in comparison with the revenue lost due to corportate tax evasion... (and by those rich people you like so much)
-
“Now, more than ever, Ontario needs to reject Dalton McGuinty’s backdoor privatization and start developing real solutions that protect and improve public health care for ordinary Ontarians.”
Privatization of health care has to be stopped in its tracks.
-
Are you both say that the Supreme Court of Canada AND the Canadian Medical Association are wrong in this case?
Was it you who I heard praising Buzz Hargrove earlier (in another forum).... because the CMA is the Buzz Hargrove of the doctor's union... And their interest is certainly not the health of the public... It's profit and earning power that counts with the CMA... If you cannot recognize this, you should not be debating here.....
The CMA has a vested interest in having its members charge huge amounts of money that it figures it will not be able to extract from a public system. So of course they're going to promote a vehicle to suit their own ends... (their vehicle looks more like a Brinks truck than an ambulance)
The Supreme Court has ruled that waiting times are unreasonably long.... and I guess you suppose that putting in a parallel system is more sensible than fixing the one we have.... Like when your city bus needs repair... do you repair it or buy limosines so rich people can buzz past the run-down bus.....
Playing effective hardball with the U.S.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
That is, unless you're scared of what "The Governator" of California might do....
Taxing the oil would surely get their attention though...