err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
Why should they be making wages that aren't at all what the market value for their job is and be paid out of your pocket?
Oh that's right, so we can pay $36 for a case of beer when I can drive over the border and buy a case of Molson Canadian for $12 us. Factor in tolls and exchange it's actually worth it.
Watered down Molson Canadian.... Haven't you noticed that the "Canadian" beer that you buy in the USA is watered down... but aside from the fact that you can't tell the difference, why do seem to have a problem with anybody being well paid. I've seen you post several times "Why do you hate corporations"... I have to ask you why you hate that some people have decent paying jobs.... Wouldn't you like to have a decent paying job ?? You seem to have this view that only corporate business owners (and shareholders) should be well paid, and everybody else making minimum wage....
-
Hey, I've got news for you...THERE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS BEFORE THE WAR.
Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.
I'd like to post last week's Linda McQuaig article from the Toronto Star discussing this topic:
LINDA McQUAIG
It's hard to imagine how the war on terror could be viewed as a success.
Among other things, terrorism is up sharply since the war to end it began — even before the horrific bombings in London last week. The number of serious international terrorist attacks more than tripled — to 655 last year from 175 the year before — according to U.S. government figures.
The Bush administration was hoping to keep these discouraging numbers secret, and so decided last April not to include them in its annual terrorism report to Congress. But congressional aides, briefed on the statistics, released them. It was the second year in a row the administration tried to hide a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks.
This raises the question: has the war on terror actually increased terrorism?
Perhaps terrorism would have increased anyway, but I'd guess the war on terror has made things worse. The heavy-handed methods used by George Bush (and helper Tony Blair) — including invading Iraq even though it had no links to 9/11 terrorists, and illegally detaining and torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay — have only exacerbated the rage many in the Middle East already felt against the U.S.
The war on terror certainly does nothing to get to the root of the problem.
For several years now, a new kind of "political correctness" has prevented meaningful public discussion about this entire subject. Despite the endless commentary generated by the attacks of Sept. 11, one thing was clear from the outset: any probing of the so-called "root causes" would be strictly off-limits in mainstream debate.
Perhaps this was understandable; discussing "root causes" seemed to reward the terrorists by paying attention to issues they wanted on the agenda. But it's also created a wilful blindness.
It's interesting to note there was no such wilful blindness about the "root causes" of the Nazi rise to power. I recall being taught in school about the deep sense of grievance felt by the German people over the reparations imposed on them after World War I. This background wasn't meant in any way to let Hitler off the hook for his atrocities. It simply helped explain how he'd managed to manipulate the German public to win power.
The people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances against America — from the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to decades of U.S. backing of tyrants in the region (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s) to unwavering U.S. support for Israel during its 38-year military occupation of Palestine.
Until the U.S. changes its behaviour, the Middle East will be fertile ground for Islamic extremists to win recruits — and even some public support.
As long as we refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the grievances felt in that part of the world, let alone try to correct them, we'll go on as we are, enjoying the satisfaction of venting our rage against the evils of terrorism. We just won't do much to stop it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.
-
Wouldn't allowing some services to be performed in private facilities take pressure off of the public system? Why do we have to be the only democratic country in the world that insists on government control over health care?
If you wanted to pay more money to a private system, sure, it would, at first, appear to take pressure off the public system. However, since the private system is "for profit", and given equal pay to the doctors, the private system will cost more for the same service. Then there is less money left for our public system... So why not just pay what it costs to do it in the PUBLIC system.
Instead of giving all of our tax dollars to corporate Canada in tax cuts, lets spend some of our tax dollars on doctors and nurses. Corporate Canada pays 4% less in taxes than their American counterparts... and a lot less than personal tax rates in Canada. Instead of giving further tax cuts to the corporations at the expense of our medical system, lets tell Paul Martin that our health care is number 1....
His email address is [email protected]
-
Plus, if we privitize the LCBO, we will be kicking people off inflated salaries. Captialism will work in this case, if the LCBO goes private.
Ya... get rid of the good jobs... Why should other people have good jobs that pay enough to make a decent living on....
-
Mr. Harris and Mr. Eves left Ontario with a massive deficit in the middle of historically low interest rates and a long period without serious stuctural recession (Sept 11 excepted).
It was quite an impressive feat.
Actually, Harris had a balanced buget. Only in the final year, a year with Sars, Mad Cow, the great Blackout, etc. did Ernie Eves run a deficit. Nor was that deficit nearly as big as the Liberals are making out. If the Tories had gotten releelected it probably would have been no more than 1 billion or so, and if they increased taxes anywhere near what the Liberals have they'd have had a surplus.
Where did you get this information (mis-information). Harris promised huge tax cuts, which the province could not afford to make... $14 Billion... Then they had to hide the huge deficit that they made... so they sold the 407 for much less than its worth.... And Ontarians will pay foriegners a fortune for the 95 years left in the lease of the highway.
They sold of most of our electricity generating capacity to Brascon, Great Lakes Energy, and British Petroleum..... for a fraction of its worth.... Now, Brascon can generate electricity for $0.005 per kilowatt-Hour, and charge us $0.16 for it in the warm weather.... All this is money going right out of the province....
They also removed some of our provincial taxes by moving social services onto municipal budgets.... So they reduced our provincial taxes by a smidgen, and our property taxes go through the roof. We now have service charges and loss of services, loss of medical services, cuts to education....
And who benefited from the Tory tax savings.... Well, out of the $14 billion tax cuts, about 50% went to 1% of the population (the wealthiest % of the population).... Most Ontarians actually are paying a lot more tax now because of the Tory Tax cuts.... in service charges, in the regressive health tax, in raised property taxes.
The wealthiest Ontarians benefited from the Tory Tax cuts, and the rest of us have to deal with the service cuts and increased costs due to the huge deficit they left.
-
You are kidding right? They are one of those papers that does not even pretend to be objective.
It all depends on your definition of "objective".... If "objective" means spouting right-wing neo-con tripe, then I guess they don't ....
They are probably the only paper that is not on the extreme right in Canada...
PS. Did you check out the Linda McQuaig article I was talking about ???
-
My main source of news now is the 'net and the radio, however I still like to see a paper once in a while. no more TV news although I will still watch special events such as election nite returns. My specifc souces of news I will get into at a later time.
The media mostly owned by the RIGHT WING. Newspapers exist to make a profit. Their profits are not from having excellent insights or hard-hitting fact-finding stories.... They are from selling advertisers. How many left-wing advertisers are there.... No, they are big companies... who won't support a news source that promotes ideas that could hurt their business.
For example, what insurance companies would adveritise in a news source that promoted the NDP party, and thier stance for public auto insurance... Not too many....
The Toronto Star is probably the best, most balanced newspaper in Canada, and you can find them online.... The Toronto Star
PS. Linda McQuaig (my favorite author) has a weekly article in the Star... They keep about 20 weeks of her articles online.... This week, it is about the failure of the "war on terror"... definitely a worthwhile read....
-
Canada’s medical services are shooting somewhere between bogy and double We have all waited at emergency at sometime in the last few years till all hours in the morning getting a first hand glimpse at the bottled necked system. But the real question is how do we change it?
I've sat with my children in emergency for hours, with one doctor coming in every half hour and seeing one of the 16 people waiting in line... There is a serious problem with understaffing at our hospitals. We need to hire more doctors... it doesn't take a genius to figure that out ...
And why don't we have more doctors.... because they are not paid well enough, and hence disappear to the USA where they are paid better for treating the priveleged few.
We all hear about health care costs going way up. And the province's books will show you that this is a truth. In Ontario, the Harris/Eves Tories claimed on their way out, that they spent more than any previous government in Ontario on health care. The sickening part is, that this is partially true. They paid for construction companies (who donated to their party) to tear down wings of hospitals. They paid for construction companies to build new wings on hospitals, new emergency wards, etc... A lot of money was spent on buildings, but I'm afraid not a whole lot more on doctors and nurses.
One of Ontario's largest health care providers is Ellis-Don Construction.... (yes, the same Ellis Don who was the leader of the Ontario Liberal party...)
Our health care system is still less than half of the price per capita of the US system, and they have 40 million people with no health insurance. They have millions of people afraid to lose their jobs because they will lose their health insurance....
We probably dont need to throw too much more money at it...but we shouldn't be afraid to do what needs to be done. The big thing is that the spending needs to be monitored. We need to spend the money on health care - Doctors and nurses.... not buildings, built by friends of politicians....
-
The EI system is a rip-off to the vast majority of contributors. The only beneficiary is the government who year after year sits on a big fat EI surplus.
The Conservative "Liberal" government is not sitting on the surplus... they're collecting it and dispersing it in the form of tax breaks for corporate Canada...
there is a solution though:
Vote for Jack Layton and the NDP
-
That said, I appreciated the money at the time, just like I would have appreciated any welfare money to tide me over till I found a new job. My point was that the EI is not an insurance program but rather a welfare program that is funded by a particularily regressive taxation model that kills jobs and discourages people from working as much as they could.
I think programs like EI are worthwhile (even if it needs a lot of reform), however, people should stop thinking that the EI surplus 'belongs' to the workers. The EI surplus belongs in general revenue like every other tax we pay.
I'm glad that the premiums I have paid over the years were able to help you when you needed it. It makes me feel good to live in a society where people help each other, (even though some do it begrudgingly). You suggest that this program kills jobs... but I would rather think of it as a program that saves lives... (not literally though)... I would think it absolutely horrible if, due to unforseen circumstances, you were temporarily unemployed, and lost your house/home... put your family on the street... lost your car, everything... because these things can certainly happen. I'm happy to be part of a system that protects my neighbours, and have comfort in the fact that they would do the same for me should I ever need it.
I disagree with you somewhat on the idea that EI premiums should go into general revenue. Then they shouldn't call them EI premiums... Similarly, the regressive "health tax" in Ontario shouldn't be used to build sewers (as it is). (Note: I am opposed to the implementation of the "health tax" as the majority of the revenues are dispropotionately taken from the poorest segment of the population.)
-
Why do you hate corporations so much?
You'll have to distinguish distaste rising from a perception of inequity with "hatred".
Canadian corporations pay about 19% taxes. Low-end income earners pay more than that. I perceive inequity... don't you...
Paul Martin has reduced corporate income taxes by over $100 Billion dollars over the past few years.... He hasn't reduced taxes for very many Canadian citizens though....
In fact, he's cut funding for social benefits, transfers for health and education... so that he can give more tax deductions to these corporations.... A real reverse Robin Hood.... Our health care system is in crisis.... but corporate taxes are going down.... No need to bother them with the welfare of Canadians...
You see, Cybercoma, a great many people feel that the public has been dealt a bad hand, and the government is stacking the deck in favour of corporate Canada... We don't hate the corporations, just the way that we are treated as second class citizens to corporate Canada....
-
Please, offer me one shred of evidence that more CO2 in the air causes floods, hurricanes and heat waves. I know one thing it does cause: healthy plants.
I don't know what kind of proof would suffice to alter the opinion of an obvious science genius as yourself.... I doubt we could fool you into believing that the insulating layer around the earth makes it warmer.... You'd have to believe that the earth was round to fall for that one....
-
While he was in power Mulroney began the dismantling of Canada's railways. Now big trucks have taken over our roads in Canada, and are severely eroding our Canadian lifestyle to say nothing about the negative impact on the environment and our health with those cancer causing diseal fumes.
It began a long time before Mulroney... (but don't take that as my defending Mulroney). When our national railways were sold off, there were conditions that the buyers had to maintain passenger rail service... but nobody ever enforced these conditions.
Railways are by far the most environmentally friendly method of transporting both goods and people. We should put pressure on our government to promote the re-development of railway services... not just in the GTA.
In Walter Stewart's book "Downsizing to Destruction ", there is an excellent chapter devoted to this topic. If I were to plug a book on Canadian politics, this would probably be one of my #1 choices....
-
I had to collect EI for a few months after 9/11. Even if I had collected full benefits for the maximum number of weeks I would have only received a fraction of what I paid into over the years (nevermind investing it). Furthermore, the system discourages you to find work by doing what ever odd jobs you can pick up because you effectively pay 100% tax since you lose benefits for every dollar you earn (assuming you are an honest person that does not wish to defraud the system).
EI is glorified welfare not an insurance program.
I must have missed something in what you said.... Was the program not there for you when you needed it ???
Your statement that the system discourages you from finding work.... I can see your point in reporting minor casual income, but is there not an obvious limitation on the number of weeks you are eligible to collect... so unless you have your head stuck in the sand with respect to this deadline, I don't see how you can miss the incentive to find work...
Thirdly, your complaint that you would only have received a fraction of what you paid into it over the years.... this can be viewed many ways... but it should not be viewed as an 'investment'. Most people don't buy life insurance as an investment... It is there to help those who need it, and from the sounds of it, you are one of the fortunate who does not often need it...
-
Just think of how much money you'd have it you took your EI contribution and put it into your own investments and were able to draw from that should the need arise.
BRILLIANT!
Maybe not so brilliant...
To follow the same line of argument as you present, why don't you cancel your life insurance policy and invest that money so that you and your family can invest it and become rich. Do you not see a problem with this argument.....
Should your family need that life insurance policy (God forbid), before you accrued a substantial amount, they would be out of luck, ... (and I guess, so would you).
The publicly funded system is one where (supposedly) nobody is taking a big gamble, and everyone is protected.... whether rich or poor... With the private system you promote, you could be like the poor dead guy who left his family nothing....
-
Our unemployment rate has dropped, but my contribution rate hasn't changed, has yours? I have no idea how many people are ripping off EI. How can you be ripping of the system if you follow the rules which are laid down? The rules have been tightned on EI to the point where fewer and fewer working people are eligible. IMO, EI doesnt provde fair value, and if given a choice I would withdraw from it.
Renegade, it should be obvious who is ripping off EI. They've had huge surpluses every year... HUGE... and out Conservative "Liberal" prime Minister Martin has diverted those funds... As a result, he can afford to reduce corporate taxes in Canada.... Pretty neat eh... Paul Martin is the reverse Robin Hood... Taking extra money from citizens so he can give it to corporate Canada... and at the same time, making it much harder for the unfortunate to qualify for the benefits...
-
How so? The way it is now, we the government get all the profits... Why open this up to the corporations? or am I missing something? How would this help?
Actually, the people of Ontario get all the profits. Every dollar collected at the LCBO is one dollar less that the government has to collect off your paycheque.
So unless you own one of the companies that would obtain a portion of the LCBO that would be sold off.... you lose from the sale of the LCBO...
-
Even George Bush has now agreed that mankind's behaviour is contributing to global warming, so we can now forget the charade. The biggest threat to solving our global warning crisis is the US and in particular the corporate community.
Over the last 100 years with the population of the planet going from 2 Billion to 6 billion and the advent of industry the temperature of the planet has increased a staggering ALMOST 2F. I'd say it's not a problem.
People call George Bush a moron, and even he now admits that it is a serious problem... "but heck, it'd wreck our economy to do somehing about it".
Cybercoma, your stellar scientific perspective is awe inspiring.... what's missing.??
-
However, when most of the cutting of our personal benefits is to finance tax cuts for corporate Canada, it is harder to take. Especially, when corporate Canada's tax rates are 4% lower than for our neighbours to the south. It's not like they need to lower them any more to be competative.Ummmm does anyone understand economics, Corporations and Wealthy people hold a lot of power and also have a lot of CHOICES (MONEY TALKS). In today's COMPETITIVE world, countries compete for the brightest and the wealthiest in order to benefit that country and also it must provide a benefit to the wealthy individual/corporation. SO YES err we do need to keep them lower too remain competitive.
How much lower do you think we need to keep them than everybody elses, Mr. Economicus? Supposing Wallmart sold Economics text books for 2/3 of the price of any competitor. Do you think it would be sound economics for them to drop the price to say 1/2 of the price of the next competitor.... Probably not.
Cybercoma, why don't you explain to me why we should have long waiting lists for surgery, poorer education system for our children, less social safety nets for when we need it... just so that corporate Canada can have even lower tax rates.... When they are already 4% lower than in the USA ????Well these problems have plagued Canada right across all provinces and political parties, even if we tripled the amount dollars thrown into health care, nothing will change, in a few years we would be complaining about the same issue. HEALTH CARE NEEDS AN OVERHAUL.If you have been reading these newsgroups, you may have discovered that even the right-wing economists have stated that automotive manufacturers have a huge benefit in Canada already due to our economical health care system... The private system in the USA costs TWICE AS MUCH per capita. The overhaul that our system requires is a return to its previous level of funding (inflation adjusted).
Currently, we can afford to pay down our deficit, keep lower corporate taxes than the USA, without taking any more away from the citizens of Canada... In fact, we can affort to get back some more back of what we used to have...Maybe, the sooner you (and your neo-con friends) understand that, the better off we all will be...
Its great that the left wingers are all for the common man, its great that people still care. But I wish for the life of me that anyone who considers themselves left wing would have to attend mandatory first year university economics. Then finally the left wingers could join us right wingers back in reality and peace and happiness will be enjoyed by all.
Maybe you don't consider yourself a "COMMON MAN" because you have a pumped up, false sense of self importance, and feel you are better than the "common man".... because you have taken a first year economics class. It might be instructive for you to compare your net worth to that of the average, or slightly above average and see just how superior you are...
Personally, my income is considerably higher than the average, but I don't see myself as 'superior'. I appreciate the fact that I came from humble beginnings, paid my way through university, and now have a good position and income. I appreciate the fact that the infrastructure that supported my rise from poor financial circumstances, and hope that it remains there for other people. I would not presume to suggest that the government cut of opportunities for the 'common man' so that I could keep more of the money that I earn.
-
The bloated wasteful government we have is not concerned with providing you with a social safety net (that you and charities could provide much more efficiently for you and your family), they're only concerned with providing themselves with as much as possible before they retire and live off your tax funded pensions for them.
Cybercoma, you make some very dangerous assumptions. You suggest that we would be better off without our bloated wasteful government. Perhaps you and I could be financially ahead if we paid no taxes and just paid from our pockets for the benefits we receive from our current social safety net. But you also have to consider how got to our position of "financial independence". Because I don't know you personally, I'll assume that you are an educated person with a reasonable income (else you would be in a hypocritical position).
Did you educate yourself, or did our bloated governement help with that? Do you drive on roads to get to work (roads that our bloated government built and maintians). Do you have any electric/electronic implements of your trade (that run on electricity from the infrastructure built by our bloated governement)? Do you rely on medical assistance, or have you ever (using health care provided by our bloated government)? Do you use water in your house/work?? (water that comes in on the infrastructure built by our bloated governement).. If you answered NO to ALL of those questions, you are an incredible person (or a liar).
You could not have gotten where you are without programs and infrastructure supplied by that bloated goverment.... So now that you've gotten your help, and don't need them any more you want to take away the same benefits that helped you get where you are.... so other people can't live as well as you ????
Maybe you can show how the governement supports clubbing of baby seals, or have programs that promote treating homosexuals as equal so that you can convince people to have the government strip financing for those programs that got you where you are....
-
Roads, clean drinking water, police, these are things that all of us need, but who should pay for it? Everyone uses those things and we should all pay for them through taxes, but for every program you list as being necessary there are several that can be listed that are unneccessary.
Why does a religious person have to spend their tax dollars on ads targeting homosexuals about AIDS that are posted in universities all over Canada? Why does someone in Alberta have to pay for the federal liberals to be able to campaign in Quebec by having their tax dollars used as illegal campaign contributions? Why do I have to have my money that was taken by force handed over to oppressive regimes in Africa? Why does anyone's money go towards lavish vacations and fine dining for the governor general? Why do Canadians pay for private health services for politicians and inmates?
These things we don't need to be paying for and it angers me that we do. The bloated wasteful government we have is not concerned with providing you with a social safety net (that you and charities could provide much more efficiently for you and your family), they're only concerned with providing themselves with as much as possible before they retire and live off your tax funded pensions for them.
Theres's a wonderful book by Linda McQuaig called "The Wealthy Banker's Wife", where the argument you present is discussed. The book describes a Mulroney era television commercial showing the wealthy wife opening her 'family allowance' cheque, and trying to decide whether to buy chocolates or perfume with the 'free money'. The whole point of the commercial was to convince the public that these 'free benefits' squandered on Canadians should be stopped so that wealthy people aren't stealing the money from the public coffers, and hence, the poor. Mulroney was successful in his campaigns to cut benefits to Canadians. The wealthy banker's wife probably has to dip into her pocket for chocolates now, but what about the hundreds of thousands of poor that no longer can count on that monthly cheque... no matter how small it was.
Your arguments for the removal of our social safety nets attempt to distort and pervert the the perception of the function of government, and all of the truly good programs that help make Canada a good place to live for all of its citizens by showing a few negative points.... and based on those few negatives, ignoring the thousands of positives, are certainly not justification for your described goals.
-
We should privitize the LCBO. It's better for the whole Ontario. The report that came out a few days ago agreed. We would generate even more money in revenue from privitization. The proof that selling the LCBO is better for us in Alberta.
Hey Big Blue... since you won't read "The Quick and the Dead", how about another political book that's probably more on your level. Read it a few times until you get the moral... It's called "The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg".
-
Eleven-point Liberal poll lead has observers pointing fingers at Harper
One poll is understandable however I do detect a bit of a trend here.
Conservatives it's time to lose him if you get my drift.
I think the Conservative/Reform/Alliance party should keep Harper in charge... It'll help spare the Canadian public from right-wing Conservative/Reform/Alliance policies...
-
*gasp* Are you serious? This is all so new to me! Tell me more about Iraq, I've never heard this before...
And by your sarcastic tone, you would give the impression that you know what's going on... yet your quotation at the bottom of your post would give the opposite impression....
Jack Layton
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I'd like to see a government that puts the PEOPLE of Canada first. The two conservative parties, the "Liberals", and the Conservative/Reform/Alliance have different ideas... I say PEOPLE FIRST... Vote NDP.