Harper needs to step down

[PoliticalCitizen]

I don't know your personal circumstances. Only you know the answer.

Let me rephrase that:

Should I be worried that the party that appears to be making the wrong decisions is at helm and may get a majority at the worst possible time?

[capricorn]

Let me rephrase that:

Should I be worried that the party that appears to be making the wrong decisions is at helm and may get a majority at the worst possible time?

Yes, I think you should continue to worry about the Conservatives winning a majority. It seems that Dion's decision to stay on as leader could bring about this result sooner than later. Prepare to be more worried than you are now.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, I think you should continue to worry about the Conservatives winning a majority. It seems that Dion's decision to stay on as leader could bring about this result sooner than later. Prepare to be more worried than you are now.

Canadians are better off with a conservative majority then a minority.

I doubt anyone's life will change no matter who is in power.

You guys are worrying about nothing.

What's the worst that can happen?

[betsy]

Let me rephrase that:

Should I be worried that the party that appears to be making the wrong decisions is at helm and may get a majority at the worst possible time?

Your perception could be biased, don't you think so?

I must say, you should feel relieved that the party who had made some wrong decisions and thus found itself sinking in quicksand is not at the helm at this uncertain time.

If you are not following the news, check out the video on the topic "Civil War!"

[PoliticalCitizen]

Yes, I think you should continue to worry about the Conservatives winning a majority. It seems that Dion's decision to stay on as leader could bring about this result sooner than later. Prepare to be more worried than you are now.

Do you feel safe with an opportunist at the helm during a global economy storm?

[PoliticalCitizen]

What's the worst that can happen?

One of the things that could happen is our national debt could become bigger than our GDP - just take a look at USA.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Your perception could be biased, don't you think so?

I must say, you should feel relieved that the party who had made some wrong decisions and thus found itself sinking in quicksand is not at the helm at this uncertain time.

If you are not following the news, check out the video on the topic "Civil War!"

True, Liberals screwed up more than once, and vasted billions of our hard-earned tax money.

But they also had a huge and consistent surplus which was used mostly to pay our national debt (AFAIK).

Civil War? LoL Thankfully, we are a very peaceful nation. We were probably THE most peaceful until we decided to bomb Serbia.

[noahbody]

True, Liberals screwed up more than once, and vasted billions of our hard-earned tax money.

They did save money on postage by delivering envelopes in person.

But they also had a huge and consistent surplus which was used mostly to pay our national debt (AFAIK).

They weren't in power at a time when Canada's largest trading partner was in a recession.

Just because it rains on one farmer's crops, it doesn't make him a better farmer.

[sharkman]

True, Liberals screwed up more than once, and vasted billions of our hard-earned tax money.

But they also had a huge and consistent surplus which was used mostly to pay our national debt (AFAIK).

Civil War? LoL Thankfully, we are a very peaceful nation. We were probably THE most peaceful until we decided to bomb Serbia.

Huh? How quickly they forget. The Liberals gutted our military, I'm surprised we could bomb anybody. They slashed transfer payments to the provinces, who in turn slashed things like our medical system. We've been losing doctors and nurses to the US ever since. What kind of surplus is that?

[White Doors]

True, Liberals screwed up more than once, and vasted billions of our hard-earned tax money.

But they also had a huge and consistent surplus which was used mostly to pay our national debt (AFAIK).

Civil War? LoL Thankfully, we are a very peaceful nation. We were probably THE most peaceful until we decided to bomb Serbia.

Really? I guess they didn't teach you about the Boer War, WW1 & WW2 and the Korean Conflict in citizenship classes eh?

[marksman]

You just don't get it.

A conservative wants to give the poor a hand up where as the rest want to give the poor a hand out.

A conservative wants to decide for them selves how to best spend their money where as a Liberal thinks the government knows best.

Smaller government, less taxes, less government control on our lives.

That's what a conservative wants for the most part.

Edit- How that sounds bad I have no idea.

Oh goody more talking points with 0 details or proof. For every little slogan you've regurgitated you'll be able to find policies from all parties that meet those criteria and you'll be able to find policies from all parties that go against them. Although if you move to the extremes of the political spectrum both left and right you'll find that policies usually go towards more government control and less freedom of choice.

The reason you don't think that nonsense sounds bad is because you think that actually reflects reality. We could throw up some great communist ideals and they'd sound great too. Everyone living comfortably with whatever they need. How can that be a bad thing?

Besides if this was reality you'd have been able to come up with lots of concrete examples by now. Isn't it amazing how questions like that go unanswered on these boards.

[marksman]

Tax cuts to business so that growth is not impeded. As opposed to layton's idea that taxing businesses more to fund social programmes.

I'll agree with you that there's a point where too much business taxation is a bad thing. But there's a point where too little business taxation means businesses get to benefit from many of Canada's government programs like healthcare without paying their share. Much of the argument between Liberals and Conservatives is about finding that line. I think the NDP might be a bit too far on the more taxation side for most Canadians.

I'm not sure that answers the question about the poor though. Poor people generally aren't paying business taxes.

My ultimate point is that these talking points are nonsense. There's lots of room for political debate on many of these issues without claiming that 1 side hates families or that 1 side hates poor people. All parties are guilty of this but that's no excuse to continue holding up this nonsense as gospel truth.

[M.Dancer]

I'll agree with you that there's a point where too much business taxation is a bad thing. But there's a point where too little business taxation means businesses get to benefit from many of Canada's government programs like healthcare without paying their share.

If businesses got sick and needed a doctor....perhaps. personal income tax should fund healthcare.

I'm not sure that answers the question about the poor though. Poor people generally aren't paying business taxes.

No that is true. And without jobs they aren't paying income tax either.

My ultimate point is that these talking points are nonsense. There's lots of room for political debate on many of these issues without claiming that 1 side hates families or that 1 side hates poor people. All parties are guilty of this but that's no excuse to continue holding up this nonsense as gospel truth.

I agree. I think the debate is better framed around one side understands how jobs are created and the otherside understands how money is redistributed.

[marksman]

If businesses got sick and needed a doctor....perhaps. personal income tax should fund healthcare.

Well it doesn't have to be quite that literal.

In a developed country where there's no public healthcare employees will generally demand more healthcare benefits. Businesses will end up picking up at least some of that tab. With government funded healthcare businesses pay less for benefits for their employees and what they do spend gets them better coverage. Healthier employees means better productivity and less turnover and less retraining.

So I don't have a problem with some businesses paying their taxes into healthcare. They get a benefit from the system too.

No that is true. And without jobs they aren't paying income tax either.

I agree. I think the debate is better framed around one side understands how jobs are created and the otherside understands how money is redistributed.

I'm still hesitant to generalize about any party understanding this or knowing that. I think it takes away from examining their actual policies. There're many different ways to encourage job growth and any government revenue or spending redistributes wealth. I don't think any 1 party has an exclusive or complete understanding of any complex area like that.

[Oleg Bach]

If Harper is to step down then that is the tearing down of the temple...if you are willing to destroy an institution you better damned well have something better to replace it with and you don't - so leave it alone and let it run it's course - You do not destroy the establishment - you tweak it and are helpful with some input...to remove Harper would be a mistake...assist your officals and contribute - knocking down one leader after the other without having a grand and real replacement is simply self endulgent and arrogant mischief.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Really? I guess they didn't teach you about the Boer War, WW1 & WW2 and the Korean Conflict in citizenship classes eh?

Neither war you mentioned was started by Canada or had Canada as the aggressor of an independent country.

[PoliticalCitizen]

They did save money on postage by delivering envelopes in person.

They weren't in power at a time when Canada's largest trading partner was in a recession.

Just because it rains on one farmer's crops, it doesn't make him a better farmer.

This recession is very far from an act of God such as rain.

It was caused by greed and expoitation of the poor by large corporations that Conservatives are so fond of.

It has also happened on the Republican party's 8-year watch - a party that the Conservatives appear to be related to.

Edited October 22, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[White Doors]

Neither war you mentioned was started by Canada or had Canada as the aggressor of an independent country.

'Neither' implies two. I gave you more than two.

I think in WW2 Canada was an 'aggressor' of an independant country (ies) namely Germany and Italy....

And who started the Serbia conflict? Canada? Really? that's weird..

Also, 'Serbia' arguably wasn't an 'independant' country. Germany and Italy most certainly were...

You may want to back-step now.

Edited October 22, 2008 by White Doors

[William Ashley]

If businesses got sick and needed a doctor....perhaps. personal income tax should fund healthcare.

No that is true. And without jobs they aren't paying income tax either.

I agree. I think the debate is better framed around one side understands how jobs are created and the otherside understands how money is redistributed.

Perhaps businesses should stop making products that make pople sick. Also corporations arnt enitities in Canada as they are in the US, they are a group of indivduals each individually resposible, either as partners or joint stock holders (however with the board serving as a sheild between stockholders and the law re: fallguys), and stock holders do get sick. Also they make products that make people sick many times.

A corporation is way of expressing a group of people who work together.. so it is all the same thing. But it is different in that the poeple pool the resource within a legal framework.. that is treated differently. Technically there is no reason for corporations to exist except to take away the human element from business and replace it with a legal framework.. it is much like large scale government, in existance to moderate the interaction.

Although I do beleive corporations should be taxed because they are incorporations within government.. people are NOT within government they mold government, that is why I do not feel there should be personal income taxes to a reasonable living limit such as initially 70,000$s in the long run total removal of income taxes, and replacement for business operating permits. And hte government deriving income from well managed crown corporations and dividends off of natural resources, and other business ventures. Including services provided on demand but not need or subscription services.

Edited October 22, 2008 by William Ashley

[White Doors]

Perhaps businesses should stop making products that make pople sick. Also corporations arnt enitities in Canada as they are in the US, they are a group of indivduals each individually resposible, either as partners or joint stock holders, and stock holders do get sick. Also they make products that make people sick many times.

Wrong, Corporations are legal entities in Canada.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Huh? How quickly they forget. The Liberals gutted our military, I'm surprised we could bomb anybody. They slashed transfer payments to the provinces, who in turn slashed things like our medical system. We've been losing doctors and nurses to the US ever since. What kind of surplus is that?

None of the things you mention deny the national debt payments.

I disagree with the Medicare move but have no problem with smaller / weaker military - less chances to get too involved in one of USA's Wild Wild Middle-East adventures.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps businesses should stop making products that make pople sick. Also corporations arnt enitities in Canada as they are in the US, they are a group of indivduals each individually resposible, either as partners or joint stock holders, and stock holders do get sick. Also they make products that make people sick many times.

I suppose if people were forced to purchase things that knowingly made them sick you would have a point. Oh....and stock holders aren't responsible for the actions of a company beyond the value of their shares.

[Mr.Canada]

Oh goody more talking points with 0 details or proof. For every little slogan you've regurgitated you'll be able to find policies from all parties that meet those criteria and you'll be able to find policies from all parties that go against them. Although if you move to the extremes of the political spectrum both left and right you'll find that policies usually go towards more government control and less freedom of choice.

The reason you don't think that nonsense sounds bad is because you think that actually reflects reality. We could throw up some great communist ideals and they'd sound great too. Everyone living comfortably with whatever they need. How can that be a bad thing?

Besides if this was reality you'd have been able to come up with lots of concrete examples by now. Isn't it amazing how questions like that go unanswered on these boards.

I hear what you are saying and to some degree you are correct however the conservatives have already been doing things to give people more choice.

The Liberal position is that government knows best and are a proponent of bigger government. We've already seen what that leads to. Whereas the conservatives are more interested in having smaller government and giving the Canadian public more control over how to spend their tax dollars. Look to Alberta for a prime example. All of Canada should be like this.

Smaller government.

More choice of schooling, privatization of many services that are currently government run elsewhere such as beer and liquor sales, driving exams(which is private in Ontario now as well), etc, etc.

So far the Tories are the only party willing to trust Canadians to make up their own minds such as in the GST rebate cheques, tax cuts for working families and a monthly childcare benefit for parents and created a new Tax-Free Savings account program.

These options equal more choice for me and you.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[PoliticalCitizen]

Smaller government.

As in ONE man?

[Who's Doing What?]

'Neither' implies two. I gave you more than two.

I think in WW2 Canada was an 'aggressor' of an independant country (ies) namely Germany and Italy....

And who started the Serbia conflict? Canada? Really? that's weird..

Also, 'Serbia' arguably wasn't an 'independant' country. Germany and Italy most certainly were...

You may want to back-step now.

WTF are you smoking?

Canada was the aggressor in WWII?

Only if you ignore the first 4+ years of the conflict where Germany overran most of Europe. Launching a counter offensive to liberate conquered nations is not being the aggressor.

As for Serbia I do believe that was also in response to genocide. So just how the hell does that make them an aggessor. Kicking the ass of some tyrant who has commited crimes against humanity is far from being an aggressor in a conflict.

You sound like the school yard bully who goes running to the teacher after the kid he has terrorized for the last 6 months finally breaks his nose.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Who's Doing What?