It really, REALLY is about time that the proliferation of Conservative

[ToadBrother]

Like I said a whipped cream criticism has no substance, and you are known for your miracle whip and cherry comments.

No. You called yourself partisan. I was merely confirming my agreement.

Putting words in other peoples' mouths is dishonest. I have never been a member of a political party, have never voted for a candidate simply because of the color of his shirt, and don't intend on doing so. But you see, because I'm not a flaming socialist, you can't imagine me being anything but partisan.

[charter.rights]

Putting words in other peoples' mouths is dishonest. I have never been a member of a political party, have never voted for a candidate simply because of the color of his shirt, and don't intend on doing so. But you see, because I'm not a flaming socialist, you can't imagine me being anything but partisan.

I'm not a socialist or anything else leftist either. Stop being a goof and get on with your mental obsessions.

[Argus]

Sure there is something they could do about it. Hit those corporations that caused the economic meltdown and those that profited (and continue to) from it with regulation and penalties.

I'm guessing that by "hit those corporations" you mean something along the lines of economic penalties? None of OUR corporations caused the meltdown, btw. So are you suggesting we try to tax the Bank of America? Or do you really not distinguish at all between one corporation and another. You want us to punish say, Seagrams and McCains because liquor and french fries are the root of all evil?

By what mysterious economic forumla do you think hammering away at corporations and imposing more regulation on them is going to somehow improve our economic outlook?

[ToadBrother]

I'm guessing that by "hit those corporations" you mean something along the lines of economic penalties? None of OUR corporations caused the meltdown, btw. So are you suggesting we try to tax the Bank of America? Or do you really not distinguish at all between one corporation and another. You want us to punish say, Seagrams and McCains because liquor and french fries are the root of all evil?

By what mysterious economic forumla do you think hammering away at corporations and imposing more regulation on them is going to somehow improve our economic outlook?

What makes me most curious is how exactly that will fix the current crisis, which has little to do with corporations, and everything to do with serious, potentially fatal (to the European currency union and maybe even to EU unity) issues that revolve around the massive deficits that have been run up by a number of European governments. I'm not sure what taxing corporations will do to solve the problem of profligate politicians, out-of-control bureaucracies, insanely expensive state pensions and the general malaise that sets in when you have countries with such endemic and chronic bad management.

But that seems the kneejerk reaction of the left wing faction, to just simply start taxing companies. After all, we all know business is evil, and even hasn't caused the current problem, kicking them a few times will help enormously.

[charter.rights]

What makes me most curious is how exactly that will fix the current crisis, which has little to do with corporations, and everything to do with serious, potentially fatal (to the European currency union and maybe even to EU unity) issues that revolve around the massive deficits that have been run up by a number of European governments. I'm not sure what taxing corporations will do to solve the problem of profligate politicians, out-of-control bureaucracies, insanely expensive state pensions and the general malaise that sets in when you have countries with such endemic and chronic bad management.

But that seems the kneejerk reaction of the left wing faction, to just simply start taxing companies. After all, we all know business is evil, and even hasn't caused the current problem, kicking them a few times will help enormously.

See you still can't get it right. And no business is not evil. Uncontrolled corporations are akin to organized crime, that's all.

Corporations are complicit. Those who didn't take a hit either made huge profits from the melt-downs, or got our money given to them by their government buddies. Take General Motors for example. They are the majority shareholder in GMAC which got caught with its pants down in the mortgage shell game of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac fame. Being a majority shareholder they were on the hook for the billions in losses sustained by GMAC. Time to sink or swim they say. So they go the government and ask for help to keep GM afloat. Yet GM's profits were not suffering, not was their cost of production suffering. What was suffering was poor marketing and being out foxed by foreign auto makers. However, they were holding their own and still making money in the big car, big SUV and truck sectors.

There was no suffrage, just manipulation of government to help them prop up their share of GMAC, so all the personal investors (read GM management holds the majority of the balance of shares in GMAC) would not lose their investments. It was all self serving and still, GM is making money. Their pre-recession deficits were the result of dealership and plant expansions all over the world - designed to hide the massive pre-recession profits they really made.

GM is one company. Banks and their executives should be held accountable and penalized to manipulating the stock market to their own benefit. It is too much like insider trading when a company can hide profits, save paying taxes and then take from those who can least afford it. Hit them all over the world if need be, but penalize the whole lot.

Taxing corporations puts money back into government that was taken out in the first place. Governments overspend that is true, but Harper is spending beyond his means and if this recession / depression hits us with the double whammy, then he can fully be blamed for contributing to the meltdown. If we believe in a free market economy then companies should be allowed to fail without government money, and if some high rollers get hurt, then they deserve what they get.

Heavy regulation is need to protect OUR economy here in Canada. And that means going after corporations that export our jobs and import cheap products from slave economies into Canada. Globalization doesn't work because eventually we run out of new markets to cheat and slave economies start to disappear. Right now only corporate investors and managers benefit from globalization. The rest of us suffer from it.

Think about this. Canada exports $16.8 billion in food and imports $12.6 billion. Without going into a huge analysis the difference represents the profit export / import corporations receive from our production / consumption. Not only are people still starving in Canada, but if we stayed home to shop, ate locally and supported local industry, that $4.2 billion (or a fraction of it) could put food on every table and work for all able-bodied. Instead the profits are handed over for elaborate parties, condos in every part of the world and expensive imported cars for a select few.

It is time to stop this nonsense and get corporations to support the Canadian economy. Remove their obscene profiteering and we remove their power to destroy the world economy for their own personal gains.

Edited July 2, 2010 by charter.rights

[Pliny]

It is time to stop this nonsense and get corporations to support the Canadian economy. Remove their obscene profiteering and we remove their power to destroy the world economy for their own personal gains.

Corporations take money from governments?

Corporations are part and parcel of the world economy, they are the world economy, how do they make personal gains out of a destroyed economy?

[charter.rights]

Corporations take money from governments?

Corporations are part and parcel of the world economy, they are the world economy, how do they make personal gains out of a destroyed economy?

Money does not "disappear" from the stock market. It is taken out at the top and those on the bottom suffer.

[canadiantothecore]

As I said, these "ignorant masses" you refer to are the same people who still believe that Paul Martin slew the deficit all by himself.

While you are correct that this notion is not entirely accurate, adherence to it cannot be compared to the notion that Flaherty has somehow saved the Canadian economy. Even those who disagree with my analysis on this site have not presented any material WHATSOEVER defending Flaherty`s fiscal or economic records.

Believing Martin singlehandedly slew the deficit is not that ignorant a view because IT WAS HIS OWN spending adjustments, that the PMO and virtually all other ministers strongly opposed, that were the foundation for the budgets that ended the deficits. therefore, I would have to say the idea that he was chiefly responisble for the elimination of the federal deficit, while somehat simplistic, is not entirely ignorant becuase it is not entirely without substance.

Well....yeah....I thought you were going to present an informed debate on recent economic history not a political propaganda piece.

If you think my assessment is incomplete, please offer amendments as others have already. This is certainly not propaganda, unlike the inredibly erroneous remarks spewed by our conservative government both domestically and abroad, because it is entirely grounded in facts and numbers...two things our current government and its small fan club evidently despise.

But seriously...can anyone on this entire forum give a coherent rationale for supporting the fiscal and economic policies of our current government(simply giving excuses for Mulroney`s miserable fiscal record does not count). Or are we in agreement that it is the duty of all informed Canadians to cast their ballots for another party come the next election...

Edited July 4, 2010 by canadiantothecore

[Argus]

Money does not "disappear" from the stock market. It is taken out at the top and those on the bottom suffer.

It astonishes me that with every post you reveal your astounding ignorance of yet another subject.

And I thought the irony of being someone with a nic of "Charter Rights" who had never read and had no understanding of the Charter was enough of an accomplishment for you.

[Argus]

But seriously...can anyone on this entire forum give a coherent rationale for supporting the fiscal and economic policies of our current government

Because no one has suggested anything better?

[WIP]

I'm guessing that by "hit those corporations" you mean something along the lines of economic penalties? None of OUR corporations caused the meltdown, btw. So are you suggesting we try to tax the Bank of America? Or do you really not distinguish at all between one corporation and another. You want us to punish say, Seagrams and McCains because liquor and french fries are the root of all evil?

By what mysterious economic forumla do you think hammering away at corporations and imposing more regulation on them is going to somehow improve our economic outlook?

Why not? What good did cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes do for middle and lower income earners? Canada is among the developed nations that have seen growth in income inequalityover the last 20 years, in spite of inceases in GDP:

Edited July 5, 2010 by WIP

[Keepitsimple]

While you are correct that this notion is not entirely accurate, adherence to it cannot be compared to the notion that Flaherty has somehow saved the Canadian economy. Even those who disagree with my analysis on this site have not presented any material WHATSOEVER defending Flaherty`s fiscal or economic records.

Believing Martin singlehandedly slew the deficit is not that ignorant a view because IT WAS HIS OWN spending adjustments, that the PMO and virtually all other ministers strongly opposed, that were the foundation for the budgets that ended the deficits. therefore, I would have to say the idea that he was chiefly responisble for the elimination of the federal deficit, while somehat simplistic, is not entirely ignorant becuase it is not entirely without substance.

You're right....it is simplistic but not entirely ignorant. Martin was presented with a problem - an extraordinary situation....and one might argue vehemently with his methods and how much credit he should get....but the fact is/was, the problem was solved. Similary, Canada and Flaherty was faced with a problem - an extraordinary situation....and again, one may argue with his methods and how much credit he should get....but the fact is that Canada has emerged from the "Great Recession" much better than just about anyone. Let's not forget that the opposition had precious few alternate strategies to battle the downturn - other than to spend more and spend faster. So your arguments are moot.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Topaz]

We are not out of it as yet and now they are saying that the US may go into a"double dip" recession or depression. It has lost more jobs last week and its in a mess and so Canada will be too. Canada still has too many unemployed and Free Trade doesn't help when company go else where to produce. It doesn't matter how much corporate taxes they cut, companies will leaves because of wages and benefits they have to pay, but Canadians can't live on $5.00 hourly wage. We, have a Fed. government that has never been in power before, most of the members are first timers and that is why the Tories have mess things up in Ottawa. That's why we have another deficit, inexperience, and we the taxpayer have to pay every time.

[canadiantothecore]

but the fact is that Canada has emerged from the "Great Recession" much better than just about anyone. Let's not forget that the opposition had precious few alternate strategies to battle the downturn - other than to spend more and spend faster. So your arguments are moot.

Clearly someone has no idea how argumentation actually works. Put in simple terms, one argues by presenting a number of premises in order to come to a conclusion.

With this article I have made the arguments that a) the fiscal record of the current conservative government is appallingly bad and b ) that the widespread notion that Jim Flaherty is our economic savior is utterly incorrect.

My premises in drawing conclusion a) are 1) that the fiscal policy of the previous government was infinitely superior in every way 2) that Harper was able to eliminate our budget surplus at lightning speed and 3) that Harper's ridiculous and almost assuredly ineffective crime bills are going to create a massive stuctural deficit in the budget of the federal government of Canada that is going to leave the next generation of Canadians with a massive debt burden unneccessarily.

My premises in drawing the second conclusion were 1) our fiscal policy(as opposed to the UK's or The USA's) is not that bad currently because of the fiscal policy of our previous government and 2) that Martin's reluctance to deregulate Canadian banks(against the wishes of our current PM)...that IMO is why we have come out of the current recession relatively "unscathed", not because of any action of Jim Flaherty..saying that the opposition parties did not present clear alternatives in 2008 does not contest either of these premises..no one on this board as of yet has been able to contest this as of yet...if its a moot argument, as you say, explain why throught the employment of premises or, unfortunatly, your argument is in fact moot...

Edited July 7, 2010 by canadiantothecore

[M.Dancer]

Someone has no idea how to make a post interesting....

[Keepitsimple]

Clearly someone has no idea how argumentation actually works. Put in simple terms, one argues by presenting a number of premises in order to come to a conclusion.

With this article I have made the arguments that a) the fiscal record of the current conservative government is appallingly bad and b ) that the widespread notion that Jim Flaherty is our economic savior is utterly incorrect.

My premises in drawing conclusion a) are 1) that the fiscal policy of the previous government was infinitely superior in every way 2) that Harper was able to eliminate our budget surplus at lightning speed and 3) that Harper's ridiculous and almost assuredly ineffective crime bills are going to create a massive stuctural deficit in the budget of the federal government of Canada that is going to leave the next generation of Canadians with a massive debt burden unneccessarily.

My premises in drawing the second conclusion were 1) our fiscal policy(as opposed to the UK's or The USA's) is not that bad currently because of the fiscal policy of our previous government and 2) that Martin's reluctance to deregulate Canadian banks(against the wishes of our current PM)...that IMO is why we have come out of the current recession relatively "unscathed", not because of any action of Jim Flaherty..saying that the opposition parties did not present clear alternatives in 2008 does not contest either of these premises..no one on this board as of yet has been able to contest this as of yet...if its a moot argument, as you say, explain why throught the employment of premises or, unfortunatly, your argument is in fact moot...

As a Liberal, you're quite full of yourself. I've already granted you that 10 years ago, Paul Martin made some tough decisions that were not popular with everyone - and were quite damaging to the provinces - nonetheless, he helped to deal with the Federal deficit.....Let's not give him any more credit that he was due. But lets not also forget that Martin kept EI premiums artificially high and continuously understated revenues - resulting in contrived surpluses. Do you conveniently forget that for years, the provinces were clamouring to correct the fiscal imbalance that those surpluses represented? And do you not recall that Harper said he would correct it? In "eliminating" the surplus, the Conservatives struck deals with the provinces to provide more equity in the transfer payment process.....and they also made some payments against the Debt. As I said, the Liberals try to give themselves too much credit for dealing with the deficit those 10 long years ago.....and if the Conservatives are being held up as "saviours" today, they would be getting too much credit as well.

As for the justice bills - time will tell...but it can't be any worse than people like you are predicting. Many Canadians believe that it is the same people - over and over again - who are clogging up the courts, clogging up police work, and moving in and out of prisons. Lock up chronic repeat offenders and violent criminals for a longer time and you'll find lots of savings. It makes Canadians sick to hear of criminals who have 50 or even 100 convictions....it makes no sense. The push-back comes from lawyers - of which a disproportionate number are in the Liberal party. The 2 and 3 for 1 credit alone will speed up the courts. Today, lawyers stretch out the pre-trial arguments knowing that their "client" will get a huge credit - and maybe even walk out. Without the extra credit, there is no incentive to stretch it out so we'll likely get more guilty pleas. With shorter pre-trial holding, the provinces save money. The revolving door justice system is nothing but a cash-cow for lawyers - clearly they have a vested interest. I will not lose a minute of sleep over jailing a chronic offender for a longer time - getting rid of the 2 and 3 for 1 pre-trial credits, tightening up parole eligibility, and getting rid of Statutory release.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[canadiantothecore]

Someone has no idea how to make a post interesting....

And there lies the crux of the matter. I completely agree that the fiscal and economic policies of the Canadian Government are

currently not of interest to the majority of the Canadian public. Clearly such things as a cop car burning in downtown TO, the fact that Ignatieff spent decades as a prof. outside of Canada, minimal evidence of an upcoming NDP-liberal merger, Rahim Jaffer's possible involvement in illegal lobbying are all topics that are much more compelling to the Canadian public...at least in terms of the media/partisan coverage they receive. However, while these "issues" are utterly meaningless to the average Canadian, the topic of this post could potentially have devastating consequences for the Canadian people. I think that the young people of this country deserve to know that the current government of Canada is recklessly abusing the nation's finances and will saddle them with a massive debt, that will only increase with the retirement of the baby boomers and the continued aging of our pop., that they, and not stevey harper(a man who has never worked a real job), will be responsible for. For that reason, and of course my dislike of the spin-doctor fear-mongor financial-illiterates that currently effectively control parliament hill, I decided to post this.

If you find it boring please do simply switch over to the much sexier topic of the conduct of the police during the G8 G20 weekend in To.

But lets not also forget that Martin kept EI premiums artificially high and continuously understated revenues - resulting in contrived surpluses. Do you conveniently forget that for years, the provinces were clamouring to correct the fiscal imbalance that those surpluses represented? And do you not recall that Harper said he would correct it? In "eliminating" the surplus, the Conservatives struck deals with the provinces to provide more equity in the transfer payment process.....and they also made some payments against the Debt. As I said, the Liberals try to give themselves too much credit for dealing with the deficit those 10 long years ago.....and if the Conservatives are being held up as "saviours" today, they would be getting too much credit as well.

I never said Martin was completely equitable in all his dealings that he made in order to achieve his goals. But those complaints have already been made and noted on this post. But I disagree that Harper simply cutting an 8 billion dollar cheque to Quebec, when the feds already contribute tens of thousands of dollars of surplus transfer payments(in and above any taxation the govt receives from Quebec) to each quebecor, is somehow rectifying an injustice perpetrated by Martin(although fixing transfer payments to other provinces I will grant is a reasonable use of federal funds, but I have never stated my opposition to this). And stating the misleading line from the conservative webite, that they have paid down the debt, has to be viewed in the context that our debt has grown from 25% to 32% of the GDP under Harper(while it decreased from 75 to 25% under Martin - yes albeit not from completely, as you say, just financial dealings).

Many Canadians believe that it is the same people - over and over again - who are clogging up the courts, clogging up police work, and moving in and out of prisons. Lock up chronic repeat offenders and violent criminals for a longer time and you'll find lots of savings. It makes Canadians sick to hear of criminals who have 50 or even 100 convictions....it makes no sense.

I understand that you clearly despise lawyers...But why do you think that the opinion of the average Canadian is inherently superior to that of just about all lawyers, law profs, experts on the prison system in Canada, and sociologists(who disagree with the legislation)when it comes to this legislation?

While I understand your conflict of interest theory, you must be aware that only a minority of lawyers are involved in criminal cases and thus they do not ALL have a conflict of interest in critiquing the new crime bills.

Is simply stating the obvious...that throughout history incarcerating a greater % of the population, and increasing the harshness of sentencing for crimes, has not once led to the establishment of a safer, more crime-free society an argument that has to be made by someone with a conflict of interest in the justice system? or is it not possible that these legal experts actually care about what our country is going to look like in twenty years. Is arguing against parole abolition, closure of halfway houses, abolishment of jail farms, something that has to be made from the position of a conflict of interest - all this is going to do is create large numbers of criminals that will, and are not currently, be desperate enough to kill normal canadians for the cash in their pockets, because they know nothing else...its all good and dandy for fear mongers to claim we have a crime problem in Canada today but the reality is we do not. Crime rates are lower than they have ever been. Most murders comitted in BC, my province, are drug related and would not occur if the govt just legalized weed, their biggest cash cow.

May I ask you what your stance is on s-10? I'm no pot head but I do understand that this bill is utterly injust and is a massive waste of money.

[Radsickle]

Many Canadians believe that it is the same people - over and over again - who are clogging up the courts

Many Canadians also believe in aliens. Should we write legislation to reflect this too?

The push-back comes from lawyers - of which a disproportionate number are in the Liberal party.

Oh, so it's only Liberal lawyers who find Harper's crime bill flawed? I agree though, it is disproportionate; the Conservative party needs some smarter, legal-minded types in their flock.

The 2 and 3 for 1 credit alone will speed up the courts.

Did you throw the "3 for 1" in there for effect?

Today, lawyers stretch out the pre-trial arguments knowing that their "client" will get a huge credit - and maybe even walk out. Without the extra credit, there is no incentive to stretch it out so we'll likely get more guilty pleas.

Why do you put cynical quotes around the word `client'? There are lawyers on both sides of the courtroom, ya know.

And who's "we"? Those of you holding pitchforks in the air?

The 2 for 1 was an incentive for the prosecution to bring their arguments forward quickly. We'll likely have more delays as the prosecution will be able to delay indefinitely without penalty anymore. "Likely more guilty pleas"? You're as partisan as the next person trying to defend this right-wing, wing-nutted idea.

With shorter pre-trial holding, the provinces save money.

Oh goody! After needing to build a whole bunch of new pri$ons, we'll save money by having more people in more prisons for longer periods of time! Ya, that makes sense...

The pre-trial holding will become longer not "shorter".

The revolving door justice system is nothing but a cash-cow for lawyers - clearly they have a vested interest. I will not lose a minute of sleep over jailing a chronic offender for a longer time - getting rid of the 2 and 3 for 1 pre-trial credits, tightening up parole eligibility, and getting rid of Statutory release.

`Clearly', you've repeated the "cash-cow" opinion a few times now. Truth is the 2 for 1 credit was sometimes granted at the discretion of the judge. It was not automatic. It was not assumed. It was a condition of the sentence handed out if the person was guilty and the judge felt it took the prosecution too long to prove it. Trying to turn it around and make it look like the 2 for 1 credit was milked by the defence is quite partisan of you.

Oh, but clearly Harper, the economist, knows more than the generations of legal-minded Canadians who developed these silly rules. Stevie will show them how it's done, eh?

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says the Truth in Sentencing Act could raise total prison costs to $9.5-billion a year in 2015-2016 from $4.4-billion this year. It could also require the construction of as many as a dozen new prisons...

“If you look at average head counts, they are twice as big in the provincial system – 26,000 every year versus 13,000 at the federal level,” he said. “The provinces and the territories carry the weight of the correctional services system in Canada so the impact is going to be enormous on the provinces and territories.”

Mr. Page estimates the provincial share of prison costs will jump to 56 per cent in 2015-16 from 49 per cent this fiscal year.

Parliamentary Budget Officer says Harper's idea will be very expensive

This would be more effective if it were aimed just at violent criminals.

A better suggestion

[canadiantothecore]

But Radsickle, don't you know that everything Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, says is a lie. Jim Flaherty says so all the time in interviews. Just tune in to your television at night and you'll see our great finance minister putting that rabble rouser in his place. I hardly think that a man of Mr. Flaherty's great intellect, whose also a key member of Harper's "bringing trasparent governance to Canada" cabinet, should ever have to justify his name-calling with evidence or numbers.

[dre]

Speaking of corporations...

I would love to know if Goldman Sachs is shorting European debt right now like they shorted MBS's right before the housing bubble.

[Pliny]

Money does not "disappear" from the stock market. It is taken out at the top and those on the bottom suffer.

Really? Why do those on the bottom participate? Are they stupid? Is it fraud? Better report this to the authorities.

[Pliny]

Clearly someone has no idea how argumentation actually works. Put in simple terms, one argues by presenting a number of premises in order to come to a conclusion.

With this article I have made the arguments that a) the fiscal record of the current conservative government is appallingly bad

Well, here's a premise. The Federal government has taken upon itself to control wages and prices and that is it's prime concern as regards the economy. Surpluses and deficits are not of importance. It is important to have a stable economy, as a stable economy is a guarantee of government revenues and deficits can be avoided.

The surpluses created by the Liberals were not because of increased economic activity that brought them greater revenues at the same level of taxation. They were due to transfer cuts to the provincial governments plus increased taxation. This would have a tendency to reduce economic activity or minimally stifle growth. I recall there being some grumbling about the economy at the time.

If I had a word to describe Martin as Minister of Finance I would think "miser" would fit.

You have presented the premise that the current Conservative government has an appalling fiscal record. You seem to entirely neglect the state of the global economy and it's effect on our economy. We have the best record of the G8 regarding our economic strength.

Harper has cut the GST by 2% cutting it's revenues, leaving more money in the economy and contributing to it's ability to keep it's head above water.

I will say that the Canadian banks, not being as tied to Ottawa as Wall Street is to Washington, continued to exercise more prudence than American banks in their lending practices despite the low interest rate and that is to our benefit and would be the case regardless of if there were a Liberal or Conservative government.

and b ) that the widespread notion that Jim Flaherty is our economic savior is utterly incorrect.

This I agree with. However, I would not agree that the Liberals were better managers of the economy.

My premises in drawing conclusion a) are 1) that the fiscal policy of the previous government was infinitely superior in every way 2) that Harper was able to eliminate our budget surplus at lightning speed and 3) that Harper's ridiculous and almost assuredly ineffective crime bills are going to create a massive stuctural deficit in the budget of the federal government of Canada that is going to leave the next generation of Canadians with a massive debt burden unneccessarily.

My premises in drawing the second conclusion were 1) our fiscal policy(as opposed to the UK's or The USA's) is not that bad currently because of the fiscal policy of our previous government and 2) that Martin's reluctance to deregulate Canadian banks(against the wishes of our current PM)...that IMO is why we have come out of the current recession relatively "unscathed", not because of any action of Jim Flaherty..saying that the opposition parties did not present clear alternatives in 2008 does not contest either of these premises..no one on this board as of yet has been able to contest this as of yet...if its a moot argument, as you say, explain why throught the employment of premises or, unfortunatly, your argument is in fact moot...

I think your vision is of a strong Federal government with Liberal ideology. Economically, that means that spending takes a back seat to social concerns. Your understanding of economics indicates that you believe the federal government, or governments in general, are entirely responsible for the economy. You should learn how policies affect an economy before you condemn or praise them. If governments truly did control the economy and they were doing their job then we should not suffer cyclical boom-bust events. I realize that this is what they are attempting to do - maintain stability. Increased regulation in the economy, which I believe is your proclivity, is more of a fascistic leaning.

As for the criminal legislation of the Harper government. Getting tough on crime is one of the platforms it ran it's successful campaign on to become a minority government. Crime statisitics may be down but it isn't evident to most people and we know that violent crime statistics are not down. I would put forth the premise that lower crime statistics were due to an apathy on the part of victims to even bother with reporting them because of the response of police authorities which is poor and prioritized and even neglected.

If punishments were appropriate or harsh perhaps there would be less crime. And it is true that a very small percentage of the population is responsible for a majority of crime. The Liberal concept of compassion misses the mark with criminals who, because of their nature, will use any opportunity to gain their freedom and Liberals are more willing to listen to them and give them a chance. If anything a proper rehabilitative technology is missing.

I see your prime interest is politics and liberal government which taints your economic sense.

I do not agree with everything the Conservatives do economically but I understand somewhat the framework that they are working in and I applaud Mr. Harper for at least attempting to reduce the tax burden on the economy and not grow government bureaucracy to any great extent. These are probably two things that you would disagree with.

Are you a government employee, perhaps?

Edited July 7, 2010 by Pliny

[charter.rights]

Really? Why do those on the bottom participate? Are they stupid? Is it fraud? Better report this to the authorities.

It is taken out at the top. The lower stake holders take a risk in the belief that they will get a bigger piece of the return. But in reality, those who get out first (and that includes many borderline inside traders) take it out and leave the depreciated amounts to divvy up among those less powerful. The stock market is a scam to take money from the poorer segments and give it to the rich.

[Pliny]

It is taken out at the top. The lower stake holders take a risk in the belief that they will get a bigger piece of the return. But in reality, those who get out first (and that includes many borderline inside traders) take it out and leave the depreciated amounts to divvy up among those less powerful. The stock market is a scam to take money from the poorer segments and give it to the rich.

How could the government tolerate a scam that is so obvious? Their mandate is justice but perhaps they haven't noticed this scam.

You should mention it to them and see what they say.

Does the stock market serve any other purpose?

[dre]

I applaud Mr. Harper for at least attempting to reduce the tax burden on the economy and not grow government bureaucracy to any great extent. These are probably two things that you would disagree with.

Not sure why someone with access to a calculator would applaud reducing taxes without reducing spending. Thats really no different than buying something you cant afford on a credit card.

Edited July 7, 2010 by dre