maplesyrup Posted June 10, 2004 Report Posted June 10, 2004 Jack Layton on his two federalist opponents today: "Well the Liberals you know they aren't going to keep their promises, and, as for the Conservatives, Canadians just hope they won't keep their promises." Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Bryant Posted June 10, 2004 Report Posted June 10, 2004 Hey maplesap are you the Forums Spokesman or do you just work for the site-Webmaster ? or What have you-cause you post so much I'm curious--cause it's unusual!and your biased! Quote
playfullfellow Posted June 10, 2004 Report Posted June 10, 2004 We all know that MS is so pro-NDP that he even has a picture of Layton beside his bed but he does start some interesting threads every now and then. I am sure he will come off of his cloud 9 after the election and realizes all his predictions of a NDP victory were induced by that wild BC pot. Quote
maplesyrup Posted June 11, 2004 Author Report Posted June 11, 2004 Jack Layton commenting today about Canada's automobile industry: "Harper will be a great Minister for the Automobile Development Industry in Alabama." Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
August1991 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Posted June 11, 2004 The joke is not funny, MS. Look what your guy said: "Conservatives don't believe in industrial policies, industrial strategies, partnerships, the idea of building together. They simply want to take it a part and be cast to the wind," he said. Layton in the Toronto Star The last thing we want is to follow the Soviet model of economic development. Governments cannot pick winners. They should certainly not be in the car business. Was it not David Lewis who invented the phrase "Corporate Welfare Bums"? At heart, Jack Layton is an entrepreneur. He wants to get involved and fix things and make them work. He is an activist. But by all accounts, he doesn't see the limits to government. Despite his apparent intelligence, he seems to have drawn no conclusion from the experiences of the past century. Quote
BigGunner Posted June 11, 2004 Report Posted June 11, 2004 The joke is not funny, MS. Look what your guy said:"Conservatives don't believe in industrial policies, industrial strategies, partnerships, the idea of building together. They simply want to take it a part and be cast to the wind," he said. Layton in the Toronto Star The last thing we want is to follow the Soviet model of economic development. Governments cannot pick winners. They should certainly not be in the car business. Was it not David Lewis who invented the phrase "Corporate Welfare Bums"? At heart, Jack Layton is an entrepreneur. He wants to get involved and fix things and make them work. He is an activist. But by all accounts, he doesn't see the limits to government. Despite his apparent intelligence, he seems to have drawn no conclusion from the experiences of the past century. Are you opposed to using the tax system to reward and/or encourage green energy development? If you answer yes, then you should be equally be opposed to the hidden subsidies that exist for big oil and large scale polluters. Moving away from traditional oil/gas engines and technologies isn't just an environmental issue...its a national security issue too. Every dollar you spend at the pump somehow makes its way back to a Saudi oil baron who funnels it to some terror group or another. If you think our fuel costs are high, consider what they pay in most European countries...it would make our $1/litre prices cheap by comparison. I oppose on-going corporate subsidies...such as the very generous banking laws and lack of corporate accountibility laws that we have in Canada. I am somewhat supportive of temporary measures designed to launch a new industry (such as green technology and renewable enegry) with a clear expiry clause...so that its understood that in time, everyone pays their fair share of taxes. Quote
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Are you opposed to using the tax system to reward and/or encourage green energy development?I am in favour of a carbon tax. I am also in favour of toll roads such as the 407 in Toronto or road tax used in London, England. These should be permanent taxes and could eventually replace income taxes.I am somewhat supportive of temporary measures designed to launch a new industry (such as green technology and renewable enegry)If you expect government bureaucrats to identify the next great energy source, you are sadly mistaken.Every dollar you spend at the pump somehow makes its way back to a Saudi oil baron who funnels it to some terror group or another.That argument is absolutely specious. Every dollar I spend gets back to some criminal at some time or another.If you answer yes, then you should be equally be opposed to the hidden subsidies that exist for big oil and large scale polluters.Natural resource royalties are complex. Is that what you are referring to?Duceppe wants the federal government to subsidize the aeronautics industry and Layton wants the feds to subsidize the auto industry. They want to give taxpayers' money to those awful, psychotic, rogue corporations. BG, do you agree? Quote
BigGunner Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Are you opposed to using the tax system to reward and/or encourage green energy development?I am in favour of a carbon tax. I am also in favour of toll roads such as the 407 in Toronto or road tax used in London, England. These should be permanent taxes and could eventually replace income taxes.I am somewhat supportive of temporary measures designed to launch a new industry (such as green technology and renewable enegry)If you expect government bureaucrats to identify the next great energy source, you are sadly mistaken.Every dollar you spend at the pump somehow makes its way back to a Saudi oil baron who funnels it to some terror group or another.That argument is absolutely specious. Every dollar I spend gets back to some criminal at some time or another.If you answer yes, then you should be equally be opposed to the hidden subsidies that exist for big oil and large scale polluters.Natural resource royalties are complex. Is that what you are referring to?Duceppe wants the federal government to subsidize the aeronautics industry and Layton wants the feds to subsidize the auto industry. They want to give taxpayers' money to those awful, psychotic, rogue corporations. BG, do you agree? Duceppe wants more federal subsidies for Bombardier and other Quebec based corporations...there's nothing new about his plea for more cash.. As for Layton, its not the auto industry in general that he wants helped out, but perhaps tax and regulatory incentives to produce cars and engines that produce lower emmissions/pollutants. Since Canadians are unwilling to give up their cars, we may as well make the cars and trucks of the country have less of an impact on the air we breath and the water we drink...this is not a bad idea at all. Road tolls, I agree with...but not as a cash cow - but as a incentive to use mass transit. Replacing income taxes with road tolls will hurt commuters and truckers more than anything...income based taxes are still the way to go. Government is not the source of new ideas...those come from well educated scientists and engineers...helping heavy industry convert over to green energy (etc) may be expensive in the short term, but over the long haul it is a bargain compared to the horrid cost to our water, air, and healthcare for those adversely affected by pollution. Natural resource royalties are complex...and unfair...provinces own the underserface rights on land, but the federal gov't owns those rights off-shore...and often private land owners get squeezed out. Quote
caesar Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Bryant; you call maple leaf biased; and just what are you; openminded. yeah right. Layton made a great quote. I love it. Harper as primeminister is a scary thought; a coalition with the Bloc yikes. I do not really care for the choices we have at all this time round; However, we will probably end up with a coalition of some sort. Next election will be coming soon. Wonder how short it will be. Harper's buddy buddy with Bush and the USA despite his recent denials; is very scary and would hurt our Canadian reputation. Why should we work closer with a neighbour that has thumbed its nose at the rest of the world. Now it has its hand outr wanting others to help pay for the damage they have done. Unfair vindictive trade relation since Bush has been in office does not make me comfortable with any more ties to the USA and dependence on their market. It is time Canada got off its duff and started finding a more diverse trading partnerships. I believe a closer relationship with the USA while it continues to ignore international laws and holds prisoners in Cuba without their rights; while it allows prisoners in Iraq to be tortured; would be a very undesireable relationship. It would cost us too much money and would probably result in more danger of terrorist attacks in Canada. Quote
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 As for Layton, its not the auto industry in general that he wants helped out, but perhaps tax and regulatory incentives to produce cars and engines that produce lower emmissions/pollutants. Below is what Hargrove wants to give them. I haven't heard Layton's line but it wouldn't be hard to imagine. GM is seeking assistance from Ontario and Ottawa for an investment of up to $2-billion to revamp two assembly plants while Ford is looking for about $100-million to secure an investment of about $1-billion for a new assembly plant in Oakville, Ont. G&M This is pork pure and simple. It's also evidence of meddling politicians and bureaucrats. On the left, it goes under the name of "industrial strategy" when it's anything but. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." Quote
idealisttotheend Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 This is pork pure and simple I disagree. It is clearly a bribe to keep these companies in Canada. It is sickening and it is wrong but how else are any production jobs going to be kept in this country when they could easily go to Mexico or communist China? Free trade, globalization and all. P. S. Your own source August states clearly that Harper would have to go along, he'd have no choice. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 P. S. Your own source August states clearly that Harper would have to go along, he'd have no choice. The quote below comes form the same G&M article: "I honestly don't think he'd have a choice," said industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers, president of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc. in Richmond Hill, Ont. "If he wants automotive investment, he has to play the game." Take a wild guess what business this consultant is in. And you don't think this newspaper article was a good plug for him? Margaret Thatcher threw all of these jokers out of her office. The Irish recently have done the same while ensuring lower corporate taxes across the board for all businesses. These entrrpreneurs want to make a profit. They look for ways to do it. They will never walk away from a profitable opportunity. it is wrong but how else are any production jobs going to be kept in this country when they could easily go to Mexico or communist China?**sigh** I'll try again to make this obvious argument. Math makes it easier (maybe that's why Michael Moore still doesn't get it).If it is easier to produce widgets in Mexico or China, then we would be foolish not to produce something else and trade. If the Mexican and Chinese governments are foolish enough to subsidize widget production, then we'd be really dumb not to take advantage of the deal. Widgets? If the Japanese government were foolish enough to subsidize car production so that Canadians could buy a new Lexus for $5000, we'd be fools not to take them up on the offer. Cars? Widgets? Why do you think many foreigners, no fools, want to make a refugee claim in Canada? (Hint: We subsidize health care.) Quote
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 I missed this from BG. Road tolls, I agree with...but not as a cash cow - but as a incentive to use mass transit. Replacing income taxes with road tolls will hurt commuters and truckers more than anything...income based taxes are still the way to go.Call it an incentive to use mass transit if you will but IMV, the question is far more serious.If you rent a hotel space, you have to pay. There are even special weekend rates. So, if you want to rent road space (even if it's moving under your car), you should pay also. I'd like to see weekend rates (low) compared to the 5 pm "high season". helping heavy industry convert over to green energy (etc) may be expensive in the short term, but over the long haul it is a bargain compared to the horrid cost to our water, air, and healthcare for those adversely affected by pollution.What got rid of the gas guzzlers and made industry energy efficient was the quadrupling of oil prices in the 1970s.When the government gets directly into this game, it generally makes a mess of it. Want an example? Read this. The US government wanted to regulate, à la Ralph Nader, improved vehicle gas consumption. It defined different vehicles, set rising standards and forced auto manufacturers to respect them. Classified as a light truck, the SUV was born. The manufacturers had got around the regulation. This is one of many, many examples. The lesson here is not to write better regulations; the lesson is not to write them at all. There are much better ways to solve this problem. Quote
Goldie Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 And we're Back! QUOTE OF THE DAY“I believe when Canadians see these ads coming out of Liberal advertising firms for Liberal election campaigns, what they'll remember is that 100 million of their dollars went to Liberal advertising firms." - Stephen Harper Boom! Quote
idealisttotheend Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Take a wild guess what business this consultant is in. And you don't think this newspaper article was a good plug for him? Good point but that doesn't prove mine wrong. The article states as fact that "Mexico and the Southern States" have had success getting plants with subsidies and since there are a finite amount of plants to be got, that means less for others. Practically, these subsidies are bribes to keep companies in countries with higher labour standards/costs. If it is easier to produce widgets in Mexico or China, It is not easier August. Really. People in Canada are better educated, have a higher quality of life and we have better technology therefore it is impossible for poorer people using poorer technology to make anything more easily than we can. They make it more cheaply. They trade their labour for fewer resources to the company making the widget so the company wishes to trade with them and not us. then we would be foolish not to produce something else and trade. Such as? It turns out the better jobs can be done in India or China just as well as here. Suprised a whole lot of economists but it's true. What we will trade are our labour standards, enviromental standards etc. If you don't believe me see Hjarmar's posts in the union thread (states with anti-union laws are preferable to companies relocating) and that the reason Ford and Chrysler aren't laughed out of Ottawa when they show up with their hand out is because they can threaten to go somewhere else. If the Japanese government were foolish enough to subsidize car production so that Canadians could buy a new Lexus for $5000, we'd be fools not to take them up on the offer. I see your logic on this one but practically, we need the jobs to distribute the money in our economy. The Japanese subsidies are offset by the economic benefits of the jobs locating in Japan (their economy is better because more money changes hands and they get more foriegn currency than they give). Why do you think many foreigners, no fools, want to make a refugee claim in Canada? So they can make clothes at GIdeon in Montreal for $10 an hour and not 75 cents and hour in Haiti. That simple. Health care "subsidies" are dependant on the taxes generated on the $10 a hour paycheck and are impossible on the 75 cent an hour one. Furthermore we do not subsidize health care. We can't since 'we' all pay for 'our' health care, we simply collectively insure ourselves. It is more efficient so it seems like a subsidy. Auto subsidies are being made increasingly illegal with each successive MAI round. But, no matter how much I hate them, they are one of the few, ahem, "competitive advantages" we have left to keep the jobs in Canada. And when those jobs are gone I don't see what will replace them. It would be nice if we didn't need the jobs, and it was simply a case of mathematical trade between nations but in our current wage economy we need every decent paying job or the system will get a little weaker. Quote All too often the prize goes, not to who best plays the game, but to those who make the rules....
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Health care "subsidies" are dependant on the taxes generated on the $10 a hour paycheck and are impossible on the 75 cent an hour one. Furthermore we do not subsidize health care. We can't since 'we' all pay for 'our' health care, we simply collectively insure ourselves. It is more efficient so it seems like a subsidy. I'll take this variant first. True we have a universal insurance scheme, but the premium is subsidized. A refugee off the plane just had a monthly health insurance premium of about $200 paid by someone else - without need for a medical test. This matters to immigrants. (Would you move to the States until you had a job? Why?) What we will trade are our labour standards, enviromental standards etc.If our labour standards are good - in that they lead to better workers who provide good value for services provided - we have nothing to fear. One can say the same for our environmental standards.Let me give an example of what I mean. If it is true that a State universal, compulsory health insurance scheme is better than several private schemes ( I think so), then this will make us better off in the long run. The same applies to various labour or environmental standards. These should not be seen as costly anymore than changing your windows is "costly". Quote
Argus Posted June 12, 2004 Report Posted June 12, 2004 Harper's buddy buddy with Bush and the USA despite his recent denials; is very scary and would hurt our Canadian reputation.What exactly is wrong with being "buddy buddy" with the world's richest, most powerful nation and one which has merely to shrug in order to devestate our economy? You'd rather be enemies with them?It would hurt our economy to be friends with the US? Where on Earth do you get that idea? It would hurt our economy and has hurt our economy, to be at odds with them. Why should we work closer with a neighbour that has thumbed its nose at the rest of the world.Uh, because our entire existence depends on it? Because millions of jobs here depend on exports to the US and we have a huge, multi kazillion dollar trade surplus with them? Because that for all the flaws of the current administration the US is a great place full of great people? What? You want us to be great friends with the Chinese instead? Or maybe the Iranians? The Nigerians? The French!???!Unfair vindictive trade relation since Bush has been in office does not make me comfortable with any more ties to the USA and dependence on their market. It is time Canada got off its duff and started finding a more diverse trading partnerships.Grow up. All nations try to skew trade rules their way. Take a look at the problems we have in exporting anything to Japan or South Korea or China or Europe. The best way we could deal with this is by having really good governmental relationships with the US administration. Find other markets? Where? Most of Europe are locked together in the EEC behind high trade barriers for others. The Chinese? They're not interested in buying anything from us but raw materials. The Japanese? Ditto. The third world? They have no money.I believe a closer relationship with the USA while it continues to ignore international laws and holds prisoners in Cuba without their rights; while it allows prisoners in Iraq to be tortured; would be a very undesireable relationship. As opposed to the Chinese, the Indians? The Arabs? The Africans? The Muslims? Just who do you intend us to have close relationships with? A lovely little tribe of vegetarians in the Amazon somewhere? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
maplesyrup Posted June 15, 2004 Author Report Posted June 15, 2004 "Excuse me, we do not agree at all, because you were in the government for 10 years when we were asking for action on the environment and the air is a lot worse than it was 10 years ago, drinking water is a real problem." - NDP Leader Jack Layton to Liberal Leader Paul Martin when Martin suggested the Liberals and the NDP agreed on several fronts. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
maplesyrup Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Posted June 16, 2004 Jack Layton on Wednesday morning following the debates: "Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign. Or as Paul Martin calls it, two week's notice." Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
BQSupporter Posted June 16, 2004 Report Posted June 16, 2004 Ohh Ohh, Maple is talking to himself again Quote
maplesyrup Posted June 17, 2004 Author Report Posted June 17, 2004 New Democrat Leader Jack Layton commenting, after his stunning victory in the English debate (see Maclean's magazine poll): "Every Conservative candidate is now wearing duct tape across their mouths with the inscription - DO NOT OPEN UNTIL JUNE 29TH." (178) Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Goldie Posted June 17, 2004 Report Posted June 17, 2004 First of all, it sure took along time to find a rag that said what you want to hear. Every poll I saw today said Harper won 37% to as high as 50% Ipsos to Global/vioxx or whatever. Second, this from someone with a PHD? I mean my 5 year old comes up with better zingers. Quote
caesar Posted June 17, 2004 Report Posted June 17, 2004 What is wrong with being buddy buddy with Bush and Co the most HATED nation. We do not need to bow to Bush or his irrational actions. They won't be rich for long the way Bush is spending on his quest to rule the world. He has his hand out now for others to help. They can darn well pay for the damage they caused themselves. They wouldn't listen to sound advice from Canada and much of the world. Quote
August1991 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Posted June 17, 2004 the most HATED nationWTF? Everybody wants to emigrate there. Everybody thinks their movies and music are cool. Everybody wants to learn English and their slang.Why? Because it's alive and changes in ways no can predict. It discovers and learns. Quote
BQSupporter Posted June 17, 2004 Report Posted June 17, 2004 Caesar your comments make you sound like a dumbass, speak rationally or don't write anything at all. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.