NDP Props up Liberals

[sir_springer]

Yo...

Layton is playing with political dynamite.

There is going to be an election in June, regardless of what he does.

By jumping in the sack with the Libs...or even offering to...he has established several things with voters, or re-confirmed an ages-old suspicion about the NDP, which is that they're essentially little different than the Liberals.

Apparently there is so little difference that he's even prepared to make a "faustian" deal with them, regardless of the aura of corruption surrounding them.

IOW, "Yes, you're a bunch of liars and thieves...but we can still do business."

The only surprize in this is that it took the Liberals this long to get around to exploiting this eternal weakness of the NDP...but then again, Mr. Dithers isn't known for his political accumen anyway.

And believe it, the Liberals will exploit this for all it's worth, which is not to prolong their own lives nearly so much as it is to draw the NDP into their web so that when the election does happen, voters who might have toying with departing for the NDP will wonder what the point is; obviously there is not enough difference to keep them from shacking up together anyway.

As a Conservative, I hope Layton goes for it!

Voters who can't bring themselves to vote Liberal because of corruption, will look at the NDP as the party who propped them up regardless, and thus move to the CPC...particularly in the west. Or they'll stay home.

Either way, it works for us.

As the old saying goes, ya lay down with dogs, ya get up with fleas.

Layton's problem in all of this is that he's a bit player being crowded out by the main cast, Martin, Harper and Duceppe.

So he sees this as an opportunity to acquire center stage.

What he doesn't see is that, a) he's being used, and he's assuming a role he will live long enough to deeply regret.

Why?

Right now the CPC, as it should be in its position as the "Official Opposition", controls the agenda as to when this government topples.

In doing this deal, Layton assumes this role...and then he will not be able to get out from under it. For when he does, it will be he who is seen as responsible for forcing an election.

I believe David Lewis found himself in a similar position some years ago, and when he finally pulled the plug on a coalition that was unworkable, he and the NDP got busted chopswise by an electorate who virtually ignored him for the afore mentioned reason.

Previously, the same thing happened to the Socreds/Creditistes in the '60s.

IMHO, Layton is being played for a patsy by the Liberals.

And his ego is too damn big to allow him to see the long term result of this.

Then again, why am I not surprized, eh?

[Conservative1]

Ok where to begin...well for starters..

I don't know how much you know about economics

Note: I am a 3rd year dual major student in Business and Economics...and the contents of your blabber relate to business (somewhat) not economics.

How about hydro-electric facilities, you know the kind where water is used at a dam to make electricity.... It costs about 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour to produce at these facilities.

The sarcasm is wonderful. I am aware that hydro power generation is the most inexpensive, however this $0.005 per kilowatt hour i cannot confirm or deny. One thing that is for certain is that hydro power only accounts for 30% of power generation in ontario, by this measure the .5 cent idea is out the window.

charge us 16 cents per kilowatt hour in the summer under peak load... but it still only costs them 0.5 cents to make.

As stated above this $0.005 figure is not accurate for the overall cost of production, merely by your own assertion the cost of production at hydroelectric stations. Under the tories prices were capped at 4.3 cents which costs the average user an extra $12/month over 2001 or 2002 prices i can't remember which. Currently prices are 5 cents per kilowatt hour and 5.8 cents after the first 750 kilowatt hours used in a month (as of april 1st, 2005) This 16 cent figure i really have no idea... Furthermore if electricity is so cheap to produce why was Ontario hydro running consistant dificits when it was a public entity?

It is better to pay now and avoid what was an ever increasing debt (an avoidable one at that) which would require interest payments.

Regarding privitization of the former Hydro One I don't know if it was necessarily the right move, however the prices did need an upward adjustment at least in order to break even and avoid debt.

I bet a smart conservative like yourself would rather pay 16 cents to a private corporation than 5 cents to the evil tax-grabbing government...

As stated above (and you can easily look this up) we ARE being charged 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

[cybercoma]

SO many points to comment on, I'll probably miss half of them.

It should be noted that consumers are the ones who should drive the economy. History has proven that anytime the government gets its grubby hands into the pot, something collapses.

Right now doctors and medical companies are forced to work for what the government dictates their value is, not what a fair market price is for their services. People on the left want everything to be fair for people in Canada, but they don't want to accept the fact that forcing doctors and clinics to operate at what the government decides is acceptable is completely unfair for them economically.

Regardless, the whole point is moot considering we're not suggesting totally dismantling public health care. What is being suggested is to ALLOW those doctors whom choose so to open their own private clinics and charge what they see fit.

If you think their prices are unfair, then don't give them your money. That's the way a free society works. Eventually those doctors will either close because everyone is finding cheaper service elsewhere, or they'll be forced to lower their prices.

What hasn't been even acknowledged by the otherside in this discussion is our current public insurance (OHIP, etc....). This would not be something that is simply thrown away. For emphasis: THERE WILL STILL BE A PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM under the current proposal. You would still have public insurance to use EVEN IN PRIVATE FACILITIES. To suggest that private clinics and services be outlawed is to propose an oppresive dictatorial control over people's lives.

We are already going to private hospitals and clinics. I don't know where in Canada those opposed to the two-tier system live, but I live in Windsor, Ontario. To say I know first hand the problems and differences with our system and the American system would be an understatement. Keeping in mind that we are NOT proposing a system even remotely similar to the United States, people are already being referred into the private system of healthcare by our very own government ruled public system.

Patients are directed daily to the United States to bypass waiting lists over here. There are some very seriously ill people that have to wait for services in Ontario when they just don't have that option. Here's the kicker...OHIP still covers you for what they cover, in the United States. You would still have universal access to necessary services (even though Dalton McGuinty has decided the most commonly used services should no longer be covered, but that's a whole other ball of wax).

This is about freedom of choice though. For those who can afford seeing a private specialist that is allowed to charge what he's worth for his services, they can do so and get the help they need immediatly.

This is no different than what is going on in Southwestern Ontario, or any other region close to the border I imagine. All of this is happening NOW and will continue to happen until we do something to KEEP THOSE DOLLARS IN OUR COUNTRY.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, this goes without saying; however, be aware that there already is a two-tier system which acts as a pipeline funneling our dollar to the United States. To suggest that we should not allow doctors and medical suppliers to make what they're worth in a fair market here in Canada is a foot in the grave of fascism. The last thing I want is total government control over anything. We all know how inefficient and irresponsible bureaucrats and politicians are.

[err]

As stated above (and you can easily look this up) we ARE being charged 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

If you look at the Independent Market Operator's website, www.THEIMO.COM, you'll get to see the prices that the independent generators are getting paid during the summer. Whether our bills are being capped or not, these guys are getting paid the prices on that web site.....

The provincial government refused to answer where the difference come from when I and several colleagues formally requested the information.... But they say that the debt is getting bigger, even though our "debt reduction" charge on our hydro bills is supposed to cover that debt.... Interesting isn't it....

[The Terrible Sweal]

Creating privately paid parallell services improves service for those who can afford it, at the expense of increased costs in the public system due to (1) competition between the sytems for resources, and (2) lost economies of scale.

Economies of scale? In health services? What could they possibly be? Are you suggesting that we perform hip replacement on an assembly line?

Well, there certainly are some economies of scale available in the delivery end, but I was actually thinking of risk-sharing ... a greater distribution of risk reduces its acuarial unit cost.

Your comment about the "competition between the systems for resources" is laughable.

I only hurts when I laugh.

The very reason our health system currently suffers is because of the competing uses for rare resources (and the increasing inability of anyone to know how to decide where to devote those resources).  Our health system suffers from a lack of prices.  Hospital managers and ministry bureaucrats increasingly find themselves in the position of Soviet planners.  They are spending hours and hours over spreadsheets trying to figure out what to do.

Even if you are correct, and I think partly you are, this doesn't refute my point that if private providers are in competition with public providers there will be resource competition between them.

In any case, Canada already has a two-tier system.  Our second, private tier is the United States.  (Robert Bourassa was treated in a Maryland hospital for his terminal cancer.)

And as long as we keep it there, it won't represent a direct competition with our system, nor a justification for de-universalizing or underfunding our system.

Since PM PM already prefers a doctor in a private clinic in Montreal, I have no doubt that once in retirement, he will get his hip replaced (if necessary) somewhere in the US.  Mulroney, to his credit, was treated in the Hopital St-Luc.  I note Harper and his family also go to the same clinics as you or I would.  (I'll bet he doesn't have to wait though...)

None of which makes a positive case for opting for such a system.

[err]

Conservative1 says:

Reduce corperate tax cuts? Anyone with half a brain realizes that these tax cuts benefit the people not just the coperations. Why would you want to stop this; business doesn't stay around if they aren't allowed to keep any of the money they are making, and with high taxes who would want to locate a business here vs a low tax country if such a choice existed. (and the money saved with national health argument just doesn't cut it if you ask me.)

I notice from this that you have half a brain. In the United States, corporate tax is higher than in Canada, but personal tax is much higher in Canada than the USA.

Your argument seems to indicate that you think the government should favour corporations over constituents. I think that the government should be "for the people".

[cybercoma]

Conservative1 says:

Reduce corperate tax cuts? Anyone with half a brain realizes that these tax cuts benefit the people not just the coperations. Why would you want to stop this; business doesn't stay around if they aren't allowed to keep any of the money they are making, and with high taxes who would want to locate a business here vs a low tax country if such a choice existed. (and the money saved with national health argument just doesn't cut it if you ask me.)

I notice from this that you have half a brain. In the United States, corporate tax is higher than in Canada, but personal tax is much higher in Canada than the USA.

Your argument seems to indicate that you think the government should favour corporations over constituents. I think that the government should be "for the people".

Maybe Cuba is a better country for you.

[err]

Just thought you'd like to know.... that line "A government for the people, by the people..." That's the United States of America, not Cuba...

[August1991]

I notice from this that you have half a brain. In the United States, corporate tax is higher than in Canada, but personal tax is much higher in Canada than the USA.

Does your comparison consider State and Provincial taxes? Are you aware that the City of New York imposes income tax? What about VAT?

Rather than compare Canada and the United States, I suggest you compare different parts of North America.

You might also want to consider different services received. Canadians typically pay for Health Insurance premiums through taxes whereas Americans pay for such premiums with disposable income.

Your argument seems to indicate that you think the government should favour corporations over constituents. I think that the government should be "for the people".

How can the government favour "corporations"? That's tantamount to favouring "marriage". (Let me explain!)

IOW, the government can favour "constituents" in a marriage over those who are not. Or the government can favour "constituents" in a corporation over those who are not.

There are many ways to select individuals (constituents) for tax. You should not be surprised if an arbitrary selection method leads to rampant avoidance.

[Pateris]

err,

First of all, hydroelectricity is only cheap if you ignore the initial construction cost. The buyers should have paid more for those facilities. But the government didn't have enough bidders so the price was low. Also - the bidders were nervous because they government hadn't clearly stated the rules.

Second, other forms of electricity are expensive, like nuclear and natural gas fired power. This brings up the average price of production.

Third, the government of Ontario capped the price consumers pay - the province is paying the difference out of tax dollars. Therefore you are really paying the whole price - it's just hidden from you.

Fourth, the debt repayment is repaying the Ontario Hydro debt from when it was government owned and VERY POORLY managed. At one time Ontario Hydro had more debt than the provincial government.

Fifth, in Alberta, after some pain in electricity deregulation (again caused by unclear rules), the provincial capacity to generate power is now larger than demand. Because the transmission lines to export this power are not large enough, the spot price for electricity in Alberta is down to about $0.02 per kWh. Almost all new power generation in Alberta is coal fired because coal is cheap. Others will be fired on synthetic gas formed from the tar sands. Ontario is crazy to shutdown the coal fired plants because their only real alternative is more nuclear power. Which means higher power prices for Ontarians.

[err]

August1991 wrote:

You might also want to consider different services received. Canadians typically pay for Health Insurance premiums through taxes whereas Americans pay for such premiums with disposable income.

Maybe most Americans have disposable income to pay for health care.... 40 Americans don't have any though.... Medical emergencies are the #1 cause of bankrupcy in the USA.

How can the government favour "corporations"? That's tantamount to favouring "marriage".

How can the government favour corporations. Just look at what Paul Martin has accomplished over the past 10 years. He has consistantly taken money away from health care, education, and our other vital social services to decrease tax rates for corporations.... to well below the US levels. With tens of billions of dollars of federal surplus every year, he still reduces money for health care, etc.. He hasn't, however, done anything to reduce personal income taxes. So if he takes services away from citizens to give more money back to corporate Canada, it would seem that his policies favour corporations over citizens.... it's pretty simple.

[err]

Pateris,Apr 27 2005, 05:52 PM wrote:

First of all, hydroelectricity is only cheap if you ignore the initial construction cost.  The buyers should have paid more for those facilities.  But the government didn't have enough bidders so the price was low.  Also - the bidders were nervous because they government hadn't clearly stated the rules.

The price has been "free market value" for a few years now.

Second, other forms of electricity are expensive, like nuclear and natural gas fired power.  This brings up the average price of production.

When the Province owned the Hydro electric generation, its low price of 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour helped offset the more expensive nuclear power.... Now we don't have the advantage that once we did have... thanks to the Harris Conservatives.

Third, the government of Ontario capped the price consumers pay - the province is paying the difference out of tax dollars.  Therefore you are really paying the whole price - it's just hidden from you.

This is true. The government has hidden this fact very well.

Fourth, the debt repayment is repaying the Ontario Hydro debt from when it was government owned and VERY POORLY managed.  At one time Ontario Hydro had more debt than the provincial government.

Did you know that it was "against the law" in Ontario to charge the public for construction of a nuclear power plant until it started generating electricity. This changed weeks before Bob Ray got into power in Ontario. So hydro was not allowed to charge us for their construction until they were done.... building up billion dollar deficits.

Ontario is crazy to shutdown the coal fired plants because their only real alternative is more nuclear power.  Which means higher power prices for Ontarians.

I agree with you... at least until they can find alternate sources of power. You'll find that they will not be able to shut them down by 2007 because they can't replace them... Shutting them down is a big Liberal Lie. However, they should look for sources that don't pollute so much.

[cybercoma]

Maybe most Americans have disposable income to pay for health care.... 40 Americans don't have any though....  Medical emergencies are the #1 cause of bankrupcy in the USA. 

Actually, job loss is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States and the general heading of medical bills is the second leading cause.

http://www.andrewslaw.net/bankruptcy/your_...your_life.shtml

Specific medical emergencies aren't necessarily what's bankrupting american people, it's much more likely that it's prolonged medical costs for chronic illnesses and a huge disparity in the cost of prescription drugs.

Americans are subsidizing prescriptions that are being sold in Canada and government regulated prices. If you really want to split hairs, I can draw the conclusion that it's OUR government that's actually bankrupting American citizens.

How can the government favour corporations.  Just look at what Paul Martin has accomplished over the past 10 years.  He has consistantly taken money away from health care, education, and our other vital social services to decrease tax rates for corporations.... to well below the US levels.  With tens of billions of dollars of federal surplus every year, he still reduces money for health care, etc.. He hasn't, however, done anything to reduce personal income taxes.  So if he takes services away from citizens to give more money back to corporate Canada, it would seem that his policies favour corporations over citizens.... it's pretty simple.

Corporations or the people, it's not a mutually exclusive concept, err. Tax benefits to corporations in turn benefit the people, for all the reasons you've heard a million times but refuse to acknowledge.

[fracan]

err believe that government should be "for the people" but wants/think corporations should pay for it? If you really thought government was the people's, then why shouldn't the people be the ones on the hook for its costs? Corporations don't exist -- they're legal fictions designed to make commerce easier to conduct. Corporations don't have children in the public education system, corporations don't need surgery... I could go on.

It always sticks in my craw when I see punks protesting on Bay Street that banks (for example) should pay higher taxes. Who are the major shareholders in Canada's banks? Pension funds and mutual funds, not old guys wearing tophats and monocles. How would higher taxes not lead to less money for the shareholders and fewer jobs for bank workers, all the way down to tellers with little more than a high school diploma?

[Ladyluck]

Sorry I must have hit the wrong button

[Ladyluck]

Not a smart move

Getting into bed with the Liberals :angry:

What is in the heads of the politians today?

I do not believe for one minute that Paul Martin

didn't know about the sponsorship program.....

Think about it !!!!!

What was the first thing he did after he became Primier Minster?

Cancel the sponsorship program .

This is a no brainer .

Jack Layton should be ashamed of doing such a thing!

Can't trust a Liberal , I now see I can't trust the NDP either .

I guess there is only one other choice

[err]

Corporations or the people, it's not a mutually exclusive concept, err. Tax benefits to corporations in turn benefit the people, for all the reasons you've heard a million times but refuse to acknowledge.

I agree with you on the first part, that it's not mutually exclusive. I understand that a climate that is attractive to business will create jobs. However, as with almost everyting, you have to draw some lines. There are limits to how much sacrifice the public has to make to support business.

Our current federal government, or Paul Martin more specifically, is a little too far to the right of the line. The current business climate in Canada is not too bad. Businesses have lower taxes than in the USA, and are obviously doing OK here. The federal government has had record surpluses for 10 years now. However, none of these 10s of billions of dollars of surplus get redirected to the needs of the citizens of Canada.... only to Corporate Canada. If Martin governed the way he made election promises (or throne speeches), I'd say he would be very good for Canadians.... but we all know about Liberal promises.... Our health care system is faultering, blah blah... you Know the drill, and yet Martin takes from these systems to afford further tax breaks for industry, but none for citizens...

And Harper... he's so far to the right, I'd need a telescope to find him.... and if he were elected, I'd lend you the telescope to help you find what he'd leave of our social programs.... (like health care)

[err]

LadyLuck wrote:

Getting into bed with the Liberals 

What is in the heads of the politians today?

Jack Layton should be ashamed of doing such a thing!

Can't trust a Liberal , I now see I can't trust the NDP either .

Do you know how we got medicaire ???

Do you know how we got old age pensions ????

I take it you think it was wrong of the NDP to pressure Liberal minority governments into implementing these opressive programs that hurt business.

[err]

LadyLuck wrote:

Layton's shopping list does not seem long: raise corporate taxes and give more money to Ontario. (It seems to me that Layton is selling himself cheap.) (I think the Ontario NDP did this to support a provincial Liberal government but then the shopping list was longer.)

Raise taxes ??? Hello... anybody home.... Layton demanded that they skip an additional tax cut for the larger corporations who already pay less tax than corporations in the USA pay.....

Skipping a is not the same as INCREASING taxes...