He actually said this!

[Guest eureka]

An axis is one line, Geoffrey. It doesn'r bend.

End of the country! Have you read the Harper pronouncements? " It doesn't matter how many national governments we have." And there are a few more.

His purpose IS to end Canada as a nation. That has always been his sick dream. He wants Canada to be a federation of autonomous regions. He has been clear on that for the whole of his sheltered career. He is very close to the PQ and the Bloc on that.

I am tired of saying and giving the evidence to prove it, that Canada is the most decentralized country in the world now. Without the federal spending power, it would be ungovernable. Harper is on record a thousand times as being determined to turn that spending power over to the provinces.

The Provinces in Canada already have more spending power than any region in any federation of the world - and I have given the figures for that in the past several times. It seems that there are too many thick skulls that cannot be penetrated.

It was the discovery of the power of the federal ability to spend that brought Canada out of depression (Keynesianism). Most people know that except for some Conservative supporters. What is less known and not well covered in the history books, is that Canada in the 1930's almost did come to an end. It was that discovery of the spending power that saved it from that.

By that time, Canada had reached rock bottom in jurisdictions. It is not a lot better now, but judicious use of the power in creating national programmes has somewhat strengthened the government.

Harper is a blind ideologue and his supporters are dense beyond words.

[kimmy]

What Harper will do if elected Prime Minister is limited in great extent by political pragmatism.

And, what Harper would do for ideological reasons, Martin would do out of fear, political weakness, and the lack of any convictions at all aside from the need to do whatever is required to retain power. Of all the things that you've seen during your many years in Canada, eureka, I imagine that watching this desperate, fearful little man inherit the mantle of "Defender of Canadian Federalism" must be among those that have caused you the most despair.

-k

[geoffrey]

Let me pick you apart, you might enjoy it...

An axis is one line, Geoffrey. It doesn'r bend.

Wrong Eureka. Like I said, in these crystals apparently it can be a few things. Competely different meaning from what you crazy non-crystal atomic stuff supporters think.

His purpose IS to end Canada as a nation. That has always been his sick dream. He wants Canada to be a federation of autonomous regions. He has been clear on that for the whole of his sheltered career. He is very close to the PQ and the Bloc on that.

No, he's saying that Canada can only function when people that are affected make decisions. I for one, would rather have people living in my area with the power then someone off in Ottawa that has never seen where I live. Top-heavy management always fails.

I am tired of saying and giving the evidence to prove it, that Canada is the most decentralized country in the world now. Without the federal spending power, it would be ungovernable. Harper is on record a thousand times as being determined to turn that spending power over to the provinces.

Where it Constitutionally belongs. Either defend the Constitution or don't. You can't say Harper will violate the Charter, but should violate the Constitution. Make up your mind.

The Provinces in Canada already have more spending power than any region in any federation of the world - and I have given the figures for that in the past several times. It seems that there are too many thick skulls that cannot be penetrated.

This is true. As it should be.

It was the discovery of the power of the federal ability to spend that brought Canada out of depression (Keynesianism). Most people know that except for some Conservative supporters. What is less known and not well covered in the history books, is that Canada in the 1930's almost did come to an end. It was that discovery of the spending power that saved it from that.

Whether the government in Ottawa spends it or the government in Edmonton, it makes no difference, you should know that.

And we are past the spend and tax monetary policy. Thats why we have centralized banking that controls these pressures more responsibily through controls on money supply.

Mackenzie King didn't even spend on the right things if your looking at it from a Keynesianism perspective.

By that time, Canada had reached rock bottom in jurisdictions. It is not a lot better now, but judicious use of the power in creating national programmes has somewhat strengthened the government.

Maybe this government being strong is what causes the problems. When people are oppressed they will fight back. Not oppression in the traditional sense, but outside of Ontario and Quebec regional issues are simply ignored.

Harper is a blind ideologue and his supporters are dense beyond words.

Or we are people that have an understanding of economics and conservative economic policy. Or that we understand what a national childcare program really means/costs. Or that we understand that giving people some more self-determination will make them much more content to stay in Canada.

Your the one holding on to centuries old values (especially in your defense of Federal power based on Keynesian economics, and from even that perspect you were wrong). We are the ones trying to improve the way things are done.

[mar]

...

Or we are people that have an understanding of economics and conservative economic policy. Or that we understand what a national childcare program really means/costs. Or that we understand that giving people some more self-determination will make them much more content to stay in Canada.

Your the one holding on to centuries old values (especially in your defense of Federal power based on Keynesian economics, and from even that perspect you were wrong). We are the ones trying to improve the way things are done.

Actually both points are questionable.

First, your understanding of economics has not been tested as none of the people in the Conservative party pushing it have ever been in a position to implement it.

Second, If we look at the U.S. economy they had the nightmare economy and immense deficits of Reagan-Bush who got the ball rolling on the "new economics" punctuated by the 8 years of unprecedented growth of the Clinton years followed by the nightmare of Bush II. Not a good recommendation for your cause.

Third, Bushco have not abandoned Keynesian economics. The signal feature of Keynesian economics in the post WWII period was military spending. There are endless analyses of this but the conclusion of most economists was that by the 1970's, military spending had lost a great deal of its value in stimulating growth. Part of this was that the technology became divorced from the general economy so the spin-off effect was steadily decreasing, part was that monopolization within the arms sector resulted in an increasingly narrow economic benefit, part of it is that the structure of defence contracting escalated costs to such a stratospheric level that the benefit was dwarfed by the federal outlay.

However both Reagan-Bush and Bush II still seem to believe in the economic value of military spending, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking so much about Iraq as the "missle shield" - or "Peace Shield" as Reagan liked to call it - which has never had much support among experts on operational grounds and many argue is being pushed for the supposed benefit to the economy).

And this is NOT an argument not to spend on the military in Canada. What I am saying is the spending should be done because it is necessary for operations but not with any idea it is going to fuel economic growth.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, you are right that I am not a defender of Martin on the unity issue: nor was I of Trudeau whose trade offs were unacceptable.

However, what Harper will do is not limited. His acknowledged intent to address the "fiscal balance" is all that needs to be done to render the federal government ineffectual. He will do that and has made it clear that he intends to reduce the role of the federal government and do such things as transfer tax points.

That would shift the balance of jurisdictional power to the provinces irreversably. The federal government would then be irrelevant.

[Guest eureka]

Geffrey, you may live in a crystal or a chrysalis if you choose. Most of us live in the real world of humankind. There, as Frum also does not know, an axis is a straight line.

You may be an economics major but that does not automatically give you an understanding of anything. Absorbing information is just the first tiny step on the roaf to understandimg. However, mar dealt with that rather well so we can leave any expansion alone.

Because you have read in one of your texts that "top heavy" management is bad, it is not necessarily so and management of affairs that need central management and coordination us not top heavy management: it is the avoidance of a hodge podge of programmes and of the inefficiencies of a multiplicity of bureaucracies.

You may think it better to have government officialdom on the spot, but it is not always the case and it is not an efficiency. A national government also has the branch offices on the spot and they have one set of directions to follow. Your "decentralization" requires ten differing political bodies and affects many of your Canadian prospects; from licensing to movement and trade. There are more internal barriers in Canada than external.

Unitary national governments are everywhere less costly and more efficient than federal governments. The supposed virtue of federalism is the encouragement of diversity. But, an excess of diversity leads to a travesty of a nation and that is what Canada is becoming.

Quebec separatism and Alberta's demands for more autonomy are just two indicators of how the balance has been distorted in Canada.

You should, to help you with an understanding of the relationship between your "economy" and the affairs of the nation, you should do a little work on the Constitution. You will find that you are mistaken about where certain powers should lie. The Constitution has constantly been subverted by the actions of Canadians, as kimmy notes about Martin: by the Courts of recent years - they have given up on accurate interpretation: by the Privy Council when it had the deciding power and overturned several important resolutions of jurisdiction by the Canadian Suoreme Court.

The Privy Council in one most important finding, said that the Canadian Constitution was a "Ship of State" as opposed to the "Living Tree" that all Constitutions are. It ruled that only words are relevant: that intent and history are to be ignored. That decision crippled the national development of Canada whis was, as Macdonald said, a country where the provinces were to be "Municipalities writ large."

There is not in all of history an example of the survival of a nation that does not have an overriding central power. There is no example of the survival of a nation with the limited powers that the central government of Canada has at this time. All that holds Canada together is the power of money: the federal spending power.

Fiscal Imbalance is the slogan of the would be destroyers and Provincialists. What Canada suffers from is a jurisdictional imbalance.

[geoffrey]

Geffrey, you may live in a crystal or a chrysalis if you choose. Most of us live in the real world of humankind. There, as Frum also does not know, an axis is a straight line.

You may be an economics major but that does not automatically give you an understanding of anything. Absorbing information is just the first tiny step on the roaf to understandimg. However, mar dealt with that rather well so we can leave any expansion alone.

Because you have read in one of your texts that "top heavy" management is bad, it is not necessarily so and management of affairs that need central management and coordination us not top heavy management: it is the avoidance of a hodge podge of programmes and of the inefficiencies of a multiplicity of bureaucracies.

You may think it better to have government officialdom on the spot, but it is not always the case and it is not an efficiency. A national government also has the branch offices on the spot and they have one set of directions to follow. Your "decentralization" requires ten differing political bodies and affects many of your Canadian prospects; from licensing to movement and trade. There are more internal barriers in Canada than external.

Unitary national governments are everywhere less costly and more efficient than federal governments. The supposed virtue of federalism is the encouragement of diversity. But, an excess of diversity leads to a travesty of a nation and that is what Canada is becoming.

Quebec separatism and Alberta's demands for more autonomy are just two indicators of how the balance has been distorted in Canada.

You should, to help you with an understanding of the relationship between your "economy" and the affairs of the nation, you should do a little work on the Constitution. You will find that you are mistaken about where certain powers should lie. The Constitution has constantly been subverted by the actions of Canadians, as kimmy notes about Martin: by the Courts of recent years - they have given up on accurate interpretation: by the Privy Council when it had the deciding power and overturned several important resolutions of jurisdiction by the Canadian Suoreme Court.

The Privy Council in one most important finding, said that the Canadian Constitution was a "Ship of State" as opposed to the "Living Tree" that all Constitutions are. It ruled that only words are relevant: that intent and history are to be ignored. That decision crippled the national development of Canada whis was, as Macdonald said, a country where the provinces were to be "Municipalities writ large."

There is not in all of history an example of the survival of a nation that does not have an overriding central power. There is no example of the survival of a nation with the limited powers that the central government of Canada has at this time. All that holds Canada together is the power of money: the federal spending power.

Fiscal Imbalance is the slogan of the would be destroyers and Provincialists. What Canada suffers from is a jurisdictional imbalance.

Eureka, I was kidding about the crystals by the way. Stop taking everything I say so seriously, you'll go crazy.

I'm not using my education as a defense to my ideas either, sorry if I implied it. I have alot to learn yet, I'm no economics genious or anything of the sort. I also do have practical business experience too. Again, not to defend my ideas, just saying I've done alot more than just read books. Thanks.

I still argue that central spending doesn't bring this country together. In fact, it causes most of the regional issues as they all squabble about their share. If the provinces had their money, they'd have no reason to fight each other for it.

Have the Federal government around, for purposes of defense, foreign policy, ect. But give the Provinces control (and money) for their own programs on the social side of things. I can't possibly accept that a government that was for 13 years unaccountable to my province can be considered democractic or fair. With more regional control by governments, we can all hold our governments to account more easily.

And to mar.

Because Bush supports Keynesian values makes it a relevant concept? The Federal governement in our country, and most of the industrialized world, does not spend out of economic slowdowns. The .com crash showed this, some interest rate cuts and we never even noticed. No increased economic spending.

My argument was that the Federal governments spending power to get out of economic slowdown is irrelevant now.

[Guest eureka]

I thought my response showed clearly that I did not take that part seriously. I don't waste time by searching for appropriate emoticons and I assume that most of us are mature enough not to need them.

Your idea of the consequence of central spending is simply wrong. The high level of provincial spending is the caus eof regionalism since it reflects the too great powers of the Provinces and the increasing demands by them. The provinces actually have all the room to raise the extra money they claim is their die: they simply do not relish having to raise it by the methods of taxation available to them. Then, their own constituents would know who was spending their money - much of the federal revenues id spent by the provinces now - and they might have some awkward election issues.

Can you not see what you are saying with your thoughts on the duties of the federal government? That is no longer a nation that we would have: not even a country. It is a federation of autonomous states. You would lose mist of what you have in the broad context of Canada. You might even be condemned to spend the rest of a miserable existence in Alberta if Alberta continues to annoy the rest of the members.

Come to think of it, I might even be persuaded to support you view if it would keep Harper behind his firewall.

[geoffrey]

I thought my response showed clearly that I did not take that part seriously. I don't waste time by searching for appropriate emoticons and I assume that most of us are mature enough not to need them.

Your idea of the consequence of central spending is simply wrong. The high level of provincial spending is the caus eof regionalism since it reflects the too great powers of the Provinces and the increasing demands by them. The provinces actually have all the room to raise the extra money they claim is their die: they simply do not relish having to raise it by the methods of taxation available to them. Then, their own constituents would know who was spending their money - much of the federal revenues id spent by the provinces now - and they might have some awkward election issues.

Can you not see what you are saying with your thoughts on the duties of the federal government? That is no longer a nation that we would have: not even a country. It is a federation of autonomous states. You would lose mist of what you have in the broad context of Canada. You might even be condemned to spend the rest of a miserable existence in Alberta if Alberta continues to annoy the rest of the members.

Come to think of it, I might even be persuaded to support you view if it would keep Harper behind his firewall.

Well it doesn't seem like we'll ever find agreement on decentralisation. I really do see your point, but I'm just not buying it.

Here's a fair question, what would you put back into the control of the Federal government that is a provincial responsibility now?

[Guest eureka]

I would be inclined to do what every other federation does and to make the important national concerns a shared jurisdiction. domestic concerns that is.

Health, welfare, and education are the most obvious. Things like internal trade and professional licensing are others that should be thought about.

[geoffrey]

I would be inclined to do what every other federation does and to make the important national concerns a shared jurisdiction. domestic concerns that is.

Health, welfare, and education are the most obvious. Things like internal trade and professional licensing are others that should be thought about.

I understand that Canada is decentralized more so than most other countries, but don't you agree we need to be in order to make sure the views of each region are fairly represented? We are a huge country, and in each area we have very different interests and opinions. Or are you contending that a stronger Federal government would work to make these regions more alike and ending the problem that way by removing any disparity between provinces?

[Guest eureka]

Why would we need to be? No other country is and almost every country is easier to govern than Canada evn countries that have real differnces in their regional cultures and concerns.

A stronger federal government would not work to make us more alike. We are already quite similar in most ways. Our regional differences are primarily constructed around the natural resource base in each region and the economic development.

A stronger federal government would work to ensure that a national interest is paramount and end the greed and selfishness that is now the dominant shared interest of Canada's Provinces.

[mar]

And to mar.

Because Bush supports Keynesian values makes it a relevant concept? The Federal governement in our country, and most of the industrialized world, does not spend out of economic slowdowns. The .com crash showed this, some interest rate cuts and we never even noticed. No increased economic spending.

My argument was that the Federal governments spending power to get out of economic slowdown is irrelevant now.

Actually what you said was:

"Your the one holding on to centuries old values (especially in your defense of Federal power based on Keynesian economics, and from even that perspect you were wrong). We are the ones trying to improve the way things are done."

Which of course is meant to suggest that the economic policies of the Conservatives will eschew Keynesian economics. However, the principal argument being proferred in favour of joining the missle defence system is, in fact, the economic benefit - a Keynesian argument.

If you examine the history of Canada's involvement with U.S. plans in military procurement, you will find that the economic benefit obtained by Canada represents only scraps of what is usually trumpeted as the total. Part of this is that our defence sector is dwarfed by that of the U.S. part of it is simply that any plan proposed by the U.S. for their economic benefit is just that: for their benefit, not ours.

Perhaps as a student of economics you might wish to review the literature on the economic value of spending in the defence sector as opposed to other areas of the economy. You will find that there are countless more effective ways to provide economic benefit. To be specific, yes, any major government spending program will generate some employment and revenue, but the bang-for-the-buck in the defence sector is very low.

[Biblio Bibuli]

So, what is David Frum's hidden agenda?

Gee! I dunno. He left his home and native land to work for a Neo Conservative party in the United States, one that has repeatedly criticised the sitting government of Canada.

I would put together some Frum quotes but it might make me ill to read them and I don't have the time to clean the vomit off my keyboard.

David must have heard you, and in trying to shed that "Neo Conservative" label you have given him, he is now defending Paul Martin and his Liberals saying that the ONLY reason Martin didn't succeed during his term was because he was being continuously tripped up by Layton and Duceppe.

He is the ONLY columnist who defends the Liberals in my papers today.

Look:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...44-66ece1318973

If that's what you call a "hidden agenda" then, yes, I agree ...... David Frum's agenda is to never be anybody's poodle. And Bush knows it, THAT'S why he fired him!

[Biblio Bibuli]

you think that's something? Check this out (and I swear it's all true!)

You think that's something? Just an hour ago I overheard Hillary Clinton say ..... "Bush runs the White House like a plantation. And you know what I mean by that!"

I don't know what she means by that.

Do you?

She's going cuckoo, that's my guess.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I overheard Hillary Clinton say ..... "Bush runs the White House like a plantation. And you know what I mean by that!"

Even the CBC is taking the side of the Republicans, saying that what she said was ugly.