Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election


Machjo
#91
Not to mention that free movement of labour can help international relations too.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And income tax custs would allow companies to develop that. They wont' do it till the pressure is on. BC is on the right track with this. If we did this, I can guarantee many would dump their hummers for bicycles.


Good point! Now that I think of it, I really ought to consider not taking my tractor-trailer when I drive 3 blocks to buy some gum. I'd better make a note of that (*note to self: drive to staples to get note pads).

As far as BC is concerned, I don't believe that the average consumer has changed their habits one bit.... Seems to me that this grandiose idea is just another money grab after all... But at least the good people of BC can take some comfort in the notion that it's going towards - ummmm - exactly what is it going towards again?
 
Machjo
Avatar
#93
Actually, it's not a tax increase, but a revenue neutral tax shift, meaning that overall taxes are the same. If you use less gas, you pay less tax.
 
Machjo
#94
And if you use more gas, you pay more tax.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#95
Summer elections? Bring it on!

Those who are young, on vacation, ALL union members, and those who just simply could not separeate themselves from the beer fridge and the BBQ, are not going to vote, anyways.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
Avatar
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Actually, it's not a tax increase, but a revenue neutral tax shift, meaning that overall taxes are the same. If you use less gas, you pay less tax.


Dion tried that revenue neutral tax shift nonsense. That's like saying that if you don't buy gas it isn't taxed at all.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#97
It's taxed. But while ou don't have a choice to earn an income, you do have a choice as to how much gas to consume.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I'll admit that I don't know enough about them and the possible consequences of changing them, etc. So I'll defer to your wisdom on that one. I would say though that the ownership of a functional weapon should be allowed only to those for whim it is essential, and they must declare in writing that it is, and howso. Though I would be open to a wide interpretation of this, including hunting for food, certain sports for which a weapon is required, etc. And of course for gun collectors, a simple solution would be to make it non-functional by removing the firing mechanism, etc. As to how to organize it, though, I'd have to learn more about it.

And certainly, any costs associated with it should be made user pay.

If I were Chretien, I would have simply boosted the enforement of the existing gun laws. The gun registry was turned into a $2 billion+ farce.



Quote:

According to Francois Grin of the University of Geneva in 2005, his research concluded that the EU was subsidizing the British economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros a year in second-language teaching alone, and that it could save over 25 thousand million euros per year in second-language teaching alone if it should switch to an easier language. Additionally, in 2001 another study found that only about 6%of Western Europeans could accurately translate commonEnglish sentences into their languages. The UN general Assembly spends about 12 million US dollars a year on translation and interpretation for the General Assembly meetings alone, not including all other functions of the UN. According to another expert in aeronautical communication, about 15% of aircrashes are caused by simple miscommunication. And in 2006, StatsCan indicated that only about 45% of Quebecers are functional in English, and that's based on self-assessment, so it might even be lower. English is fine for the elites. For the rest, it's a big waste of money.

I agree about the waste of money concerning Canadian French. Um, the UK is being overrun by Muslims. Teaching another language to people like me would be a waste of time and money. Teaching another language to bi- and multilingual people may pay in the long run but it'll be a loooooooooooooooong run.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I'd be happy using Eurobucks. Not so happy using Yen (denominations are outlandish). Greenbacks are boring. What's NATO?

Quote:

Euros I could accept since they're international. Yen woould be imposing another country's currency on us. Or we could even create a new one. Either way, the goal is to have one less currency on the world market.

I like the idea as long as the denominations aren't ludicrous and the currency has color.



Quote:

I was watching a video on Youtube today. It was interesting that one profesor mentioned that many of the Taliban are so because they're paid pennies a day for it. He'd sugggested just out-bidding the Taliban for these guys! Ah capitalism, gotta love it.

hhhmmm Mercenary-ism. Interesting idea. The US does it, too.

Quote:

As for terrorism, my point is that there is always a reason. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and decides to be a terrorist. besides, this is what airport and port security is for. And if we give the rest of the world more work opportunities... hmmm.... maybe they'd appreciate it and we'd have fewer terrorists? One possible control would be to require those entering the country to know the local language so as to save on translation costs.

Nope. I am sure that Omar Bebahd doesn't have any plans to be one when he's 15 years old either. But then apparently it is not that hard to deluge him in propaganda to turn him into one.All it would take is a few cells in each country to subvert people into doing nasties. Oh, wait we have that now. Lets add to it by sending lots of people freely about the planet to be subverted.
lol You sure are stuck on the language thingy, aren't you? (Not a criticism, just an observation)



Quote:

I like to open myself to all human possibilitis, and not limit myself to Gramscian common sense.

Awesome.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Good point! Now that I think of it, I really ought to consider not taking my tractor-trailer when I drive 3 blocks to buy some gum. I'd better make a note of that (*note to self: drive to staples to get note pads).

As far as BC is concerned, I don't believe that the average consumer has changed their habits one bit.... Seems to me that this grandiose idea is just another money grab after all... But at least the good people of BC can take some comfort in the notion that it's going towards - ummmm - exactly what is it going towards again?

2010 Olys. Remember? lol
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You're in waaayyyy over your head juan. Sadly, you refuse to see any of these issues from an objective stand-point but insist on toe-ing the party-line.

The worst thing that Mulroney could have done is to reduce the size of gvt and lay-off (potentially) 1/2 of the gvt employees which would equate to approx 25% of the work force (directly/indirectly employed by gvt) only to pay them through EI or welfare.... Not a real good idea.

As for your curiosity about the debt increase, how the hell should I know.... But you see, I don't claim to have all the answers whereas you make quite a show about condemning Harper/Flaherty as if you have the answers.. So, what is it? What should we be doing - what would the liberals do that is so blindingly obvious?

I'm guessing that once again, you'll evade the question by attempting to deflect the focus.

For one thing, Mulroney was in for nine years. He could have cut the size of the government through attrition without laying off anyone. Chretien eliminated the deficit in a couple years. Why couldn't lyin brian? All I know is that the Liberals handed Harper a ten billion dollar surplus. What did Harper do? He cut corporate taxes, cut the GST, He spent the surplus, and now the government is running on deficit financing and Flaherty is building debt but we don't know how much. Any time a finance minister can't tell us how much the debt is, that minister should be fired.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#101
It's a tough call, especially in economic downturns to balance the budget (without victimising the elderly and students all the while doling out goodies to rich buddies like Martin did while Chretien was in the PMO, as I pointed out many times to people who can't seem to get that through their heads and still idolize the scumbags). As I also pointed out, Harpy did continue rolling the debt clock backwards until this economic mess happened. Given the choice between reducing the overall debt and adding some to the yearly deficit, I'd continue to pay off the debt thereby reducing the amount of interest wasted on the debt.
I don't give a hoot WHO is in the PMO; if the world's economy heads for the crapper, Canada will be heading there, too.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

It's a tough call, especially in economic downturns to balance the budget (without victimising the elderly and students all the while doling out goodies to rich buddies like Martin did while Chretien was in the PMO, as I pointed out many times to people who can't seem to get that through their heads and still idolize the scumbags). As I also pointed out, Harpy did continue rolling the debt clock backwards until this economic mess happened. Given the choice between reducing the overall debt and adding some to the yearly deficit, I'd continue to pay off the debt thereby reducing the amount of interest wasted on the debt.
I don't give a hoot WHO is in the PMO; if the world's economy heads for the crapper, Canada will be heading there, too.

But any forward-looking MP should be looking to the future. We all know that we have economic cycles now and then. Any respensible politician would have saved to prepare for this crash. Where did that surplus the Liberals had go to? It coud have come mighty handy now, don't you think?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#103
Perhaps some of that surplus went back to refurbishing the damage that Martin did to seniors programs and calming the students down and things like that. I also remember several polls asking what people would do with the surplus. The results were that most people wanted more debt to be paid off. I would imagine that a lot of dangerous and antique military equipment was scrapped or refurbished, too, after decades of being ignored (mostly by liberal gov'ts). That's just off the top of my head, though.

(Any "forward-looking MP" will only look forward to the next election, no further).
 
Machjo
Avatar
#104
A responsible MP should always be looking at 15-70 years down the road, not to the next election. But again, it's the voters fault cause we vote that way.

As for the military, if we shared a military force with another country or countries, that would remove alot of top-heavy military bureaucracy, saving much money that could then be rediverted to that kind of equipment.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

A responsible MP should always be looking at 15-70 years down the road, not to the next election. But again, it's the voters fault cause we vote that way.

Not solely. Many other countries manage to look further into the future than we do. Besides, we have little choice because of the electoral system. FPTP is archaic nonsense. It is NOT very representative, especially in a country like Canada where people vary widely from region to region. What similarities are there between people of the prairies and the people of Newfoundland, for instance? Or between Yukon people and Ontarians?

Quote:

As for the military, if we shared a military force with another country or countries, that would remove alot of top-heavy military bureaucracy, saving much money that could then be rediverted to that kind of equipment.

Possibly. The States would want to run it, though, and a lot of squawking would ensue, but it'd get its way.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Not solely. Many other countries manage to look further into the future than we do. Besides, we have little choice because of the electoral system. FPTP is archaic nonsense. It is NOT very representative, especially in a country like Canada where people vary widely from region to region. What similarities are there between people of the prairies and the people of Newfoundland, for instance? Or between Yukon people and Ontarians?

Either that or go non-partisan, independent candidates only.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Possibly. The States would want to run it, though, and a lot of squawking would ensue, but it'd get its way.

Canada could choose which countries to share with based on a fair agreement. If the US should choose not to play the game, fine. We move on and see if another country might be interested. Once the US sees how much money other countries are saving from this and how much it's holding the US economy back on the world stage, the US would soon change its toon and start looking for something mroe reasonable too.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#107
For one thing, Mulroney was in for nine years.

Juan, in Canada the PM has absolute power, he can do pretty much anything he wants. Mulroney could have repealed the law of gravity, had he wished.

He could have cut the size of the government through attrition without laying off anyone. Chrétien eliminated the deficit in a couple years.

Mulroney didn’t have the will, Chrétien had the will (personally I think Martin was the main motivating force behind balancing the budget).

Any time a finance minister can't tell us how much the debt is, that minister should be fired.

When he was the finance minister in Ontario, he couldn’t tell us how much was the deficit. He claimed (during Ontario election campaign) that it was 2 billion $, while in fact it turned out to be 6 billion $. Why should now be any different? Just because he changed his office from Toronto to Ottawa doesn’t mean that he gained any wisdom along the way.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#108
The Pm has the power of an MP plus whatever power other Mp's choose to give him. Since we vote for parties, however, it becomes in MPs interests to give the Pm that power.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by peggerView Post

re: auto sector bailout - this bailout was to specific companies - not the SECTOR.

I don't believe that iff GM or Chryslar were allowed to fail, there would not have been mass layoffs. Someone would have bought the factories (Ford, VW, maybe even Magna?), etc... at bargin prices, and someone else would have built cars. The demand for cars is still there.

The whole "auto sector bailout" was a scam, and a waste of money.

I'm inclined to agree- let businesses succeed/fail on their own merits. I remember the days (late 50s) when there were more Chevs and Pontiacs on the road than all the other cars put together. (At least that was someone's claim)
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#110
Repealed the law of gravity? What an inane comment.
Anyway, I think it's best if a PM would never mind about the rest of the planet so much and do things to fix the crap here. So far, none since before Turdeau have done a decent job.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#111
Though co-operating with the rest of the planet in sharing services to reduce administrative redundancies could save us alot of money.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Repealed the law of gravity? What an inane comment.
Anyway, I think it's best if a PM would never mind about the rest of the planet so much and do things to fix the crap here. So far, none since before Turdeau have done a decent job.

It's what's known as "poetic license".
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#113
Or political license. lol
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Or political license. lol

Since when do those bastards need a license?
 
Machjo
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Since when do those bastards need a license?

Hey, keep their parents out of this debate.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#116
Who said they actually had parents? I think at least some of them are results of cultures (not the sociological type either. I'm speaking of lab cultures).
 
Machjo
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Who said they actually had parents? I think at least some of them are results of cultures (not the sociological type either. I'm speaking of lab cultures).

They fell from the sky?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#118
Lab cultures are usually grown from some fungus or other I think, but perhaps a few are a bit alien to solid ground.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Perhaps some of that surplus went back to refurbishing the damage that Martin did to seniors programs and calming the students down and things like that. I also remember several polls asking what people would do with the surplus. The results were that most people wanted more debt to be paid off. I would imagine that a lot of dangerous and antique military equipment was scrapped or refurbished, too, after decades of being ignored (mostly by liberal gov'ts). That's just off the top of my head, though.

When Chretien took power the country was broke. We were in debt up to our ears and Kim Campbel handed Chretien a forty odd billion dollar deficit. If we don't have the money we have to lose some of the services. That is simple math. The interest on the debt was taking a sizable chunk out of the budget. What did Mulroney do for our military?
 
Machjo
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Lab cultures are usually grown from some fungus or other I think, but perhaps a few are a bit alien to solid ground.

Hmmm... those politicians do seem a little strange. Could be.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts