
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.

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.

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.
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'd be happy using Eurobucks. Not so happy using Yen (denominations are outlandish). Greenbacks are boring. What's NATO?
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 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.
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.
I like to open myself to all human possibilitis, and not limit myself to Gramscian common sense.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.