Bright Spark
Posts: 301 
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
April 18th, 2007, 08:02 PM
Fiscal imbalance was created when Martin decided to download billions of the federal governments expenses down onto the provinces such as health care costs. On the surface, creating a surplus looks good, but it doesn't take a genious to balance the books by simply passing on your expenses down to others. Once the defecit was gone, the Liberals continued to pass all those expenses down onto the provinces without compensation. That's why we have a federal government is awash in cash and every province except Alberta drowning in debt.
I would disagree. For starters, parents with kids are usually the ones that need the assistance the most. I have 2 young children and the costs are enormous. Secondly, they also reduced the GST plus gave seniors the ability to income split which is a huge savings for the elderly.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.
Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.
Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.
Quote:
They promised to fix health care for a generation. Have you forgotten already?
They promised to give us health care? We already had it. What exactly did they promise and not deliver on?
Fiscal imbalance was created when Martin decided to download billions of the federal governments expenses down onto the provinces such as health care costs. On the surface, creating a surplus looks good, but it doesn't take a genious to balance the books by simply passing on your expenses down to others. Once the defecit was gone, the Liberals continued to pass all those expenses down onto the provinces without compensation. That's why we have a federal government is awash in cash and every province except Alberta drowning in debt.
Quote:
Quote:
I would disagree. For starters, parents with kids are usually the ones that need the assistance the most. I have 2 young children and the costs are enormous. Secondly, they also reduced the GST plus gave seniors the ability to income split which is a huge savings for the elderly.
Quote:
The Liberals have zero credibility on the environment no matter what Dion calls his dog. Signing onto Kyoto and then watching our green house gas emmissions rise by 36% over the time frame they were supposed to be reduced is nothing short of an embarrassment. The Liberals should not even be allowed to be in the same room as those that are discussing green initiatives.
Ouch. Keep in mind that Dion "consulted with businesses and the provinces, so that when the plan materialized, it would have some fundamental credibility." Things shouldn't be cancelled just because of ideological bias.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.
Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.
Quote:
Pot smokers do get pissed when their illegal habit gets targeted. Pot is an illegal substance. As with any illegal substance, it's subject to our laws.
They increased the age of consent, which at 14, was a little too low in my opinion. Unfortunately they also increased the minimum sentence on some drug related charges, which all the current trends point to as being regressive. Prohibition was responsible for the creation and the strength of the mafia, the current criminalisation of marijuana is responsible for the continuing power of many criminal organizations.
Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 19th, 2007, 07:35 AM
So I ask for less vagueness, provide facts and you respond with more vagueness? Let me outline more clearly what I meant.
As for GST, if they forced the taxes to be included in the actual price of goods we purchase it would do far more to satisfy people. Plus a goods and service tax is a far fairer way of the government collecting money than through income tax. I would gladly accept a higher GST for the elimination of the income tax, so long as they don't tax necessities.
I have shown that your numbers are wrong in one instance. I have asked for less vagueness in your statements and less attacks. I have also asked for more citations on your part. The whole point of citations and clarity is for me, and other readers, to see that you are aware of the contents of things like the budget, that you are aware that the media is a poor source of information for the factual content of government documents and that you at least have some sort of respect for us. Go out, read Budget 2007 and the previous ones if you want to make comparisons. I would look forward to conversing economic policy if you were more likely to make actual references.
So I ask for less vagueness, provide facts and you respond with more vagueness? Let me outline more clearly what I meant.
Quoting crit13
What did they promise to fix? What exactly is broken about it? Your statement has zero information content and 100% attack content, you even go so far as to attack my memory. I cetainly forgot nothing. For the longest time I have felt that people like to drum up some issue out of nothing on this. Certainly the state of health care can be improved, but it is anything but broken.
They promised to fix health care for a generation. Have you forgotten already?
Quoting crit13
How exactly do you back up these claims? A quick look at Budget 2003 shows that $9.5 billion was slated for the province over 3 years. And budget 2006 clearly states that: "The Government is committed to implementing the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care." Which is, you know, a liberal promise. Also they promise $5.5billion to reduce wait times provided from 2004–05 to 2013–14. That was just a quick look.
Fiscal imbalance was created when Martin decided to download billions of the federal governments expenses down onto the provinces such as health care costs. On the surface, creating a surplus looks good, but it doesn't take a genious to balance the books by simply passing on your expenses down to others. Once the defecit was gone, the Liberals continued to pass all those expenses down onto the provinces without compensation. That's why we have a federal government is awash in cash and every province except Alberta drowning in debt.
Quoting crit13
You are aware you are disagreeing with a fact right? Read the budget, I provided the link. I was talking about income tax. Sure it might be that parents with kids (is there another kind) and the elderly are deemed to be the most needy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they aren't really adjusting the federal income tax at all, just fiddling with how the child deductions and age deductions are evaluated. So the fact remains: flat decrease in corporate income tax rates, handouts on an eligibility basis for ordinary citizens. The whole point of that is to entice businesses to set up shop in Canada by giving them tax breaks, which is the conservative view on corporate tax rates.
I would disagree. For starters, parents with kids are usually the ones that need the assistance the most. I have 2 young children and the costs are enormous. Secondly, they also reduced the GST plus gave seniors the ability to income split which is a huge savings for the elderly.
As for GST, if they forced the taxes to be included in the actual price of goods we purchase it would do far more to satisfy people. Plus a goods and service tax is a far fairer way of the government collecting money than through income tax. I would gladly accept a higher GST for the elimination of the income tax, so long as they don't tax necessities.
Quoting crit13
The above is a good example of the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. As well as some normal Ad Hominem as well. Also, where are you getting your numbers from, since the official numbers state a 24% raise in Canada and a 13% raise in the USA. Furthermore, as the lesson of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is supposed to teach people, the failure of the liberal government to achieve the Kyoto targets long before the target date says nothing about the plausibility or the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal government's action surely wasn't commendable during that time frame, but they were implementing steps to at least try to meet the Kyoto targets, even if it was a last minute effort. That goes far beyond our current government's disappointing flat out rejection of Kyoto on ideological grounds.
The Liberals have zero credibility on the environment no matter what Dion calls his dog. Signing onto Kyoto and then watching our green house gas emmissions rise by 36% over the time frame they were supposed to be reduced is nothing short of an embarrassment. The Liberals should not even be allowed to be in the same room as those that are discussing green initiatives.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.
Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.
To put the 36% increase into perspective, George Bush's USA (who did not sign onto Kyoto) increased emissions by only 20% during the same time period.
Sorry, but I can't take anything the Liberals say on the environment seriously.
Quoting crit13
I don't smoke marijuana as I am one of the small percentage of people that suffer from acute psychotic onset from intake. I think prohibiting marijuana is about as effective as prohibition of alcohol was, and the side effects are showing to be exactly the same. Higher organized crime levels, citizens not respecting the law, police brutality as they are forced to "discipline" people who aren't really hurting anyone, exportation of social problems. It is far better to deal with addiction as a social problem than as a criminal problem. Also, the law can only be used as a tool for reducing the crime rate when it seeks to reduce recidivism. Increasing the minimum sentences accross the board, giving judges less leeway is a move which forces the justice system into a punitive role as opposed to a punitive/rehabilitive one. This will greatly reduce their ability to decrease recidivism and subsequently lead to an increase in crime rates, or an end to the current decrease.
Pot smokers do get pissed when their illegal habit gets targeted. Pot is an illegal substance. As with any illegal substance, it's subject to our laws.
Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.
Personally I believe they should legalize it and tax the crap out of it.
I have shown that your numbers are wrong in one instance. I have asked for less vagueness in your statements and less attacks. I have also asked for more citations on your part. The whole point of citations and clarity is for me, and other readers, to see that you are aware of the contents of things like the budget, that you are aware that the media is a poor source of information for the factual content of government documents and that you at least have some sort of respect for us. Go out, read Budget 2007 and the previous ones if you want to make comparisons. I would look forward to conversing economic policy if you were more likely to make actual references.
Bright Spark
Posts: 301
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
April 19th, 2007, 07:58 PM
OTTAWA – Liberal leader Stephane Dion told a town hall meeting in Edmonton last night that Canada's health care system faces a crisis in the next few years (Broadcast News, January 12, 2007). But wait, didn’t Paul Martin and the Liberals claim that they had ‘fixed health care for a generation’ only two years ago?:
So which is it Niflmir? If it wasn't broken, then how did the Liberals claim to fix it?
Ministers demanded a meeting with federal Finance Minister John Manley to discuss equalization renewal
(06.26.03)
Quote:
I will continue to challenge your memory because it appears that you have either short term or selective memory. "Fixing healthcare for a generation" is not my mantra, but that of the Liberal party. Allow me to jog your memory..........
What did they promise to fix? What exactly is broken about it? Your statement has zero information content and 100% attack content, you even go so far as to attack my memory. I cetainly forgot nothing. For the longest time I have felt that people like to drum up some issue out of nothing on this. Certainly the state of health care can be improved, but it is anything but broken.
OTTAWA – Liberal leader Stephane Dion told a town hall meeting in Edmonton last night that Canada's health care system faces a crisis in the next few years (Broadcast News, January 12, 2007). But wait, didn’t Paul Martin and the Liberals claim that they had ‘fixed health care for a generation’ only two years ago?:
- "We're finished with the year-to-year scramble for short-term solutions," he said. "We will provide a fix for a generation." – Paul Martin (Ottawa Citizen, April 17, 2004)
- "Health care is this government's No. 1 priority. We will come to an agreement with the provinces, because we must. We will implement a long-term plan, because we must. And because we must, we will provide a fix for a generation.'' – Paul Martin (Winnipeg Free Press, April 18, 2004)
- “I'm very proud of this reform, and I am going to fight for this reform, and I believe that this is the reform that is going to give us the fix for a generation” – Paul Martin (CBC, The National, May 25, 2004)
- "I believe that this reform is going to give us the fix for a generation," – Paul Martin (Ottawa Sun, May 26, 2004)
So which is it Niflmir? If it wasn't broken, then how did the Liberals claim to fix it?
Quote:
So what you're saying is that the fiscal imbalance is a myth and that every province in Canada is out to lunch?
How exactly do you back up these claims? A quick look at Budget 2003 shows that $9.5 billion was slated for the province over 3 years. And budget 2006 clearly states that: "The Government is committed to implementing the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial 10-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care." Which is, you know, a liberal promise. Also they promise $5.5billion to reduce wait times provided from 2004–05 to 2013–14. That was just a quick look.
Ministers demanded a meeting with federal Finance Minister John Manley to discuss equalization renewal
(06.26.03)
The ministers, during the news conference, painted a verbal picture of a distant and tight-fisted federal government; one that is reluctant to share the wealth and is oblivious to their needs.
http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/ver...imbalance.html
Quote:As a Liberal I would think that targeted tax cuts to those that need it most would appeal to you as broad based tax cuts would benefit the rich more since they get taxed more. You claim to prefer paying higher GST but fail to recognize that a third of Canadians pay no tax at all whicj means the only way the bottom third of Canadians can get a tax break, would be through the GST.You are aware you are disagreeing with a fact right? Read the budget, I provided the link. I was talking about income tax. Sure it might be that parents with kids (is there another kind) and the elderly are deemed to be the most needy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they aren't really adjusting the federal income tax at all
BTW, there are parents without kids. They would be called adults.
Quote:Excuse me for not having hours to spend researching exact numbers for your convenience. The bottom line is that the Liberals having 13 years of rule did the opposite of helping the environment. Ironically, the country that Liberals love to villify when it comes to everything including the environment did a much better job at reducing GHG. How embarrassing it must be to Liberal supporters that the great Satan Bush turns out to be more green than the Liberal party of Canada.The above is a good example of the fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. As well as some normal Ad Hominem as well. Also, where are you getting your numbers from, since the official numbers state a 24% raise in Canada and a 13% raise in the USA. Furthermore, as the lesson of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is supposed to teach people, the failure of the liberal government to achieve the Kyoto targets long before the target date says nothing about the plausibility or the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal government's action surely wasn't commendable during that time frame, but they were implementing steps to at least try to meet the Kyoto targets, even if it was a last minute effort. That goes far beyond our current government's disappointing flat out rejection of Kyoto on ideological grounds.
And don't feed me the old line of the Liberals were getting around to it. That's all they were really good at. Going around talking about "stuff" and signing agreements but when it came to actually doing ANYTHING, they were AWOL.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 20th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Honestly Crit, you need to relax. A parent by definition is somebody with a child. You continue to bash my memory even though I never denied that the liberal party promised to "fix health care" and failed, I simply asked you to be less vague about what they actually promised. Saying, "We will fix health care," is something you say to the media because you don't have eight hours to explain all of your policy ideas. I point out that I disagree with the idea that our health care system faces a crisis, I consider every statement involving things like "health care crisis" or "fix health care" to be nothing more than propaganda meant to buy votes. However, I will point out that they did implement a long term plan to, as your quote shows they promised,
As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."
Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.
Ah, here we are some honesty:
Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.
Honestly Crit, you need to relax. A parent by definition is somebody with a child. You continue to bash my memory even though I never denied that the liberal party promised to "fix health care" and failed, I simply asked you to be less vague about what they actually promised. Saying, "We will fix health care," is something you say to the media because you don't have eight hours to explain all of your policy ideas. I point out that I disagree with the idea that our health care system faces a crisis, I consider every statement involving things like "health care crisis" or "fix health care" to be nothing more than propaganda meant to buy votes. However, I will point out that they did implement a long term plan to, as your quote shows they promised,
Quote:
then as my quote shows they implements (the conservatives are doing little more than continuing the liberal 10 year plan).
"We're finished with the year-to-year scramble for short-term solutions," he said. "We will provide a fix for a generation." – Paul Martin (Ottawa Citizen, April 17, 2004)
"Health care is this government's No. 1 priority. We will come to an agreement with the provinces, because we must. We will implement a long-term plan, because we must. And because we must, we will provide a fix for a generation.'' – Paul Martin (Winnipeg Free Press, April 18, 2004)
"Health care is this government's No. 1 priority. We will come to an agreement with the provinces, because we must. We will implement a long-term plan, because we must. And because we must, we will provide a fix for a generation.'' – Paul Martin (Winnipeg Free Press, April 18, 2004)
As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."
Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.
Ah, here we are some honesty:
Quote:
That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best." You readily admit that you don't do research to find out the truth on the claims that you make. I see that you are sticking to your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument in regards to the environment.
Excuse me for not having hours to spend researching exact numbers for your convenience.
Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.
Member
Posts: 120
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
April 20th, 2007, 03:04 AM
Thats why I made my point and left. It seems he too confrontational and assumes alot of things.
Thats why I made my point and left. It seems he too confrontational and assumes alot of things.
Quoting Niflmir
Honestly Crit, you need to relax. A parent by definition is somebody with a child. You continue to bash my memory even though I never denied that the liberal party promised to "fix health care" and failed, I simply asked you to be less vague about what they actually promised. Saying, "We will fix health care," is something you say to the media because you don't have eight hours to explain all of your policy ideas. I point out that I disagree with the idea that our health care system faces a crisis, I consider every statement involving things like "health care crisis" or "fix health care" to be nothing more than propaganda meant to buy votes. However, I will point out that they did implement a long term plan to, as your quote shows they promised,
then as my quote shows they implements (the conservatives are doing little more than continuing the liberal 10 year plan).
As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."
Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.
Ah, here we are some honesty:
That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best." You readily admit that you don't do research to find out the truth on the claims that you make. I see that you are sticking to your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument in regards to the environment.
Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.
then as my quote shows they implements (the conservatives are doing little more than continuing the liberal 10 year plan).
As for the fiscal imbalance, my current stance is: "Your claims are unfounded and dubious," not "There is no fiscal imbalance."
Next, I will point out that your labelling me as a liberal is shallow and again unfounded. I am libertarian, go look it up in the libertarian thread. I am also quite aware that my ideas on taxation seem regressive at the superficial level, but my purpose isn't to elaborate on that here.
Ah, here we are some honesty:
That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best." You readily admit that you don't do research to find out the truth on the claims that you make. I see that you are sticking to your Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument in regards to the environment.
Again, my point is "Your claims are unfounded and dubious." You attack my memory as if I was stating that the Liberal government fixed health care, when I was simply professing my disbelief over a health care crisis, so that's a straw man fallacy at best and an Ad Hominem against me at worst. You don't really seem to understand the concept of a parent, which I will admit says nothing about your political knowledge, but still: a person who brings up and cares for another, is a good definition. You did pull out some sources this time though, and you deserve credit for that, but your anger at me is ill placed. I am not defending any of the actions of the liberal party, although I would readily defend their green plan and their ten year health care plan, I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence to support your claims and the apparent vicious nature with which you attempt to get your views accross. I did that by providing proof to the contrary, a move which shows no support for any party in particular. I already told you that I voted conservative in the last election, which was meant to show that I liked that conservative platform and that I do not have ideological biases, however your continuing strategy of attack without evidence belies a strong ideological bias against the Liberal party.
Bright Spark
Posts: 301
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
April 20th, 2007, 03:34 PM
First of all, I'm not at all angry and secondly I never realized that questioning someones memory on a certain issue would ever be considered a personal attack.
From what I can tell, you are very good at playing mind games which I refuse to get into.
The point is that the US has done a better job at containg GHG emissions without signing onto Kyoto than the Liberal party which did sign onto Kyoto "is" the point. And is the only point for that matter.
Who cares if my percentages were off? The point is the Liberals said they would reduce GHG emmissions and then did the exact opposite for almost 10 years. They raised GHG emmissions much faster than George Bush's US of A.
And yet you claim that you defend their green plan.
Regarding fiscal imbalance, you seem to brush it off as a non existant problem, yet I have provided a link which supports the fact that all provinces within Canada say it's a huge problem. Should I believe you over the premiers of Canada?
The same goes with the health care fix? I'm not the one that claimed that our health care system was broken and needed to be fixed. It was claimed by the Liberal party. You can't have it both ways. You can't take credit for fixing something that was never broken.
Dubious and unfounded indeed.
I backed up all my claims with links and you respond with I'm being dubious.
Quote:
I can certainly understand that trying to gauge someones feelings through typing is difficult at best.
That is the very basis of my point, which seems to have been missed by you. Why did I come here? What have I been trying to say? As I said, "Your claims are unfounded and dubious at best."
First of all, I'm not at all angry and secondly I never realized that questioning someones memory on a certain issue would ever be considered a personal attack.
From what I can tell, you are very good at playing mind games which I refuse to get into.
The point is that the US has done a better job at containg GHG emissions without signing onto Kyoto than the Liberal party which did sign onto Kyoto "is" the point. And is the only point for that matter.
Who cares if my percentages were off? The point is the Liberals said they would reduce GHG emmissions and then did the exact opposite for almost 10 years. They raised GHG emmissions much faster than George Bush's US of A.
And yet you claim that you defend their green plan.
Regarding fiscal imbalance, you seem to brush it off as a non existant problem, yet I have provided a link which supports the fact that all provinces within Canada say it's a huge problem. Should I believe you over the premiers of Canada?
The same goes with the health care fix? I'm not the one that claimed that our health care system was broken and needed to be fixed. It was claimed by the Liberal party. You can't have it both ways. You can't take credit for fixing something that was never broken.
Dubious and unfounded indeed.
I backed up all my claims with links and you respond with I'm being dubious.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
April 23rd, 2007, 04:42 AM
I brush off fiscal imbalance because I don't think its as big a problem in Canada as people make it out to be. If you wish to discuss this, let me know.
As for the USA and green house gas (GHG) emissions compared to Canada, conceded. We are terrible polluters in Canada, which is all the more justification for taking action on this isssue. As for Liberal party credibility on GHG emissions and Kyoto, 28% of the increase from 1990 to 2006 was due to the increase in fossil fuel exportation, they certainly are guilty of allowing that to increase without measure. However, the Kyoto protocol sets targets for the period of 2008-2012, so it is wrong to say that they failed on Kyoto. The Liberal had a strategy based on incentives to corporations, which is widely held to be insufficient, they also drafted the Green Plan in the hopes that it would lead to the Kyoto targets. However lame we judge that to be, they tried. We have already provided all the links for that information. The conservative party of Canada isn't even going to try to reach Kyoto targets, in fact the only target they have is to halve the 2003 levels by 2050, which is a little late. The NDP on the other hand, want to introduce mandatory measures. It is widely believed that these are the types of measures which have any chance of successfully reducing GHG emissions. 80% of GHG emissions in Canada comes from the reliance on fossil fuels for our energy needs, the NDP also want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, if they managed to halve our reliance on fossil fuels for energy, it would decrease our emissions to 88% of 1990 levels, which is 6% lower than the Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. The Green Party's platform is similar, and they want to achieve their targets without introducing new legislation. They are the only party that recognizes that we need to be able to adapt to the problems of climate change (floods, changes in ecology, etc.) and their policy reflects that. Going merely on the merits of policy platform in regards to the Kyoto targets, the ranking would go something like:
1. Green Party - Comprehensive, meant to reduce reliance on fossil fuels through actual fossil fuel levies and incentives for alternate fuel sources and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
2. New Democrat Party - Solely aims to reduce levels through fossil fuel levies and wind/solar incentives.
3. Liberal Party - Doesn't go far enough, relies solely on corporate incentives.
4. Conservative Party - Nonexistant.
If you were willing to vote solely based on likelihood to achieve Kyoto targets, the Green party would probably be the best choice. If we relax the Kyoto targets, and look for the most comprehensive plans, the ranking wouldn't change. The Conservative party's nonexistant would merely change to small corporate incentives and low personal targets.
I brush off fiscal imbalance because I don't think its as big a problem in Canada as people make it out to be. If you wish to discuss this, let me know.
As for the USA and green house gas (GHG) emissions compared to Canada, conceded. We are terrible polluters in Canada, which is all the more justification for taking action on this isssue. As for Liberal party credibility on GHG emissions and Kyoto, 28% of the increase from 1990 to 2006 was due to the increase in fossil fuel exportation, they certainly are guilty of allowing that to increase without measure. However, the Kyoto protocol sets targets for the period of 2008-2012, so it is wrong to say that they failed on Kyoto. The Liberal had a strategy based on incentives to corporations, which is widely held to be insufficient, they also drafted the Green Plan in the hopes that it would lead to the Kyoto targets. However lame we judge that to be, they tried. We have already provided all the links for that information. The conservative party of Canada isn't even going to try to reach Kyoto targets, in fact the only target they have is to halve the 2003 levels by 2050, which is a little late. The NDP on the other hand, want to introduce mandatory measures. It is widely believed that these are the types of measures which have any chance of successfully reducing GHG emissions. 80% of GHG emissions in Canada comes from the reliance on fossil fuels for our energy needs, the NDP also want to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, if they managed to halve our reliance on fossil fuels for energy, it would decrease our emissions to 88% of 1990 levels, which is 6% lower than the Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. The Green Party's platform is similar, and they want to achieve their targets without introducing new legislation. They are the only party that recognizes that we need to be able to adapt to the problems of climate change (floods, changes in ecology, etc.) and their policy reflects that. Going merely on the merits of policy platform in regards to the Kyoto targets, the ranking would go something like:
1. Green Party - Comprehensive, meant to reduce reliance on fossil fuels through actual fossil fuel levies and incentives for alternate fuel sources and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
2. New Democrat Party - Solely aims to reduce levels through fossil fuel levies and wind/solar incentives.
3. Liberal Party - Doesn't go far enough, relies solely on corporate incentives.
4. Conservative Party - Nonexistant.
If you were willing to vote solely based on likelihood to achieve Kyoto targets, the Green party would probably be the best choice. If we relax the Kyoto targets, and look for the most comprehensive plans, the ranking wouldn't change. The Conservative party's nonexistant would merely change to small corporate incentives and low personal targets.
