High Ho it's off to the polls we go.

[AnnaG]

Let me give you my take on the three major newspapers. As far as news content is concerted, they are all reliable, reputable news sources. I wouldn’t have a problem believing a news story I read in any of them.

When it comes to editorial content, The Post is definitely biased towards Conservatives; some of the articles in the Post really almost make it a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party. So I wouldn’t believe anything I read on the editorial pages of The Post.

The Star has a definite bias to the left. To that extent, it may sometimes support Liberals, but it is more interested in trashing the Conservatives. And it is more oriented towards NDP than Liberals.

The Globe is a centrist paper and its policies align most closely with those of Liberals (of the three newspapers). However that does not mean that Globe is a Liberal supporter, last two elections it endorsed Conservatives.

The upshot of it is, Conservatives have a mouthpiece (The Post), other parties don’t.

lol Only Toronto has a major newspaper?

 

[AnnaG]

What I cannot support is the tax and spend policies of the former Liberal govt under Jean "Only a few millions were stolen" Chretien. Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments.

That is where we disagree, AlbertaBlue. To me, Chretien did a stellar job of managing the economy, he converted Mulroney deficit (40 billion plus) into a healthy surplus. Whatever he did to balance the books (tax increases, spending cuts etc.) was fully justified.

Martin did that and he did it by cutting seniors programs, taxation, cuts to healthcare, etc. All the while affording patronages to his buddies and re-registering his own ships in overseas ports to avoid taxes. The guy is out-and-out sewer scum.
etc etc etc

 

[AnnaG]

I also believe in choice, which is why I believe that both scientific and creationism should be taught. It is not a matter of church vs state, either, don't go down that tired old path.

Certainly it is a matter of church, a matter of religion, AlbertaBlue. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it is superstition, a religion. Religious instruction does not belong in science class. If they want to teach Creationism as part of some course on religion (that is how some Christians believe the world was created), I have no problem with that. But to elevate Creationism to the status of scientific theory is total nonsense

You are right, it's only an hypothesis .... just like the scientific views about how life began.

 

[AnnaG]

I would take cash. In small bills in a brown envelope. But a free beer would make the screwing we will get feel better .

Minimulronay? lol

 

[AlbertaBlue]

That may be true, AlbertaBlue, but expenses incurred in 2009 can still be claimed until the end of April 2010.

So even if legislation is passed in February or March, people still can claim the deduction on 2009 taxes. And even if they have filed the tax return, so what? It is only a simple form to file an amendment to tax return and get your money back.

I have done it few times, both before April 30 and after April 30 deadline. You have up to three years to file an amendment. All you do is write the new figure on the relevant line (say line no. 121, or 122 etc.) and CRA takes care of the rest, they calculate the refund due.

If you file later on, say a year or two later, they even pay the interest, even though it is not their fault.

So it is quite practical to pass the legislation in Feb or Mar of 2010, make it retroactive and people can claim the tax deduction in the 2009 tax return (either in the return itself or by filing an amendment).

But Iggy has said if he wins it will be in before the end of the year. And why would anyone want to go to the hassle of filing an amended return after filing an original return, and how much more work will that create for the govt workers? Basically, you gave a very convulted and complicated way to fix a problem that does not have to happen. Simply put, we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

Well yes, but you still did not answer my question. You want lower taxes, but suppose spending cuts cannot be found, either for practical or for political reasons. Would you still want lower taxes?

Many conservatives would, and that is the origin of borrow and spend conservative philosophy. Both Reagan and Bush enacted huge tax cuts, and as a result, built up huge debt and deficit.

To take a page out of Obamas play book, find waste and cut it, that will save a lot. You also make my point about why a conservative majority is required, in order for them to get their platform out there and follow through with it. If people don't like it, they will last no more than four years, but at least we will see the true platform, not some cobbled platform that, by necessity, has to included part of the Fibs, Dips and Blocs platforms, due to the minority status.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

What I cannot support is the tax and spend policies of the former Liberal govt under Jean "Only a few millions were stolen" Chretien. Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments.

That is where we disagree, AlbertaBlue. To me, Chretien did a stellar job of managing the economy, he converted Mulroney deficit (40 billion plus) into a healthy surplus. Whatever he did to balance the books (tax increases, spending cuts etc.) was fully justified.

Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments. Less government with right wing parties, more with left wing parties.

What you get with right wing parties (both in Canada and USA) is huge debt, huge deficit. These days conservatism is synonymous with borrow and spend. Government actually increased under Bush, and it is increasing under Harper.

It is right wing propaganda that right wing parties lead to less government. Right wing parties many times mean more government, but in different areas of life as compared to left wing parties. Government spending went up under Bush, much more so than under Clinton.

Same with Harper, government spending is going up under Harper, much more so than it did under Chrétien.

Yes, this may be an oversimplification, but it is, and has been generally true for decades in both the US and Canada.

Not only it an oversimplification, but it is wrong. Government spending went up at a greater rate when Republicans controlled the Congress and Bush was the President. And the right wingers, who shed crocodile tears over government spending had no problem with spending whatever when their side was in power.

Bull on the first one. The only way they managed to "balance" the budget was to download costs onto lower level governments, which caused them to download even further. Transfer payments got cut, so provinces had to cut, which meant cities, towns and munis had to cut. Sure they balance the budget, but with voodoo economics.

So, if I read you right under the second point, Bush spent more than Clinton, and you STILL did not support Bush? OOOKKKAAYYY...............

 

[AlbertaBlue]

I also believe in choice, which is why I believe that both scientific and creationism should be taught. It is not a matter of church vs state, either, don't go down that tired old path.

Certainly it is a matter of church, a matter of religion, AlbertaBlue. Creationism is not a scientific theory; it is superstition, a religion. Religious instruction does not belong in science class. If they want to teach Creationism as part of some course on religion (that is how some Christians believe the world was created), I have no problem with that. But to elevate Creationism to the status of scientific theory is total nonsense.

Might as well teach flat earth theory with the theory that earth is round. Well perhaps that is not a good example, flat earth theory is better than Creationism. Flat earth theory is a scientific theory and as such can be proven wrong. Creationism is religion and by definition, always right.

The point was choice. With no choice, informed decisions cannot be made. Some would say that some scientific theories are superstition as well, and please do not suggest that the scientists are not affected by political people and situations.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

I don't support fiscal mismangement or corruption. All political parties can have these flaws. Do you honestly believe that Conservative politicians are inherently incapable of making bad financial decisions or accepting bribes and kickbacks?

Conservatives want less government and less taxes. Sounds pretty good, unless you consider that this also means less benefits or more user fees. Either we pay as a group through taxes or we pay as individuals. In certain cases, I rather pay as a group through taxes for some benefits, than as an individual.

I'd rather pay for new roads with taxes, than have toll roads.

I'd rather pay for health care with taxes than have private health care.

I'd rather pay taxes than have private schools and uneducated poor people stuck in a unending cycle of poverty.

I'd rather pay more taxes and make university free and merit based, so that our engineers and doctors are the most qualified, rather than from wealthy families.

I'd rather pay taxes than have more homeless people and hungry children... and so on...

I don't mind paying my taxes as long as that money is well spent rather than squandered or kicked back to corrupt politicians and their cronies.

Yes I lean toward socialism, but I'm also an independent business person in the upper tax bracket. If I was a purely selfish person I might support the conservatives because I can afford toll roads, private schools, university. I'm not poor or homeless and I have no problem supporting my children. But I like living in a country where everyone's basic needs are met and I am less likely to be threatened by a desperate person who is willing to knife me for my pocket change.

I believe that government has a role in our lives, don't misunderstand me. However, to take your points one by one:

Yes, government funds should be used to build infrastructure, including roads.

For Health Care, I believe in some funding, but I also believe that the health care system we have now is far from what Tommy Douglas had in mind. I have no problem at all with private health care, in fact, we have a lot of it now (dentist, eye doctors, physiotherapists, etc), that is covered in a lot of cases by private insurance. I believe that no one should be denied health care, but I also have serious problems with people using ambulances as private vehicles and emerg wards as doctors. To finish, our dogs and cats get quicker health care than we do. That is simply wrong.

I have no problem with private schools, why not? If someone works their ass off to make a lot of money to afford things like this, why not? There will always be a public school system, and unfortunately, the left wing bias of teachers is being passed down to our kids, whether on purpose, or by osmosis. Again, there should be choices, something I realize socialists and leftists despise.

Basically, what you are almost suggesting is that old joke about your tax return:

Line 1: what is your income?
Line 2: send it in.

As you may guess, I think that is not only not funny, but damned scary.

 

[AlbertaBlue]

Not quite true. You can make RRSP and RESP contributions until the end of February.

Oh true, I know that, but the point about the reno credit is that it is a new policy, and if brought in after the first of the year, it may not be able to be applied to the previous year. My point also was the budget will probably not be done until April 1, so does everyone who might be affected wait until then, and then file them all in the month of April? I just think there are too many obstacles for it to work retroactively. I may be wrong, though, time may or will tell. Again, though, simple way to avoid this: Don't Have the Damn Election!!!

 

[AlbertaBlue]

lol Only Toronto has a major newspaper?

Well, to some in Ontario, Canada ends at the Ontario/Manitoba border!!!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The point was choice. With no choice, informed decisions cannot be made. Some would say that some scientific theories are superstition as well, and please do not suggest that the scientists are not affected by political people and situations.

Again, informed decisions may be made between competing scientific theories (e.g. between Big Bang theory and Steady state theory of Cosmology, except that hardly anybody believes in Steady state theory any more). Informed decision cannot be made between science (evolution) and superstition (Creation).

Besides, then why stop at Christian account of Creation? Why not Muslim account, Hindu account as well? There must be hundreds of stories of creation all over the world, in different religion. Why should Book of genesis be given preferential treatment? Is that because there is a vociferous religious right lobby in USA and in Canada?

Teaching superstition, religion in science classes is nonsense, and I hope not to live to see the day when Book of Genesis is given the same credibility as a scientific theory in science classes, at least not in Canada (anything is possible in USA).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So, if I read you right under the second point, Bush spent more than Clinton, and you STILL did not support Bush? OOOKKKAAYYY...............

Now why would I do that? I don’t go in for the borrow and spend philosophy of the conservatives, that is you. After asking you twice if you would still support lower taxes if spending cuts were not possible, you refused to answer. So I can only conclude that you would want lower taxes even if spending cannot be cut, leading to deficit and debt.

So evidently you also subscribe to the classical borrow and spend conservative philosophy. So you would support Bush, not me. If spending cannot be cut, I would strongly oppose any tax cuts.

 

[GrizzlyBear]

Well, to some in Ontario, Canada ends at the Ontario/Manitoba border!!!

No, no, no...get it right...Canada ends at Steeles Ave. to the north, Lake Ontario to the south, Scarborough Bluffs to the east, and 427 to the west.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, no, no...get it right...Canada ends at Steeles Ave. to the north, Lake Ontario to the south, Scarborough Bluffs to the east, and 427 to the west.

Indeed Grizzly, you got it. Toronto is where it is at.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But Iggy has said if he wins it will be in before the end of the year. And why would anyone want to go to the hassle of filing an amended return after filing an original return, and how much more work will that create for the govt workers? Basically, you gave a very convulted and complicated way to fix a problem that does not have to happen. Simply put, we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

There is nothing complicate about it, it is a simple way. And when deciding whether to call an election, the main considerations should not be whether it will be a bit inconvenient to claim a particular tax credit.

One could argue whether we need an election, but the tax credit is not relevant to the election, especially since it will be granted whether we have an election or not.

we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

Chaos in the world markets? Are you serious? You give Canada too much importance. Rest of the world (including USA) probably won’t even notice that we have an election in Canada. Impact on markets will be zero (unless something catastrophic happens, like NDP getting a majority).

Anyway, gotta to. I enjoy talking to you, but our times don’t really match, by the time you start stirring, I am ready for bed.

 

[VanIsle]

What I cannot support is the tax and spend policies of the former Liberal govt under Jean "Only a few millions were stolen" Chretien. Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments.

That is where we disagree, AlbertaBlue. To me, Chretien did a stellar job of managing the economy, he converted Mulroney deficit (40 billion plus) into a healthy surplus. Whatever he did to balance the books (tax increases, spending cuts etc.) was fully justified.

Taxes go up with left wing governments, down with right wing governments. Less government with right wing parties, more with left wing parties.

What you get with right wing parties (both in Canada and USA) is huge debt, huge deficit. These days conservatism is synonymous with borrow and spend. Government actually increased under Bush, and it is increasing under Harper.

It is right wing propaganda that right wing parties lead to less government. Right wing parties many times mean more government, but in different areas of life as compared to left wing parties. Government spending went up under Bush, much more so than under Clinton.

Same with Harper, government spending is going up under Harper, much more so than it did under Chrétien.

Yes, this may be an oversimplification, but it is, and has been generally true for decades in both the US and Canada.

Not only it an oversimplification, but it is wrong. Government spending went up at a greater rate when Republicans controlled the Congress and Bush was the President. And the right wingers, who shed crocodile tears over government spending had no problem with spending whatever when their side was in power.

Chretien did a stellar job? You have got to be kidding! How quickly we forget the Sponsorship Scandal!! You might think he did a stellar job. Not a lot of people agree. Like every other politician he lied. That's all Ignatieff is doing right now too.
Ignatieff is forcing an expensive un-needed election right now. Really really bad timing on his part.
How many of you took a hit on your gas prices today??? Ours is at $1.12.9 Like I would vote for a Liberal!:angryfire:

 

[AnnaG]

But Iggy has said if he wins it will be in before the end of the year. And why would anyone want to go to the hassle of filing an amended return after filing an original return, and how much more work will that create for the govt workers? Basically, you gave a very convulted and complicated way to fix a problem that does not have to happen. Simply put, we do not need an election, or the resulting chaos that it will cause, both at home and on the world markets.

I'll go along with that. Any idiot that forces an election before spring wants me to vote for a different bunch.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, to some in Ontario, Canada ends at the Ontario/Manitoba border!!!

That'd be fine with me as long as the maritimes and territories are with us. I am pretty sure the rest of us could survive quite nicely without ON and QC. Boy would they squawk. lol

 

[AnnaG]

Indeed Grizzly, you got it. Toronto is where it is at.

lmao And you can have it. In the words of Van Halen and Linda Ronstadt -
"You're no good! no good, no good
Baby, you're no good. Oooh yeah
No good, no good, no good (Ah-hah!)
Baby, you're no good"