Thinking Of Voting Liberal?

[duanec]

I don't know why they even run a Liberal out here...the Cons could run an incontinant monkey and win by a landslide.

yes, and since the post-mulooney implosion/reform merger days, they often do.

[reevesr1]

Without wanting to appear stupid, or not well read, can you explain to me how this isn't going to be a tax on me? (From wth wikipedia post)

 

Gas:

Some states in the USA are considering the imposition of fuel taxes. One calculation method is as follows: According to the EIA, emissions total about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of petroleum (2.4 kilograms per litre, 2.4 kg/L), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 ($110 per tonne of CO2) would translate to a tax of about $1.00 per gallon ($0.26 per litre). To be precise: Emissions are 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon of motor gasoline, 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel, and 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon of jet fuel (2344.3 g CO2 per L of motor gasoline, 2682.2 g CO2 per L of diesel fuel, and 2527.7 g CO2 per L of jet fuel).[19] So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $0.978 per gallon of motor gasoline, $1.119 per gallon of diesel fuel, and $1.055 per gallon of jet fuel ($0.258 per litre of motor gasoline, $0.296 per litre of diesel fuel, and $0.279 per litre of jet fuel). At a price between $2.50 and $5.00 per gallon, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise fuel prices by 40–20%.

 

Nat Gas:

According to the EIA, emissions total 120.6 pounds of CO2 per thousand cubic feet, i.e., 60.3 tons per million cubic feet, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $6.03 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas.[19] At a price of between $4 and $10 per thousand cubic feet, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise natural gas prices by 60–150%.

 

So $1.00 per gallon of gas and 60-150% increase in Nat gas if we tax at $100/tonne (which is interestingly enough near the mid point of the proposed tax in the digital journal document you referenced.) So, if my current top end gas bill is $250/month, if we are hit with the above carbon tax, that means I would pay up to $625 for Nat Gas (150%=2.5X increase) and another $1.00 per gallon of gas. Now I don't claim to have done anything more than skim these articles, particluarly the digital journal aricle, and quite frankly would never read it all. But I hope I'm missing something here. Cuz I was on the fence on this before. Not so much on the fence now.

 

Oh, and I can give everyone a pretty strong reason to vote Green. If you do, myself and 1000s others like me who work in the yucky oil industry will get to move back to the states, or Europe, or whereever it is we are from. More water to fish for you guys! (Oh, do you think think the green party is going to let you continue to fish or hunt in the long run? Really?) Oh well, at least houses are cheap down there. On the down side, mine here won't be worth as much as it is now!

 

Paul, I know you are voting Liberal, not Green. My bet is if the country goes liberal I'll get to stay here, as in the end not much will change. Hope that doesn't change your vote to Green! Maybe you can buy me that beer on my way out, eh?

[SanJuanWorm]

I didn't vote for ol lazy eye.

[Smitty]

Harps:

 

Well its good that we can discuss this and keep our heads about us.

 

Trotting out stereotypes doesn't make your point more valid. If you want to talk idiots in the PM office, at least include a discussion of Chretien and Trudeau.

 

Some carbon system is likely inevitable and do-able. Liberals don't have the answer though. Principles are nice, but until you get China and the US on board, a Kyoto type accord is just printing on cut-down trees.

 

We live in a global ecosystem and global economy.

 

Any system of regulations that proposes to cap emissions, subsidies, and level the playing field has to be supported and signed on by all the major players and first world economies. Punishing ourselves when we're comprise less than 2% of the world's GHG's is akin loading a shotgun and pointing it at our foot. Its a nice symbolic gesture, you may even argue it demonstrates leadership, but when it affects jobs and families and can potentially - if implemented improperly - can cripple our economy, than we must tread carefully. Someone could easily argue the conservative approach is far too cautious, but the Liberal plan risks far too much in leading this economy to disaster.

 

I find it ironic that Canadians love to dump on Harper, but publications around the world, I cite an article in the London economic times and a Swiss paper that lauds Harper's approach lately. The other party leaders with their blather and panic have just made them look like idiots and completely unprepared to lead our country. Canada's banks - in large part to their conservatism - are now being credited as the foundation as one the strongest financial systems in the world.

 

But, quiet leadership is decidedly unsexy. Far too easy and shortsighted than to blame the Conservatives for the financial crisis that is largely beyond their control.

 

And yeah, Albertans do tend to vote predictably, but is it any different from Ontarioans and Quebecers clinging to their cliches about Westerners in general? There's plenty of typical stereotypes on both sides, Harps.

 

Smitty

[Harps]

Without wanting to appear stupid, or not well read, can you explain to me how this isn't going to be a tax on me? (From wth wikipedia post)

 

Gas:

Some states in the USA are considering the imposition of fuel taxes. One calculation method is as follows: According to the EIA, emissions total about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of petroleum (2.4 kilograms per litre, 2.4 kg/L), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 ($110 per tonne of CO2) would translate to a tax of about $1.00 per gallon ($0.26 per litre). To be precise: Emissions are 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon of motor gasoline, 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel, and 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon of jet fuel (2344.3 g CO2 per L of motor gasoline, 2682.2 g CO2 per L of diesel fuel, and 2527.7 g CO2 per L of jet fuel).[19] So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $0.978 per gallon of motor gasoline, $1.119 per gallon of diesel fuel, and $1.055 per gallon of jet fuel ($0.258 per litre of motor gasoline, $0.296 per litre of diesel fuel, and $0.279 per litre of jet fuel). At a price between $2.50 and $5.00 per gallon, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise fuel prices by 40–20%.

 

Nat Gas:

According to the EIA, emissions total 120.6 pounds of CO2 per thousand cubic feet, i.e., 60.3 tons per million cubic feet, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $6.03 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas.[19] At a price of between $4 and $10 per thousand cubic feet, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise natural gas prices by 60–150%.

 

So $1.00 per gallon of gas and 60-150% increase in Nat gas if we tax at $100/tonne (which is interestingly enough near the mid point of the proposed tax in the digital journal document you referenced.) So, if my current top end gas bill is $250/month, if we are hit with the above carbon tax, that means I would pay up to $625 for Nat Gas (150%=2.5X increase) and another $1.00 per gallon of gas. Now I don't claim to have done anything more than skim these articles, particluarly the digital journal aricle, and quite frankly would never read it all. But I hope I'm missing something here. Cuz I was on the fence on this before. Not so much on the fence now.

 

Oh, and I can give everyone a pretty strong reason to vote Green. If you do, myself and 1000s others like me who work in the yucky oil industry will get to move back to the states, or Europe, or whereever it is we are from. More water to fish for you guys! (Oh, do you think think the green party is going to let you continue to fish or hunt in the long run? Really?) Oh well, at least houses are cheap down there. On the down side, mine here won't be worth as much as it is now!

 

Paul, I know you are voting Liberal, not Green. My bet is if the country goes liberal I'll get to stay here, as in the end not much will change. Hope that doesn't change your vote to Green! Maybe you can buy me that beer on my way out, eh?

 

I'd never vote you out Rick!

I voted NDP because they do better here in Lethbridge, and I think the candidate is a smart guy, mostly it was a protest vote.

 

That wikipedia stuff isn't based on the suggested Canadian model... I read somewhere recently that with the tax adjustments, mid class earners would benefit, not much change for lower class (under 40000), and no more than 200 a year for upper class. Replacing income tax with carbon tax... you get penalized for waste not how much you earn (I think it should be a Pollution tax not Carbon tax). The Jaccard model looked at only $50 per tonne, not the $110 above.

 

Of course, I can't find it now, but I'm looking actually I'm going home to get my fly tying stuff to go to the pub.

(This is close with actual numbers on how Canadians may be affected).

[Harps]

Canada's banks - in large part to their conservatism - are now being credited as the foundation as one the strongest financial systems in the world.

 

The banks act independently of Harper, and have been working on our finacial system for years and years... more non partisan than most institutions in Canada.

People need to stop relating the Conservative Party (CP) with conservatism... its not the same. The CP is a political party that has finacial aspirations that change with the political climate (pressure, leader, party members).

 

Most of my insulting of Harper goes towards that we share the name. I've had many discussions with Clive along these lines and I really love to play the opposite end.

Although I do think Harper is a dick (or at least a robot)... based on his past record, including things he has said about health care and the Canadian system. He does not act as a leader, he acts as a bully supressing opinions from within his own party.

 

BTW, I'm as Albertan as they come (except for my views on environment). Alberta voting Conservative isn't a stereotype, but a fact. And I was a PC'er before the merge (even a card carrying campaigning member at that)... I just can't stand the ultra right views of the Reform party (which still form the basis of the CPs).

[Smitty]

Harps:

 

My bad - I should have explained my point better. I used the word conservatism exactly as I intended to, but it didn't come across that way at all. I am not confusing conservatism with conservatives, nor was I trying to equate the two, or trying to tie in the praise of our banking system in giving free credit to the PC party. Because you're right, our banks being conservative have nothing to do with the political parties. I know that banks operate outside of partisan politics.

 

Albertans that vote conservative is indeed a fact, not a stereotype. The stereotype is there is an association between that factual voting record and then somehow we're all right-wing, ultra conservative rednecks. Which is what a lot of non-Albertans love to cling to as their de-facto view of westerners in general. No doubt there are grains of truth in stereotypes and cliches, but ya know, reasonable, pro-environment people can actually vote conservative without being crammed into those cookie-cutter molds.

 

Smitty

[hydropsyche]

I'm a relocated easterner. I lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum (yes, some profits are grotesque). I helped push Mulroney into the dirt, first because I saw free trade as sacrificing our resources for access to the American market, and then because his party started stinkin of corruption.

 

Then I watched 13 years of Liberal zombie-ism. I'm not even going to start to list all the corruption, arrogance and lying I witnessed. Harpers 3 short years pales, and I mean pales, in comparision. If he was in the back pockets of big business, then explain the income trust turn around. Maybe he just decided to exercise his masters in econmics and did what he thought was best for Canada, no matter the policital outcome. Yes, he probably knew that before making it a promise, but its us Canadians that force politicans to lie (ie: it works).

 

Now I'm faced with voting for a carbon tax while I still can't shake the images of bags of cash being passed around the Liberal table. I'm amazed anyone can. Part of the power of demogracy is the ability to remove corrupt governments. I'm not convince the Liberals have changed much in 3 years and Ottawa is still packed full with their appointies. The PC's were just as corrupt, but they're history. Is there any chance we can finish the job and do the same to the Liberals? Is there any chance a grass roots party can replace them? Maybe the Greens? I doubt it but I wish they will be forced to walk the garden path and contemplate their arrogance and sense of entitlement a little bit longer.

 

I really am more Liberal in my views then Conservative and I'd love to be able to return my vote to that ideology. I just can't vote for someone who was sitting around the cabinet table when those bags of cash were being passed around.

 

Maybe I'm ignorant and don't know the "Neo-Con" agenda enough to fear/hate them as much as some screaming banshee's do but I am keeping my ears perked for someone to finally explain it to me. And I'm a political junkie, so its not like I'm not actively looking. Nothing so far. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

[mvdaog]

But Smitty, like I already said, I agree with giving small start-up businesses breaks to jump start their outlook and keep the economy running. But you failed to mention why CEOs of companies making millions upon millions every year cant afford to pay a higher tax rate than, say, a teacher. I still can't fathom how someone can supposedly be content with 25 million but not with 12.5 mill every year. And although again it can't be proved, I actually contend that CEOs of large companies, and all of those on their 'boards' are actually just parasites upon the economy, and don't contribute anything. I have heard of many, many companies in Europe which are employee ran and are doing QUITE well, without some CEO who pays himself off at the end of the year some ridiculous earnings while the people working for him barely make anything in comparison. I dont see it as moral for anyone to make more money than they can spend, while some ppl dont have enough, doesn't make sense to me. I applaud people like Warren Buffet, who only pays himself 200Gs a year or something crazy like that, has lived in the same house, owns one car, and on top of that has donated so much. Anyone who needs more than Buffet is just being immature and immoral. Theres a (IMHO) conspiracy out there that we need big CEOs to make this economy work, I differ. I think employees can run them just as well and manage all the business aspects as evidenced by other instances around the world.

And really, how many people do you know who are one of those big boys making millions that came from nothing to work their way up through hard work? Its got to be such a small percentage, such a small fraction... most come from well-endowed backgrounds. On top of that, I doubt it makes any sense to say that a business man has ever worked harder than a construction worker or a teacher or a doctor... everyone can work hard in any occupation if they choose to, its just that some are stuck in low paying jobs.

I dont resent wealthy people either. I just dont see why one wouldn't feel it was enough to make 4 million a year in profits.... makes no sense. Maybe thats just me. And why would taxing them a fair amount cause them to lose interest in making more money??? Someone would still want 5 million more than 4 million even if taxes were higher, so they would still work hard to make more wouldnt they? I dont quite understand that.

 

yes, maybe rich people pay for our museums and art galleries and the such. But taxes pay for our hospitals, our schools, our pensions, etc. which are in dire need of more efficient spending as well as more money period. That money should be fairly coming from all, not unjustly, as it does now. Our publicly funded schools give all those 'hard-working' rich CEOs their education, which they use to their advantage and then think they shouldnt have to give back as much. I, you, everyone you know, pays for all these technological advancements and new drugs etc etc through our education system, then the companies want to reap all the benefits and charge us disgusting amounts for those drugs and that technology. Again, not fair at all.

[Smitty]

Mvdaog:

 

I think you make some excellent points.

 

But Smitty, like I already said, I agree with giving small start-up businesses breaks to jump start their outlook and keep the economy running. But you failed to mention why CEOs of companies making millions upon millions every year cant afford to pay a higher tax rate than, say, a teacher.

As a former classroom teacher, and now doing teaching of a different sort, I sympathize with that. Tough to pay nurses and teachers what they're really worth, when you, say compare that to a pro hockey player.

 

I actually contend that CEOs of large companies, and all of those on their 'boards' are actually just parasites upon the economy, and don't contribute anything.

Factually wrong. Many times CEO's are the visionaries, who again, assumed a lot of risk to bring their product or service to the market. You, like many many others believe in the fallacy of media negativity. You hear about the few corrupt, over-paid CEO's that garner a lot of media attention, and people just blanket/impose those qualities right over to the hundreds of CEO's that are well educated, and work hard to grow their companies. You seem sympathetic to small business's but still seem to buy into the notion of the "faceless" "evil" "multinational" corporation. Microsoft was started in a garage by a Harvard dropout. The guy who started Fed-Ex received a failing grade from his professor for his "shortsighted" business plan. This list goes on and on and on of many huge corporations stating out as mom and pop small business's. McDonald's was started by Ray Kroc who sold milkshake machines.

 

Anyone who needs more than Buffet is just being immature and immoral

.

For most "uber" wealthy, its not about need. In fact, for the vast majority of us - families making a few thousand or more over the poverty line, is it really about need? Nay, my friend, it was never about need. That's why - morally or not - we overpay movie stars and athletes. Its about what the market will bear and pay people.

 

There's a (IMHO) conspiracy out there that we need big CEOs to make this economy work, I differ. I think employees can run them just as well and manage all the business aspects as evidenced by other instances around the world.

Intriguing idea, but I generally disdain any conspiracy theories, be them left or right wing. Again, the major difference between the CEO's and the employee's is that the CEO is the dude who risked all. I know I keep harping on that, but one of the basic and more cherished principles in a market is that the risk-reward trade-off should be balanced. No doubt in certain circumstances, its way out of whack.

 

And really, how many people do you know who are one of those big boys making millions that came from nothing to work their way up through hard work? Its got to be such a small percentage, such a small fraction... most come from well-endowed backgrounds.

As I said, most corporations started somewhere small, including the most "evil" of them all, Wal-Mart. Somewhere along the timeline, you'll find the Henry Ford of all corporations. To the person who inherits the position, your point is more valid.

 

On top of that, I doubt it makes any sense to say that a business man has ever worked harder than a construction worker or a teacher or a doctor... everyone can work hard in any occupation if they choose to, its just that some are stuck in low paying jobs.

This is probably where you and I most fundamentally disagree philisophically. I don't see anyone being stuck for the most part. Its just that most people make choices. Lots - LOTS! - of people come from impoverished backgrounds to make something of themselves. Had the good fortune to meet Chris Gardner (Pursuit of Happyness); boy did that guy ever put to rest all the BS and lame excuses people construct for themselves about their failures. He could of whined "oh me oh my.." but instead he stood up like a man, raised his kid, slept in subway stations and became very successful. People do go to school and generally aren't dumb; no one forced them to accept low-paying jobs and they choose not to self-improve, and we live in an environment and a society where financial success -at least the education for it - is easier than any other previous generation. I can't tell you how many former students I have run into and wished they had studied harder and taken school more seriously, because now they have eliminated for themselves higher paying jobs. Whose fault is that? Themselves? Their permissive parents for having low expectations and not teaching their kids a sense of self-responsibility? My fault as a teacher for not inspiring them enough? Meanwhile, African kids pack classrooms by the dozens with hardly any school supplies to better themselves. Millions of Indian and Chinese kids who have had a glimpse of middle class lifestyles are busting their asses to "move-up" in life. I have very little sympathy for most North Americans. Comparatively speaking we have become bloated, spoiled, and complacent, and now we're crying because we overspent. Hey, guess what, what happens when you drink 4 cases of beer and knock back half a dozen 40 pounders of hard liquor? You get a hangover, and that's what alot of North Americans have - a greed induced financial hangover. I digress. I do have a lot of sympathy for small portion of people, but not a lot. Its better to ensure people are deserving of sympathy and then do your best to help them out.

 

I dont resent wealthy people either.

Well, if you don't resent them, I think, at least, you misunderstand them.

 

I just dont see why one wouldn't feel it was enough to make 4 million a year in profits.... makes no sense. Maybe thats just me. And why would taxing them a fair amount cause them to lose interest in making more money??? Someone would still want 5 million more than 4 million even if taxes were higher, so they would still work hard to make more wouldnt they? I dont quite understand that.

Well, earn 10 million one year and then give 50% of it to a wasteful, inefficient gov't and watch them blow it. There's a reason our former PM(!) Paul Martin, has his corporation (the ships company) headquarters outside of Canada - high taxes.

 

But taxes pay for our hospitals, our schools, our pensions, etc. which are in dire need of more efficient spending as well as more money period. That money should be fairly coming from all, not unjustly, as it does now.

Again, you make my point, as the rich pay a larger proportion of the taxes too, due to our progressive tax scheme. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm simply saying the rich give alot - both charitably and through taxes.

 

Our publicly funded schools give all those 'hard-working' rich CEOs their education, which they use to their advantage and then think they shouldnt have to give back as much. I, you, everyone you know, pays for all these technological advancements and new drugs etc etc through our education system, then the companies want to reap all the benefits and charge us disgusting amounts for those drugs and that technology. Again, not fair at all.

I was part of the public school system, anyone has a chance to accomplish what the CEO does. As a teacher, what pissed me off where the kids were behind the eight-ball from when they were young due to poverty or poor parenting. That's where we should spend money- headstart programs for those less fortunate. But the rest of your point is nonsensical hogwash. We ALL benefit from company's technology; and the companies that pay for them. Research and Development is paid for by these companies. Disgusting prices? Used an Ipod lately? How about thin screen tv? Noticed the prices of those coming down? Innovation and competition. I agree that a system should be in place to regulate medicine, but you can't expect a company to spend millions of dollars of research and then not be compensated.

 

Good debate - I have enjoyed this. Canada is the best country in the world for the very reason that despite our frustrating politics, and our somewhat fractured regionalism, and economy, and politicians that drive us to drink, we've actually muddled through and designed a relatively free market/capitalist system tinged with enough compassion to produce a social net that helps our fellow Canadian out. Imperfect yes, needs improvement yes, but our future is brighter than most.

 

Bottom line is that you couldn't pay me to live in the US or Sweden. I love it right here. Messy at times, but way better than everywhere else, IMHO.

 

Smitty

P.S. By the way, speaking of Wal-Mart, did you know that a study was completed and showed - it demonstrated - that Wal-Mart benefits the poorest people by extending the purchasing power of them by 30%? Here lies the fundamental crux; by producing goods cheaply, buying in massive volumes, and not paying their employees alot, the low price benefit is passed down to the people who need low prices the most - the poor. Interesting.

[reevesr1]

Wow, some well thought out stuff in this thread.

 

I've often wondered about this fascination with CEO salaries. Right now in the states, it seems an innordinate amount of time (fueled by the media and people's desire for revenge?) spent discussing which CEO made what, as if the company that hired him/her just paid them to sit around doing nothing and making millions. They got paid that because that was their perceived worth. Some probably were worth that. Some definitely were not. Regardless, in a big picture sense, what difference does it really make? Did CEO and upper executive salaries have anything at all to do with the financial meltdown, truly? I could see in a bonus sense, as much of their compensation was undoubtedly tied to performance, therefore there would be incentive to do what it takes to show profit today. But other than than, again, does it matter other than the fact that it just seems wrong? All the talk on the campaign trail in the states goes "and none of the bailout money will go to bloated CEO salaries?" OK, that's fine. But so what? It won't affect the ecomomy one stinkin' iota. Sounds good coming from the candidate though.

 

On a different subject, there was some talk before about easterners all voting liberal and westerners all voting conservative. I tried to find individual riding results from Ontario, but didn't have any luck. I didn't look for long. But, the conservatives did pick up seats in Ontario, just not Toronto. So at least conservatives have a chance (and I did not look further east, I assume the same holds). Not trying to ruffle any feathers (ok, maybe a few), but the voting here in Alberta is somewhat of a laugher. I would even say unhealthy. There is NO WAY that 80+% of the people here actually agree with a conservative agenda. And looking at some of the results, that's the margin of victory. It allows the conservative party to trot out anyone they want and be guaranteed victory in Alberta. The reality, to me, of any political system is you need some competition for checks and balances. There is none here, absolutely 0. I would call voting here herd mentality (and I'm not saying I wouldn't vote Conservative if I could, I'm just saying the results here are unhealthy). In Texas when I grew up there was a term "Yellow Dog Democrat". It meant the person would vote for a yellow dog, as long as the dog was a democrat. You could run out anything here and if you call it "Conservative" it would get elected.

 

That's not good.

[DonAndersen]

Rickr is right!!

 

See fair vote Canada @ http://www.fairvote.ca/

 

Don

[reevesr1]

Did I read that right? Don called me right??

 

I sense either sarcasm or a cruel joke!

[bigbowtrout]

I'm just part of the herd MOOOOOOOOOOO

[orvisonly]

Some facts:

Please list your sources Mr. Anderson.

 

I believe you have mixed in a number of Facts that pertain to our neighbors to the south.

 

I like the left that are left of our still left, yet furthest right poltical party. They are not all weak minded, just weak spirited.

[Ricinus]

In addition to Rick's valid points, I think voter turnout- the lowest on record- for both the provincial and federal elections should be a major point of embarrassment for Albertans.

 

Regards Mike -not just another yellow dog Tory.

[DonAndersen]

orvisonly,

 

Try Stats Can. - you'll enjoy the ugly facts.

 

The sell out of Canada has nothing to do with right vs left - - Conservative vs Liberal vs NDP - they all are @ fault. Or more appropriately - we are. Yup - you and me for allowing it to happen. I love my country. Don't like what the political parties are doing to it.

 

Not sure of the weak minded left - after all three PM's of Canada have told the American President of the day to get stuffed, they weren't interested in another American war. Guess what - 4 times it happened, the PM's were all Liberal and one did it twice. And two were from Quebec. The one that did it twice was a Nobel Prize winner.

 

And orvisonly - you should change your moniker - Orvis - from Vermont - and you know about CDN politics. Give me a break.

 

 

 

regards,

 

Don

 

 

And Rickr - you bet you got it right - the present election process got us in this position of pockets of power base with real or perceived regional differences. Hardly a way to keep a country together. Just think - - the Bloc would lose seats + the other parties would have representation across Canada under proportional representation. Hardly a bad thing.

[reevesr1]

And Rickr - you bet you got it right - the present election process got ius n this position of pockets of power base with real or perceived regional differences. Hardly a way to keep a country together. Just think - - the Bloc would lose seats + the other parties would have representation across Canada under proportional representation. Hardly a bad thing.

Remember Don, it could be worse. You could have the system I grew up in. Or maybe not grew up in, but what it has become. 2 political parties that have become more like competing religions than political parties who have fervent, unchangeable bases, both absolutely convinced of their rightness (or leftness, as the case may be), utterly convinced the other side in incapable of having a good idea, who shout at each other for 4 years while trying to convince the 20% "undecided" crowd that they are the safer bet. Depressing. While the reality is that the candidate has to be somewhat of a centrist to have any chance of being elected (or he can't get the undecided crowd). I would say that Obama is the most left of any electable presidential candidate, possibly in my life time. Which is mostly a reaction to the policies of the party in power now.

 

And Chris, just keep chewing that cud brother!

[orvisonly]

orvisonly,

 

Try Stats Can. - you'll enjoy the ugly facts.

 

And orvisonly - you should change your moniker - Orvis - from Vermont - and you know about CDN politics. Give me a break.

 

And Rickr - you bet you got it right

Well Don - some of your "facts" are not on Statistics Canada's wesite. Can you point me to the document - I'm weak minded but not weak spirited? Are you sure that some of it didn't come from the Globe and Mail and a document published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives? Isn't that an NDP front? www.growinggap.ca. The CEO salaries you quoted were based on a SURVEY done by the Globe and Mail - I wouldn't call that Facts. Tell me - how many of them New Dems are buying your fancy $1000 rods?

 

For someone from Denmark - you know much about Canadian politics. Funny how you have no issue with a Texan commenting on Canadian politics - perhaps because you agree with what he says.

 

I remember growing up, there was one little kid who mouthed off all the time, was incredibly arrogant and condescending, and the only reason he didn't get the tar beaten out of him was that he had a very large big brother. Funny thing was, he was constantly badmouthing his big brother, calling him a neanderthal. Yet, he never failed to run to him and accept his protection when he needed help. The only reason that little twerp made it to adulthood was because of his big brother - but he didn't see it.

[toolman]

I remember growing up, there was one little kid who mouthed off all the time, was incredibly arrogant and condescending, and the only reason he didn't get the tar beaten out of him was that he had a very large big brother. Funny thing was, he was constantly badmouthing his big brother, calling him a neanderthal. Yet, he never failed to run to him and accept his protection when he needed help. The only reason that little twerp made it to adulthood was because of his big brother - but he didn't see it.

 

Whooo Hooo...I like this Orvisonly guy....Hilarious!

[jksnijders]

I remember growing up, there was one little kid who mouthed off all the time, was incredibly arrogant and condescending, and the only reason he didn't get the tar beaten out of him was that he had a very large big brother. Funny thing was, he was constantly badmouthing his big brother, calling him a neanderthal. Yet, he never failed to run to him and accept his protection when he needed help. The only reason that little twerp made it to adulthood was because of his big brother - but he didn't see it.

 

 

Was his name "Orvisonly"?

[Jayhad]

wow I don't ever recall us running to "our bigger brother" for help... more like the other way around..... can you say afghanistan

[reevesr1]

Man, first time Don ever agrees with me and he gets crap for it.

 

And I'm not touching the mouthy little brother parable. Call me chicken, but I think I shall avoid that battle.

[mvdaog]

Yea Smitty, I'm not going to lie, I would never leave Canada if it stays at all like it is now.

I get your argument that even the big companies start small, I'm just under the impression that once they become large, they still get many of the same tax breaks as the small companies, and only end up paying 20-30% taxes, which ends up bein less than most working class people. But all I really know about that is a family friend of mine who actually makes a quite a bit of money (not millions, but close), and tells me how bad he feels about all the wierd tax breaks he can take advantage of by calling himself a company (hes a doctor). He says he ends up payin less than working people, and feels bad, but still decides to take those advantages. Anyways, I just believe CEOs should at least pay the same rate as teachers and construction workers... maybe they do already and I just dont know what I'm talking about. Im young, dont know much about taxes to be honest.

 

About the voting, man I can't stand it right now. If we did proportional representation, greens woulda had about 20 seats, conservatives woulda had about 30 less, and the bloc woulda traded a lot of theirs in for NDP votes. As it stands, I think I heard around 12 million of the 18 million votes cast didn't elect anyone into parliament! THATS CRAZY!!!!!! We need a system where my vote here in Calgary still means somethin, when it isnt conservative.. I know theres some forseen bad issues with that system as well, but weighing pros and cons seems good enough to at least try it. I hope it passes in BC next year...

 

PS Smitty, I'm actually with you on another part. I dont believe we have that hunger anymore to better ourselves like we should... we've became really disinterested in politics, education, etc. since we've had it so good for so long now. Mite bite us in the but real soon..

[alhuger]

Man, first time Don ever agrees with me and he gets crap for it.

 

And I'm not touching the mouthy little brother parable. Call me chicken, but I think I shall avoid that battle.

 

C'mon Rick, I was waiting patiently for your reply. You've robbed my night of the only entertainment I am likely to get.

 

al