Spring Election

[TheKwas]

I'd support the Alberta seperation party, but for much different reasons than the average voter.

 

That aside, the BC NDP are no worse than any other party that has had power there. And the Sask NDP is fairing alright, even with a moron like Calvert as the leader.

[calgarydave]

What ever happened to the flying yogis? You know the natural law party.

[ecnarf]

The finance minister?  The cutting of millions in transfer payments to the provinces, to help eliminate the federal deficit (really, transfer the burden to the provinces), was largely a Paul Martin idea.

Well I'm sorry but we're past the point where we as a country can continue to be competivite in the global ecomony running a deficit.

 

You have Mr. Trudeau (one of the worst PM's EVER) for the huge debt we have today. (Okay not all of it, but he got the ball rolling)

Buddy, try Mulroney for the debt, not Trudeau.

[TheKwas]

Trudeau didn't exactly run massive surpluses either.

[calgarydave]

Buddy maybe you should do some reading before you post stuff lol

 

In the begining of Trudeau's reign of terror, Canada had a surplus of $332 million dollars. Which, as we all should know, if we converted into 2005 dollars is quite a bit.

 

By the end of his time as our PM the budget surplus had dissappeared and was replaced by a deficit of $32Billion.

 

During his time he took a $16bilion debt and increased it to $160billion

Canadas population in 1968 was aprox 20mil and that works out to 800$ a person.

In 1984 Canadas pop was about 25mil (sorry can find exact number). Our debt is now $6400 a person.

During his time govenment spending went from 30% of the GDP to over 53% of the GDP.

 

Now while I'll grant you that Mullrney took the $160bil and raised it to a whooping $500bil. Its less his fault than it is Trudeaus. Why you ask. First our economy was in a MAJOR recession. With a growing trade deficit, and falling dollar, and the fact that pollitcally its easier to incurr a deficit while increasing spending, rather than decreasing it to reduce one, and of course %tage wise governemnt spending went down during his time.

 

Oh and I love how the liberals take all the credit for turnign the economy around and eliminating the deficit. Well with an economony the size of Canada's its takes a long time for changes in economic policy to actually take affect. Most of what hte liberals took credit for stemmed from changes started by the PC's. Shit with the situation the liberals took charge under a retarted monkey (read paul martin) could've eliminated the deficit.

[Moonlight_Graham]

calgarydave, i love you.

 

I agree. Trudeau got the ball rolling bigtime. He turned Canada into the social-program-loving nation it is today (for better & worse). And of course all these changes cost money...money we obviously didn't have.

 

Debt is stupid. I believe in not spending money unless you have it, except in cases of emergency or extreme need.

[Bizud]

If other nations can fund social programs without huge debt, so can we. The reason we didn't is that while social democrats tax and spend, Liberals don't tax but spend anyway.

 

and after hearing horror stories of how BC was run under the NDP, I can't imagine what would happen at a national level.

 

You might want to investigate those a bit before dismissing the party; the claims of the NDP ruining BC are mostly bullshit.

 

As for Greens, I don't care for them. They're eco-capitalists who are all too happy to let themselves be considered left-wing, when really they're actually quite centrist; they're progressive on social issues, but those are all no-brainers that every party except the troglodytes agrees on anyway.

Edited April 19, 2005 by Bizud

[calgarydave]

I dont think most people are concerned that the NDP would RUIN our country if they ever got into power. But in the end dont want to pay 60-70% income tax.

 

I'm all for helping those less fortinate than me, but if I had to pay 70% of my income what would've been the point of going to uni for all this time to get my degree? I've I've worked hard over the past 17years to get where I am and I deserve to have a bit better of a life than the bum who dropped out of high school.

 

Go ahead call me a right wing prick, but thats they way I feel.

[Bizud]

PRICK!!!!!!!

 

But seriously, no one deserves better than another. As for taxes, Canadians simply don't pay enough. We know where the low-tax road leads and we know we don't want to go there.

 

As for university, well, you might do it to find a satisfying (note: this is not synonymous with "well-paying") job. If this is a load of crap, then why does anybody in Sweden go to university at all?

[Doc]

Quest for knowledge? While at times that can be a laughable notion, I've had a few decent University teachers who I felt actually taught something both interesting and useful.

 

Define Eco-Capitalist for me. That's a new word...

 

 

Oh, and you're wrong about social issues. Look at the PC stance on gay marriage.

 

 

Does an iPod and a home theatre unit count as 'extreme need?' Just wondering...

 

D

[Bizud]

Not just a quest for knowledge (although that's one of my main reasons), but also to find satisfying, meaningful, interesting work.

 

"Every party except the troglodytes." Bloc Quebecois, NDP, Liberals, and Greens all support gay marriage. The Conservatives do not support it, but support civil unions.

 

Eco-capitalism is basically a branch of green politics that accepts the basic tenets of liberalism and capitalism, but aims to reduce the destruction of the planet through, for example, the "green tax shift," which would reduce taxes on income and, to compensate, raise taxes on consumption and polluters. Contrast this with, for example, the German or New Zealand Greens, or Saskatchewan's New Green Alliance, which favour more progressive income tax and heavily endorse social programs and, to some extent, labour legislation (though the green movement and the labour movement have always had trouble relating, eco-capitalists tend to be more "pro-business" than "pro-labour").

 

I don't understand the iPod question.

[Doc]

Debt is stupid. I believe in not spending money unless you have it, except in cases of emergency or extreme need.

;)

 

 

Clarification...

[calgarydave]

PRICK!!!!!!!

 

But seriously, no one deserves better than another. As for taxes, Canadians simply don't pay enough. We know where the low-tax road leads and we know we don't want to go there.

 

As for university, well, you might do it to find a satisfying (note: this is not synonymous with "well-paying") job. If this is a load of crap, then why does anybody in Sweden go to university at all?

As far as I'm concerned ecomonics is the 21st century's version of survival of the fittest.

 

lol

[Bizud]

Though I'd apply that label to capitalism and not economics (not necessarily a capitalist discipline, it's just the study of the allocation of resources - market economics just happens to be by far the most prevalent current economic system), that is exactly the problem. "Survival of the fittest" does not make for a just society. It only seems fine if you happen to be one of the "fittest," (I use that term very loosely, since it's doubtful capitalism necessarily rewards the "fittest" - most greedy and most lucky, perhaps, with mental and physical "fitness" having some marginal effect) and most people are not.

Edited April 20, 2005 by Bizud

[Moonlight_Graham]

Debt is stupid.  I believe in not spending money unless you have it, except in cases of emergency or extreme need.

;)

 

 

Clarification...

Don't buy an iPod unless you have the cash in your wallet/account to afford it. :angry:

 

Plasma TV's on other hand....

[calgarydave]

yeah who wants to by me a 60inch plasma tv?

[Moonlight_Graham]

yeah who wants to by me a 60inch plasma tv?

just go buy it now & put it on your credit card, then spend the next 20 years paying for it. Thats the government way!

[calgarydave]

Actually I need a sub more than I need a new tv. The sony CRT works fine I guess...

 

I could also use a REAL center channel, I'm using a old tower for the center, and it works fine, but is ugly as hell.

 

*edit* for grammer

Edited April 21, 2005 by calgarydave

[Moonlight_Graham]

CHARGE IT!

 

p.s. i'm doing the same thing w/ my TV. Gonna take the 4 speakers from my 2 mini-stereo systems (plus another crappy speaker for center), and hook it up to a reciever my dad doesn't use. but only got a regular Sony 27" flatscreen whatever.

Edited April 21, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[wonks]

51" toshiba widescreen here (rear projection). I thank burger king every day for that one.

 

edit: on topic...yes spring election, I think we probably need one.

Edited April 21, 2005 by wonks

[calgarydave]

I'm running an onkyo reciver, it kicks so much ass. The remote is almost as big as my... nvm lol

 

For the 2 front I have a pair of B&W's from the 80's. They're still really good except the rubbers begining to dry out a bit, and paper cones ;)

 

Then for the rears I have a pair of AR HiRes bookshelfs. This are insane speakers. Full ceramic cones, with a diamond coated titanum tweeter. lol Can push those guys really hard.

 

For the center though I have this really old tower speaker from like the 70's. It just doesnt quite cut the mustard...

 

The problem with me is I used to work at Visions, and I got used to playing around with 20-30k systems, its hard for anything to compare to that lol

 

 

 

lol and on topic, I'm intreseted to hear what PM has to say tonight. "Please dont sack me I like being in charge"