anyone who complains about the government getting struck down should die in a (conservative fueled) fire. what did harper do in 2006?

How can you vote someone in who actually believes that the earth is actually 6000 years old?

I know my friend said he is so happy that the hst came in because it pretty much saved the movie industry here from the weak american dollar.

Stuff like this turns me off politics. Anyone ever read the comments section of globe and mail or other newspapers online? It's full of shit. Ppl say RS is dumb.. I often find it 10x smarter than the crap I read over there.

stop complaining about elections. as this is a part of democratic process, other parties have a option / right to call on the government for failing trust of the house. they didn't call them on the policies. they did call them be on contempt. which the are guility off.

secondly, how can people believe in a govt. which is being investigated by rcmp/election commission for fraud + all the other issues. doesn't it make u think what else they lied about?

A democracy serves the people, and an election right now is a disservice to Canadians. Canadians did not want the government held accountable for the contempt issue - and you'll notice none of the parties are campaigning on it. They are campaigning on the economy, even the NDP are, which shows the opposition was not trying to provide any service to Canadians by voting on the contempt issue.

Should we start an election thread? here comes the first expensive Liberal promise without money behind it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ign-day-4.html

Why even both doing this? Why not just give universities money and tell them to reduce tuition by $1000? Instead lets give every student, whether they need it or not, a $1000.

One of the financial blogs I read states that education will be the next bubble to burst - kids being corralled into higher education they don't need or use - and saddled with massive debt cause of it. This kind of spending only ensures that education will be the next bubble.

Layton wants to cap credit card rates: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-fees-954.html

I can hear lots of people saying this is a good idea - yet lets get one thing straight first: If you don't carry a balance, you pay ZERO fees.

Thus the real problem is not the RATE, its the DEBT.

So lets give people already bad with money more incentive to spend even more by giving them a lower rate on the debt they hold. Yes, that will reduce the amount of debt they carry...:rolleyes:

Election time. Time to crack out this again:

Can canadian companies move to the us and do the same? Or does the US tax more than canadians once your 10 mil+?

I completely agree with you 100% on this...retarded, people will just spend more and accumulate more debt

He should focus on capping cellphone bills...Then maybe I'd pay attention to what he has to say.

Why do people call it quebexico?

I think I started Quebexico on this forum, it is popular on my Ottawa car forums.

Quebec is given a $8B handout every year (of the $14B of transfer payments), and despite that and a huge population, their economy still struggles. Plus there's cheap booze, greasy food, and easy women. Thus we joked that Quebec is Canada's Mexico, aka Quebexico.

he's at langara if you want to ask him.

Canada has done really well these last 4 years compared to other countries in the world -- we are the envy of many -- I think all political parties are corrupt but the Conservatives do a pretty damn good job of running the country esp considering it was a minority government.


Layton's idea is moronic -- make it easier for those in debt to carry more debt? riiiiiiight

While I acknowledge the reality of low credit card rates meaning people would apply for more debt, there are two sides to any coin:

Those who regularly carry debt are obviously not in a huge minority--there are most likely a significant number of people who carry debt regularly, but the number of people who do so unsustainably is most likely smaller.

Regardless of whether they are using it because of personal idiocy or poor planning, or what have you, the fact remains that the reason they have access to it is because it is profitable to lend these people money. If you reduce the profit, it will make the creditors less likely to lend more money, which means fewer people will use as much debt as possible.


While being very different situations, I see "people should be more responsible!"-only plans as akin to providing sex education, but never treatment for any diseases or repercussions that come from sexual contact. "If you were smart, you never would have gotten pregnant/that STD." Prevention (not borrowing to excess/more than you can pay back) is important, but unless everyone is willing to wipe the slate clean--which in my mind would only cause MORE issues-- we need to deal with treatment too.

We're talking about credit corporations, they are out to make money and do not care how many people they screw to get it. So while I agree with your philosophical look at the situation the reality is that it will never be the mentality adopted by either the government or the corporations. Do you see either saying "let's reduce profits because it's ethically the right thing to do"...?

As usual the NDP are pushing issues noone really cares about. Jack Layton defiantly stating he's running for PM make me chuckle, he's so disconnected from reality it's shocking. He will never even be the leader of the opposition.

Governments do this all of the time and will continue to do so in the future. Think about safety standards on the food we eat.

people often say this. but canada coming out of economic crunch or fairing better than other countries during that time, has more to do with Paul martins policies than conservatives.

conse. came into power 2006. they were not major economic policy changes to merit canada's performace on the economic front.

There are 2 sides to every coin, yet unfortunately this coin has 3 sides, aka the edge no-one considers - and Layton's rules could sharpen the edge into a knife.

If profit is reduced the CC will just look to replace it in other means, especially since now they have to take on more risk (ie stupid people spending more at low rates) for less reward (lower rates). They will hedge themselves against this greater risk by taking more from everyone in terms of fees to the merchant, or yearly fees to own a CC. Yet lets say Layton finds a way to limit those too...

What does a CC do now? This is where it could get fun: read the fine print. The CC company can cancel your card and demand the balance in full within 30 days. The CC company can lower your limit past your balance, forcing you to pay it before using credit. You can also bet any other CC you own will be watching and may do the same, rendering someone who has been making payments trying to get out of debt completely fucked without any credit.

Companies in the US have already done this as credit has decreased in the US, while it still expands here. Thus I may be a bit dramatic with my example, yet it has happened south of the border without any ridiculous government intervention, imagine what could happen here.

Then the correct move by Layton would be to address qualifications, not rates. Why can someone get several CCs with high limits and rack them all up? That's absurd, and what he should be addressing - yet that doesn't buy votes. Since > 50% of people carry a CC balance, limiting the rate buys votes.

While I agree with you on the issue - you can bet many people do care. > 50% of people carry a CC balance and would benefit from this plan, and wouldn't care if others abuse it.

Fair enough, let me rephrase. The NDP are pushing an issue only people who lack personal responsibility and common sense care about. Thankfully the majority of people who carry a credit card balance won't actually vote NDP based solely on this electoral promise.

I would be very hesitant to vote Liberal because I'm afraid they'd cancel the F-35 purchase. After what they did with the Sea King replacements, i don't want our military to go through that again.