| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johnevandavid
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Because of our 12 years of balanced budgets and the fact that all our provinces have done the same and the fact that we amassed huge EI, Welfare, Pension, Education funds means that when the next big recession hits we are in a much better position to adapt. We can quickly cut the budget to keep in the black, we can change/shift/cancel programs to do the same.
|
Hope that you are right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnevandavid wrote: |
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Because of our 12 years of balanced budgets and the fact that all our provinces have done the same and the fact that we amassed huge EI, Welfare, Pension, Education funds means that when the next big recession hits we are in a much better position to adapt. We can quickly cut the budget to keep in the black, we can change/shift/cancel programs to do the same.
|
Hope that you are right. |
The proof is in that America went into recession in 2001 and Canada didn't. When was the last time America had an economic downturn and Canada's economy GREW? Again, further evidence it's not about high oil/resource prices that are keeping Canada above water but real structural changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would say it is both.
At any rate I would rather buy oil from them than middle east or Venezuala.
I congratulate Canada on its success and hope it continues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, Canadian government. Could you please lower our taxes now? Just a little!? Thanks!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flummuxt
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about using some of that surplus to provide a little foreign aid to your third world neighbor to the south?
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hite:
Chretien didn't do it. Brian Mulroney did it. He saet uf the GST that started all the surpluses.
Without the US protecting us Canada would be speaking Russian.
Now Harper is goung to do three things with the surplus.
1. He is going to pretend to do something about Kyoto.
2, He is going to spend a lot to get a majority government.
3. He is going to buy the Canadian military lots of new toys.
When he gets his majority gay marriage, the long gun registy are gonzo.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Chretien didn't do it. Brian Mulroney did it. He saet uf the GST that started all the surpluses. |
The GST did all that? Errr. Got any figures on that? I will say this. Mulroney ran up the debt so high that it set the climate that budget cuts, cutting social welfare spending, etc. became job one for whoever got into power. Some actually argue it was a plan. As long as you're limping along, people will want their welfare state. The only way to ween people off the welfare state is to invoke a massive budget crisis.
| Quote: |
| Without the US protecting us Canada would be speaking Russian. |
Or Canada would have long ago developed its own nuclear deterrent.
| Quote: |
| 2, He is going to spend a lot to get a majority government. |
I would think voters are smart enough to see through that. I think most voters would say "lower taxes, pay down more debt, put more money into health care." Any kind of pork beyond that would be met with a lot of debate.
| Quote: |
| 3. He is going to buy the Canadian military lots of new toys. |
Canada could use better equipment and I think few Canadians would oppose such. A huge point of Canadian pride is peace keeping. I have no idea why more politicians don't grasp a dollar spent on expanding Canada's role and keeping the boys safe is a dollar spent politically well.
| Quote: |
| When he gets his majority gay marriage, the long gun registy are gonzo. |
You think Canadians really want the government wasting time and money passing a law that's already been ruled unconstitutional? Whatever view Canadians have on the issue, they are pragmatic people these days and would find any government pushing religious/family issues to be a pointless waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
mind:
There power remains in the federal government to define marriage. Exactly the same process the Us is doing. Harper is stilll going to satisfy his social conservative MPs over 50 of them.
Proof of how effective the GST was is the simple fact that Chretien did not repeal the law. That surpus money came in very handy.
Canada has had the ability to produce nuclear weapons since about 1949 but has never done so. The US does it for us for free.
You are obviously not from the part of Canada that matters, medicare will get more money and it will get a two or three tier system, by stealth. The easy way to bring in medicare is just not enforcing the Canada Health Act. Health is a provincial power under sec 92 of the Consitution Act of 1867.
Paying down the debt is a good idea, and that is what will be done. If a great huge mother of a recession doesn't hit Canada. The old saying is that when the US gets the sniffle Canada gets double pnuemonia.
Yes indeedy do, Canada has been into peace keeping. It is now, under Harper, into peace making. At the point of a gun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| There power remains in the federal government to define marriage. |
Could you give me an example of a bill they could pass that doesn't violate the constitution or the rulings of most of the provincial supreme courts that struck down provincial marriage laws? (Technically the Canadian Supreme Court did not strike down the marriage act. However, most provincial supreme courts did. The government simply saw the hand writing on the wall and re-wrote the marriage act under the guidance of the Supreme Court, basically asking it "would this law pass muster?")
| Quote: |
| Proof of how effective the GST was is the simple fact that Chretien did not repeal the law. That surpus money came in very handy. |
That's not proof at all. Can you give me some figures showing the GST is responsible for the surplus, that if there wasn't the old manufacturing tax that we'd not have a decade of budget surpluses. That it wasn't repealed may just be no one wants to go through major tax reform every time a new government comes into power.
| Quote: |
| Canada has had the ability to produce nuclear weapons since about 1949 but has never done so. The US does it for us for free. |
Exactly. But if Canada could not rely on the US deterrent, there is clearly no way we could defend Canada with conventional forces. The logical way to defend Canadian territory independently would be to develop a nuclear deterrent. So to say without the USA Canada would be easy fodder for Russia is a poor claim.
| Quote: |
| You are obviously not from the part of Canada that matters, medicare will get more money and it will get a two or three tier system, by stealth. The easy way to bring in medicare is just not enforcing the Canada Health Act. Health is a provincial power under sec 92 of the Consitution Act of 1867. |
I for one hope Canada gets a two tier system. I think its foolish rich Canadians simply go to the USA (following Canadian doctors) when we could keep that money and talent in Canada.
| Quote: |
| Paying down the debt is a good idea, and that is what will be done. If a great huge mother of a recession doesn't hit Canada. The old saying is that when the US gets the sniffle Canada gets double pnuemonia. |
As noted above, it looks like that IS an old saying. Canada grew through America's last recession. And we didn't have to rely on high oil and commodity prices in 2001.
| Quote: |
| Y[es indeedy do, Canada has been into peace keeping. It is now, under Harper, into peace making. At the point of a gun. |
No idea where you're going with that claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
The SCC has never dealt with the gay issue in Canada , except the Vriend decision a long time ago, where a gay religious college instructor was fired for being gay.) At that time the SCC said sexual preference could be written into the Alberta Human Rights Act. They never decided whether the Freedom of Religion clause trumped gay rights.
Vriend dropped the case after the SCC told the Alberta Human Rights Commission to hear the case with gar rights "read in".
Since then the Ontario and BC courts of appeal have considered the issue and have found that gays, under the present state of the law, are entilted to marry. In doing so the over-ruled an 1867/68 case from the House of Lords which had been the precedent since that time. The case Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee was a Mormon polygamy case.
It said that polygamous marriages were unacceptble in a western society. By over-rulling the Hyde case the effect was to legalize both gay and polygamous marriages. The law of unintended consequences.
The BNA Act gives the power to solemnize mariages to the provinces and the definition of marriage and divorce to the feds. That is all the power the feds need. If that is not enough the "notwithstanding' clause is available. Alberta almost used it in the Vriend case.
As to the proceeds of the GST setting the stage. I have no interest in researching the issue. Look it up yourself. The stuff about gay marriage I already new off of the top of my head.
The difference between peace making and peace keeping is that peace making is much more assertive and agrgressive like the US bombing Serbia over Kosove (they took the wrong side on that one) or bootiing Iraq out of Kuwait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| The BNA Act gives the power to solemnize mariages to the provinces and the definition of marriage and divorce to the feds. That is all the power the feds need. If that is not enough the "notwithstanding' clause is available. Alberta almost used it in the Vriend case. |
Again, I need to note most provincial supreme courts have struck down laws that ban gay marriage. You can pass any law you want but if the courts won't enforce them because they're unconstitutional, then you're SOL. The federal government made the wise move to consult the supreme court before it became a case. Again, I'm not sure why you think the government could pass a law that has been struck down in most provincial courts and would probably not be upheld at the federal level. All I see is a claim.
| Quote: |
| As to the proceeds of the GST setting the stage. I have no interest in researching the issue. Look it up yourself. |
I'm not in the habit of proving other people's claims. If you're not willing to back your claim with evidence then we can discount it as opinion. Thank you for your opinion.
| Quote: |
| The difference between peace making and peace keeping is that peace making is much more assertive and agrgressive like the US bombing Serbia over Kosove (they took the wrong side on that one) or bootiing Iraq out of Kuwait. |
And Canada took part in both those actions, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jlb
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think that paying down sure debt is the best way to go with a surplus. If I had an extra 10 000, the first thing I'd do is pay off any debt so I wouldn't have to pay as much interest in the long-term. What's Canada saving now because of the surplus? Like 700 million a year or something. Interest payments are crippling, whether for individuals or countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
No! The Canadian army was told to not get involved in the active shooting.
What about the notwithstanding clause? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| No! The Canadian army was told to not get involved in the active shooting. |
I seem to recall the Canadian airforce engaged in bombing action in Kuwait and Kosovo.
| Quote: |
| What about the notwithstanding clause? |
So? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I seem to recall the Canadian airforce engaged in bombing action in Kuwait and Kosovo.
|
Yeah. In Kuwait, anyway.
| Quote: |
As the conflict progressed, the Canadian Air Task Group took on other combat roles, such as sweep and escort for coalition bombing missions and later, air-to-ground bombing missions. Canadian airmen were credited for partially destroying an Iraqi patrol boat in the Persian Gulf, and completed 56 CF-18 bombing sorties against Iraqi forces.
|
http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=957 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
