Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3762)	3/26/2004 12:14:10 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37802

I don't know if you've worked in government or ever dealt with it, but I have seen mindboggling waste in numerous departments. I've witnessed many, and regular, clear abuses of the public purse in three major federal departments and in numerous provincial departments in three provinces. Many municipalities are far better run is my experience. Clearly their scope and mandate are much smaller than Federal or Provincial governments; but that also goes to justify the opinion of many that smaller government is better and more local control is better than more centralized control. Borne out by first hand experience, I have to side with those who believe that. The other side of this issue is that it is unhealthy to have one party rule; unhealthy to have one party dominate the political scene at any level of government for too long. Humans being what they are, utterly fallable and at the same time capable of great things, its best to keep turning over the ground to ensure that air gets in and new ideas and people are given a chance to germinate. That has not been happening with the Liberals and needs to. There's a systemic disease in that party, and in its relationships with government-dependant business, that needs dramatic pruning immediately before the entire plant falls. Gardening anaolgies are a sign of the times here in blooming British Columbia I guess...

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3762)	3/26/2004 12:50:56 PM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37802

One aspect of Conservative thinking is to axe the gun registry. That has cost $1 billion so far. As a side issue we need an investigation into where all the money has gone. I've been told that the computer firms doing the work are located in Quebec. Overcharging there too, just write them the cheques.? It's very likely that our beloved Auditor General did not want to go there because it's technical, computers you know, much easier to go after advertising and PR firms and their payments.

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3762)	3/26/2004 2:43:24 PM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 37802

Tax cuts come first (which benefit mostly rich people)... Tax cuts - How they really work Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help. Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, the ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How! could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3762)	3/28/2004 10:56:29 AM
From: BEEF JERKEY	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 37802

More problems with Conservative thinking: canada.com Alberta's health care is a mess. Long waits in emergency rooms. Waiting lists for surgery etc. Yet Alberta is easily Canada's richest province (per capita government income). How does Klein get away with it? He could easily make Alberta's healthcare the envy of the whole world - without increasing taxes or going into debt. Yet because he is, as typical, a slave to conservative ideology he would rather starve healthcare in the hopes of forcing a dual system. Why the people of Alberta would rather pay for their own healthcare rather than the current system is something I don't understand.Why not make the current system outstanding? Klein should be punished at the polls - but likely he won't.