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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (56398)	11/24/2004 3:08:06 AM
From: Taikun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<The first thing we need protection from is expenditures on the unworkable missile shield.> Protection from what? For what? I am certain your proposal will have many supporters, because any spending on defense, unless porkbarelling for Bomardier or a few other firms, threatens the gravy train of the Canadian Federal gov't. Why fund defense when there are thousands of other programs vying for Federal money that can be used to buy votes? Having to actually account for Federal spending because of a defense budget has shown to make politicians more accountable. Are you saying you don't want politicians to be more accountable? It should be quite obvious to an outside observer that Canada's Copp, Chretien, Parrish and others have squandered Canada's goodwill and have proven Canada is not deserving of subsidized defense. The question is, what would marginal tax rates need to be in order to: 1. Maintain the Federal largesse in its current form 2. Independently fund a defense force (think Japan's Self-Defense Force as a starter) In their wisdom, Canadian politicians are already linking the trade dispute on softwood lumber to other goods. Bush can now link no-participation in Star Wars to softwood lumber, and so the trade dispute escalates.