# Canadian Federal Elections, eh



## Kramodlog (Aug 4, 2015)

I'm curious to see what people have to say about the current marathon elections, the parties and their leaders.  

Randomly, here is my not very impartial take on the election and some things that need to be done. 

Mesures like the TFSA needs to be capped. Right now it just benefits the rich by giving them another tax break. The UCCB just needs to go. It is a bribe to the Tories' electoral base paid with collective money and has no real social benefits. 

The CBC needs to be better funded again, it is a good source of impartial information. No wonder the Tories hate it. Ottawa needs to distance itself from Israel and go back to its more neutral stance. Same with war mongering in the Middle-East. We have to admit that if we had Jihadist terrorism over here, it is partially because of our involvement in conflicts in that region. Plus there is that whole denial of global warming and gimping scientific research because facts hurts the Tories' agenda.

The current length of the elections also points to the Tories putting their interests before the common good. A longer election is harder for the other parties who unlike the Tories are cash strapped. But since half of what the parties spend will be reimbursed by tax payers, a long election means it will be a costlier election for tax payers. So much for the Tories being fiscally responsable. They just want power and will do anything to get it. The rest is rhetoric.

I won't vote for Trudeau's Liberals. He is an opportunist more than a visionary, and I can't vote for a Trudeau after the Night of Long Knives (what the ROC calls the Kitchen Meeting). Before 2011, I always voted for the Bloc Québécois, but that ship has sailed and Québec's independence will be made in Québec, not Ottawa. Since we are still stuck in Canada, might as well vote for a good government.

The NDP's national daycare program is a great idea. Good for parents, women and children. We all benefit from this sort of mesure. We already have such a program in Québec, but we need the money we send to Ottawa to better finance it. In general I like the NDP's platform, even though I was disappointed when they dropped their link to socialism a while back. They still remain pro-union and labor. Let people negociate their collective agreements with employers. No need for the government to step in on day one with a law that prohibites strikes like the Tories have been doing. 

So, with these random thoughts, I guess the NDP will be getting my vote this year. I already sent them money.


[sblock=Oh, never forget.]
[/sblock]


P.S. If Morrus and co. think this thread might be too inflammatory because of partisanship, close it. No need to make a big fuss over spilled maple syrup.


----------



## cmad1977 (Aug 4, 2015)

Ugh... Nickleback...


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm curious to see what people have to say about the current marathon elections, the parties and their leaders.
> 
> Randomly, here is my not very impartial take on the election and some things that need to be done.
> 
> ...




The Conservatives have got to go. It was clear to me, after that first election that Harper won, that they were no better than those whom they replaced. Within the first month they had broken all of the promises that I had actually cared about, that pertained to transparency in government. They have been twice found in Contempt of Parliament. They have demanded that MPs from other parties sign literal blank cheques, thereby ignoring the mandate given them by more than half of Canadian voters. They have passed craven laws that pander to their rich supporters, while playing a shell game with the average voter's tax money (the "universal child care benefit" you mentioned that gives with one hand, while simultaneously clawing back tax breaks with the other; income splitting that greatly benefits those with a large disparity in spousal incomes).

The Liberals become the natural fall-back. They have been, in fact, more fiscally responsible than the misnamed "Conservative Party." Unfortunately they have their own issues like support for Bill C51 (the anti-terrorism bill that's more about taking privacy away from the average person, than it is about stopping terrorism), talking cashiered MPs into floor crossing when there's a very good reason why the Cons don't want them anymore, and poorly phrased speeches that give the Cons great opportunities for the ever popular out of context sound bite for example. Trudeau is making it very hard for me to support his party.

And then you have the NDP. Thomas Mulcair is clearly a charismatic leader for his party. Unfortunately I am at odds with many of the policies that he would want to enact. when you already have an overtaxed populace and are staring recession in the face, I don't really think that's the time to increase taxes and spending. Quebec has paupered itself for things like that daycare and it's the most taxed Province in the country. If transfer payments ended Quebec would be bankrupt in months, trying to pay for that sort of thing. We don't need to do that to the rest of the country.

I almost put myself forth on the Rhinoceros Party ticket just so that I'd have someone to vote for, who I might possibly be able to trust. I'm already a card-carrying member. My platform would have been a return to the Feudal System in name, rather than just in practice.



cmad1977 said:


> Ugh... Nickleback...




I admit it. I like their stuff. Someone has to.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> And then you have the NDP. Thomas Mulcair is clearly a charismatic leader for his party. Unfortunately I am at odds with many of the policies that he would want to enact. when you already have an overtaxed populace and are staring recession in the face, I don't really think that's the time to increase taxes and spending.



Which taxes for the poor and the middle class does the NDP want to raise?

Spending is a good thing to do in a recession. It drive the economy foward and saves jobs, while the private sector is struggling to do so. Cutting spending during a recession is bad, as you take money and jobs out of an economy who already needs them. 

The problem of deficite at Ottawa comes from the Tories lowering taxes. That creates a structural deficite when the economy slows down. The current ideology ask that cuts to spending and taxes be done to balance the budget. Eventually it is balanced and surplus are made. Because the ideology says surplus are bad, taxes are cut again and the cycle continues. All the taxes the Tories have cut are in part responsable for the deficite problems Ottawa is facing.



> Quebec has paupered itself for things like that daycare and it's the most taxed Province in the country.



That is what is repeated ad nauseum, but doesn't reflect reality. Québec has some of the lowest corporate and business tax rate in the federation. The problem is that low taxes do not mean corporations will automatically invest in your province or country. Low taxes as always good is ideology more than reality. 

The services we pay actually increase our quality of live and is good for the economy. Take the daycare program. It lets women go back to work earlier than in other provinces and countries. That means more income, more money spent and more taxes. A study shows the program actually pays for itself and then some. http://affaires.lapresse.ca/201204/13/01-4514921-les-garderies-a-7-sont-rentables-pour-le-quebec.php



> If transfer payments ended Quebec would be bankrupt in months, trying to pay for that sort of thing.



We send money to Ottawa to pay for stuff we already pay at the provicial level, like say the the ministry of health. Our debt isn't that high if we substract assets like Hydro-Québec. The myths surrounding Québec's economy is due in part to right wing ideologues who just want to favor the rich, and to scare us so that we won't leave the federation.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Which taxes for the poor and the middle class does the NDP want to raise?




Get any of the candidates to clearly define "Middle Class" and I'll have an answer for you. Hint: It's not the same in Charlottetown as it is in Toronto or Vancouver.



> Spending is a good thing to do in a recession. It drive the economy foward and saves jobs, while the private sector is struggling to do so. Cutting spending during a recession is bad, as you take money and jobs out of an economy who already needs them.




It is if you have the money, or at the very least the wherewithal to repay it. We currently don't largely due to the current government's fascination with selling off chunks of our land, in the form of ore, oil, etc., over manufacturing and research.



> The problem of deficite at Ottawa comes from the Tories lowering taxes. That creates a structural deficite when the economy slows down. The current ideology ask that cuts to spending and taxes be done to balance the budget. Eventually it is balanced and surplus are made. Because the ideology says surplus are bad, taxes are cut again and the cycle continues. All the taxes the Tories have cut are in part responsable for the deficite problems Ottawa is facing.




I'm not for cutting the budget, but rather rationalizing it. I'm also all for increasing the GST back up to what it used to be. I'm tired of being paid off with my own money. It's raining cash, but it's coming from a hole in my wallet. Let's look at paying for what we are currently using, before we decide to start spending on _MORE_.



> That is what is repeated ad nauseum, but doesn't reflect reality. Québec has some of the lowest corporate and business tax rate in the federation. The problem is that low taxes do not mean corporations will automatically invest in your province or country. Low taxes as always good is ideology more than reality.




Quebec has a rather different world view than does the rest of the country, where it's concerned. Then again so does Toronto, so we're on pretty equal footing there. 



> The services we pay actually increase our quality of live and is good for the economy. Take the daycare program. It lets women go back to work earlier than in other provinces and countries. That means more income, more money spent and more taxes. A study shows the program actually pays for itself and then some. http://affaires.lapresse.ca/201204/13/01-4514921-les-garderies-a-7-sont-rentables-pour-le-quebec.php




Sorry, I lost my French decades ago. It is, however, rather easy to find contrary opinions.The problem with pointing to successes in other countries, is that Canada isn't those other countries. Trust me; in Ontario we're quite aware of the 'successes' from trying to implement what works elsewhere, without considering the surrounding economy or culture. As above, let's work on paying for what we're already using before we start throwing money at perceived problems.



> We send money to Ottawa to pay for stuff we already pay at the provicial level, like say the the ministry of health. Our debt isn't that high if we substract assets like Hydro-Québec. The myths surrounding Québec's economy is due in part to right wing ideologues who just want to favor the rich, and to scare us so that we won't leave the federation.




So do we, in Ontario, to an even greater degree. I'm no "right-wing ideologue." I'm someone who sees a lot of money going out the door, with each cheque, and seeing an awful lot of poor spending in return. I'm also someone who tends to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and works in higher education which means that I work on a daily basis to try and only spend the money that I see as being necessary, instead of burning through public funds with false economy.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 5, 2015)

I can't vote Liberal.
Having a party "leader" who won the leadership not on a platform but because of a last name, and then dictating to the party that any votes in the House of Commons has to be on his party views (ie. no democratic voting for elected party members) is not right.  Nor his views on many things I am against personally.

I can't vote NDP.
Spending money recklessly with no regards to a "balanced budget".  Spend lots now, let someone else worry about the consequences later.

I can't vote for the minor parties.

That only leaves the Conservatives.

Tis a no-win situation.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 5, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Get any of the candidates to clearly define "Middle Class" and I'll have an answer for you. Hint: It's not the same in Charlottetown as it is in Toronto or Vancouver.



Heh, that isn't a bad point. Middle class is hard to define. But it isn't just that. It is capital gain that needs to be taxed more. And corporations. Corporate cash reserves are huge (630 billions in just one quarter of 2014). That money would certainly help the economy and finance one or two social programs. 



> It is if you have the money, or at the very least the wherewithal to repay it. We currently don't largely due to the current government's fascination with selling off chunks of our land, in the form of ore, oil, etc., over manufacturing and research.



At the federal level the money is there. Ottawa was going toward a surpluses before the economy went downward. The deficite wouldn't be an issue if taxes hadn't been slashed like they have. Ottawa has been swimming in money since the start of the federation. It has none of the important responsabilities that are healthcare and education, and certainly doesn't invest much in the army. It is in the best postion to launch social programs. That helps level the standard of living between provinces, which is one reason to have a federation in the first place. 



> I'm not for cutting the budget, but rather rationalizing it. I'm also all for increasing the GST back up to what it used to be. I'm tired of being paid off with my own money. It's raining cash, but it's coming from a hole in my wallet. Let's look at paying for what we are currently using, before we decide to start spending on _MORE_.



Sales taxes like the GST are terrible. They are regressive taxes that only benefit the rich and it people with middle and low income the hardest. Scrap sales taxes and go with a progressive income tax. Same with user fees. These are just taxes transfered from the rich to the rest of us. 



> Quebec has a rather different world view than does the rest of the country, where it's concerned. Then again so does Toronto, so we're on pretty equal footing there.



I'm not even sure what your point is in reguards to Québec's low taxes and low corporate investments.



> Sorry, I lost my French decades ago. It is, however, rather easy to find contrary opinions.



The opinion text doesn't contradict the study that says the program helps increase the GDP of Québec by having women go back to work. It helps women too by giving them the opportunity to be financially independent.



> The problem with pointing to successes in other countries, is that Canada isn't those other countries. Trust me; in Ontario we're quite aware of the 'successes' from trying to implement what works elsewhere, without considering the surrounding economy or culture. As above, let's work on paying for what we're already using before we start throwing money at perceived problems.



Childcare is a real issue that affects women and children, but society as a whole too. Putting kids who are in disadvantaged families in public daycares helps with their nutrition and developpement. It improves the chances these kids realize their full potential and we all benefit from that.  

Before 2008, the budget in Québec was balanced. We were paying for what we were using. It is just that capitalism has cyclical crisis that some people, motivated by ideology rather then facts, think can be solved by austerity. 



> So do we, in Ontario, to an even greater degree. I'm no "right-wing ideologue." I'm someone who sees a lot of money going out the door, with each cheque, and seeing an awful lot of poor spending in return.



That doesn't mean the issue is that the cheque you are sending is too big.  

Often people who are well off, do not see why social programs  are needed because they do not benefit directly from them. It is why so many libertarians are white males who are well off. Of course they do not see the need for government. They are privilege.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 5, 2015)

I am not sure there is any topic so likely to lead directly to me being suspended as the Canadian election.

Have you noticed we already have one poster who will not vote for Trudeau because of his last name and another poster who complains that he only got the job because of his last name? I mean, Jesus Christ. I was a Liberal and quit the party during that leadership race but as far as I am concerned nepotism applies to behaviour both for and against and both are equally intellectually bankrupt. If you cannot even be bothered to come up with a reason not to vote for Trudeau that does not centre on his name being Trudeau do us all a favour and quit watching politics now and leave the adults to make the decisions.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh, that isn't a bad point. Middle class is hard to define. But it isn't just that. It is capital gain that needs to be taxed more. And corporations. Corporate cash reserves are huge (630 billions in just one quarter of 2014). That money would certainly help the economy and finance one or two social programs.




To the Cons, Middle Class seems to mean anyone making $150K to $250K. At least that seems to be who they are aiming their benefits for the Middle Class towards. That's not me.

I can't disagree with the idea of greater capital gains taxes. There's a lot of money that people have just sitting around, earning more money, the proceeds of which don't seem to be adequately taxed. The tax breaks that the Cons have given to big business, when we already seem to have some of the lowest corporate taxes going, aren't exactly helping things either. The principals of large corporations are pocketing the difference rather than putting it back into the economy. Trickle-Down Economics is a thoroughly debunked concept.



> At the federal level the money is there. Ottawa was going toward a surpluses before the economy went downward. The deficite wouldn't be an issue if taxes hadn't been slashed like they have. Ottawa has been swimming in money since the start of the federation. It has none of the important responsabilities that are healthcare and education, and certainly doesn't invest much in the army. It is in the best postion to launch social programs. That helps level the standard of living between provinces, which is one reason to have a federation in the first place.




A lot of the money that they've been "swimming in" was borrowed against the future. It's time that we started paying down the debt, so that we aren't mortgaging our children's futures. You don't plan a vacation if you can't afford the rent and groceries.



> Sales taxes like the GST are terrible. They are regressive taxes that only benefit the rich and it people with middle and low income the hardest. Scrap sales taxes and go with a progressive income tax. Same with user fees. These are just taxes transfered from the rich to the rest of us.




I disagree. When properly applied such taxes impact those with disposable income, far more than those who are just getting by. Especially so when you also tax things like capital gains and set your income tax rates appropriately. Right now wealthy people are paying income tax at a significantly lower rate than even the great robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century did. The disparity between wealthy and regular folk is an ever widening gulf. 



> I'm not even sure what your point is in reguards to Québec's low taxes and low corporate investments.




Low corporate and business tax rates. High tax rates on private citizens.



> The opinion text doesn't contradict the study that says the program helps increase the GDP of Québec by having women go back to work. It helps women too by giving them the opportunity to be financially independent.
> 
> Childcare is a real issue that affects women and children, but society as a whole too. Putting kids who are in disadvantaged families in public daycares helps with their nutrition and developpement. It improves the chances these kids realize their full potential and we all benefit from that.




The point is that everyone has a study and statistics can be spun pretty much any way that you want to.

Yes, child care, etc., etc.... I would really like for people to start looking at their own finances and stop picking my pocket, to decide how they're going to create their family. Don't create a family that you can't afford. 



> Before 2008, the budget in Québec was balanced. We were paying for what we were using. It is just that capitalism has cyclical crisis that some people, motivated by ideology rather then facts, think can be solved by austerity.




That's a matter of opinion. Think "transfer payments."



> That doesn't mean the issue is that the cheque you are sending is too big.
> 
> Often people who are well off, do not see why social programs  are needed because they do not benefit directly from them. It is why so many libertarians are white males who are well off. Of course they do not see the need for government. They are privilege.




I didn't say that it was. I have mentioned rationalization of spending, for example. It's just that the default government position seems to be going back to the trough, rather than checking to see if the current funds are being spent appropriately. I've been poor. Dirt poor. As in only had one pair of pants and couldn't leave the house on laundry day poor. I'm doing OK now. That gave me the perception that you don't spend money that you don't have, on things that you can't afford, until you can cover your current costs. Again; rationalize spending.


----------



## Janx (Aug 5, 2015)

canada has a government? 

I thought you guys were powered by Maple Syrup forming some kind of polite symbiotic cooperative.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I am not sure there is any topic so likely to lead directly to me being suspended as the Canadian election.
> 
> Have you noticed we already have one poster who will not vote for Trudeau because of his last name and another poster who complains that he only got the job because of his last name? I mean, Jesus Christ. I was a Liberal and quit the party during that leadership race but as far as I am concerned nepotism applies to behaviour both for and against and both are equally intellectually bankrupt. If you cannot even be bothered to come up with a reason not to vote for Trudeau that does not centre on his name being Trudeau do us all a favour and quit watching politics now and leave the adults to make the decisions.




I know a fair number of people in your neck of the woods who feel exactly that way. Mention Justin and all they see is his father. Won't even listen to him speak to know if he bought a vowel, or is out to lunch.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 5, 2015)

I supported the Conservatives in taking down the Liberals and ending their streak, because it was time for a change. But the Harper government has really done some pretty head shakingly bad things over the past... wow, 9 years. I don't think they'll stay in power. If they don't get booted, it'll be a minority government. 

I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I supported the Conservatives in taking down the Liberals and ending their streak, because it was time for a change. But the Harper government has really done some pretty head shakingly bad things over the past... wow, 9 years. I don't think they'll stay in power. If they don't get booted, it'll be a minority government.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.




As I mentioned previously I voted for Harper's government the first time around, but knew that I'd made a mistake after the first month.

I thought the same about Ontario's Liberal Party, with all the things that they've screwed up, but they won a majority last term. Burn a billion dollars here and there, break election laws, outright lie.... That's coming up on 12 years now, with three more to go.

I once thought that a minority government was the best form. After all, there would be two other parties to rein in the more loony moves of the governing party. Then I saw a minority Conservative Government with the audacity to act like it had a majority, face off against opposition parties that didn't have the stones to call them on it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 6, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> To the Cons, Middle Class seems to mean anyone making $150K to $250K. At least that seems to be who they are aiming their benefits for the Middle Class towards. That's not me.



In Canada, you are in the top 1% is you make 200k or more a year. Of course, it means different things depending where you live, but it is a lot of money none the less. With the girlfriend we aren't far from it. We aren't in need and we could afford to pay more income taxes. 



> I can't disagree with the idea of greater capital gains taxes. There's a lot of money that people have just sitting around, earning more money, the proceeds of which don't seem to be adequately taxed. The tax breaks that the Cons have given to big business, when we already seem to have some of the lowest corporate taxes going, aren't exactly helping things either. The principals of large corporations are pocketing the difference rather than putting it back into the economy. Trickle-Down Economics is a thoroughly debunked concept.



Yup, yet there are still lots of people praising its merites. Ideology, I say!



> A lot of the money that they've been "swimming in" was borrowed against the future. It's time that we started paying down the debt, so that we aren't mortgaging our children's futures. You don't plan a vacation if you can't afford the rent and groceries.



At the federal level the debt has been going down pretty steadily since the mid 90s to 2008. Than we got the financial crisis and the impact of the Torie's lowering of taxes. With a GDP around 1.8 trillion dollars and a debt of 628 billion dollars*, the debt represent about 30% of the GDP. We are far from Greece's 120%, the US federal debt at 70% or Japan at 180%. There is no urgency.

Thing is, repaying debt isn't a good priority. Growth can be a solution to debt. If the debt stays the same and the GDP keeps growing, it means the size of the debt in relations to the economy is shrinking. The money given to foreign banks to repay the debt most likely will not be reinvested in the economy. It is just something the rich want cause it benefits them since they have equity in banks. If the money that was supposed to go to a bank is invested in the economy instead, it will bring growth to the economy. Not to mention that one dollar given as salary is worth more than one dollar. That dollar is first given to the laborer, but then given to the waitress that served him at the restaurent. She then uses that dollar to pay for her tampons and so on. So that dollar might be worth 1.5 dollars. Credit Swiss will probably just invest that dollar in China and that will be that. 

So repaying the debt shouldn't be a priority. Not right now when the economy is in the crapper at least. 

*About the same as it was in the 90s. So the debt is the same after going down, but the GDP almost doubled. Not too shabby.



> I disagree. When properly applied such taxes impact those with disposable income, far more than those who are just getting by.



Not exactly. If you look at the raw number, you might think they spend more, but it represents a smaller percentage of their gross income. That is if you make 50k a year, you'll spend a higher percentage of that income on taxed goods and services than a person that makes 500k a year even if that person did buy a more expensive car. The rest of that money is put away. The richer a person is, the more it saves and invests. They can buy more expensive house and even if the value only grows 5% like cheaper houses, 5% of one million dollars is more than 5% of 300k. Capital gain on a house you own and live in ain't taxable. They put more money in RRSPs, and those reduce their income taxes. They have more equity and we both agree capital gain taxes are very low. The system is gamed for the rich. Sales taxes are just a tranfer of the income taxes the rich should pay to the middles class and the poor. 



> Right now wealthy people are paying income tax at a significantly lower rate than even the great robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century did. The disparity between wealthy and regular folk is an ever widening gulf.



I agree and it is with income and capital gain taxes that we reduce the gap. Not sales taxes. 



> The point is that everyone has a study and statistics can be spun pretty much any way that you want to.



Well, it is a serious study, not making stats say what I want. Can it be debunked? Maybe, but we do not have the resources for that.



> Yes, child care, etc., etc.... I would really like for people to start looking at their own finances and stop picking my pocket, to decide how they're going to create their family.



The plan should finance itself with the surplus Ottawa was going to make before oil prices went down. Launching the program is the kind of spending that helps relaunch the economy.   



> Don't create a family that you can't afford.



Reality is much different. We have to live with people who make kids when they shouldn't. So it is an issue we have to deal with, and buying guns doesn't work. We see that in the US. 



> That's a matter of opinion. Think "transfer payments."



It is one tool, among others, inscribed in the Constitution. Ontario gets those too I believe. 



> I didn't say that it was. I have mentioned rationalization of spending, for example. It's just that the default government position seems to be going back to the trough, rather than checking to see if the current funds are being spent appropriately. I've been poor. Dirt poor. As in only had one pair of pants and couldn't leave the house on laundry day poor. I'm doing OK now. That gave me the perception that you don't spend money that you don't have, on things that you can't afford, until you can cover your current costs. Again; rationalize spending.



Thing is, a government isn't an individual or household. For one thing it can print money, something we can't. It can also raise its income rather easily, something we have more trouble doing. It also have differently responsabilities and a different mission than us. I find comparing a government to us a rather faulty analogy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 6, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I wouldn't mind a Liberal or NDP minority government. Neither party seems solid enough to work without a balance and needs to really see if they're up for the role of leading the nation. That's certainly a strength of our system: there can be a join NDP/liberal force ruling the nation with parties having to work together and find compromises to stay in power.




I'm all for a element of proportional representation, so that would lead to more coalition government.

I just think we should avoid 100% proportional representation, like in Israel. The system has too many problems. 

Germany seems to be a good middle grown. If I am not mistaken, two thirds of representatives are elected locally and a third from a proportional element.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 6, 2015)

Dion's proposal for proportional representation seemed almost perfect to me. No list seats at all.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In Canada, you are in the top 1% is you make 200k or more a year. Of course, it means different things depending where you live, but it is a lot of money none the less. With the girlfriend we aren't far from it. We aren't in need and we could afford to pay more income taxes.
> 
> Yup, yet there are still lots of people praising its merites. Ideology, I say!
> 
> ...




Simplifying a bit since we're getting somewhat strung out, have issues we agree on, and some that we'll never agree on.

Given the current rates this is when you renegotiate the loans and, when you've cut the amount of money that you're paying out on debt maintenance, you then look at what that reduction could be spent to fund. That's rationalizing spending. 

You left out my statement "Especially so when you also tax things like capital gains and set your income tax rates appropriately.", with respect to GST/HST 

When it comes to Federal transfer payments, in 2014-2015 (from Statistics Canada):

Quebec: $19,614B, or roughly $2,390 per capita

Ontario: $19,187B, or roughly $1,404 per capita

Just sayin' 

A household can't print money, but it can certainly run up credit. In context it's pretty much the same thing, because the bill always comes due.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 7, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Simplifying a bit since we're getting somewhat strung out, have issues we agree on, and some that we'll never agree on.



I disagree. 



> Given the current rates this is when you renegotiate the loans and, when you've cut the amount of money that you're paying out on debt maintenance, you then look at what that reduction could be spent to fund. That's rationalizing spending.



Canada gets great interest rates. It is one of the seven triple A nations in the world. That is the best credit rating there is and with the debt at 30% of the GDP, that ain't gonna change soon. Thing is, if you grow your economy and the debt stays the same, the government's budget also grows, so in percentage the amount that goes to pay interests on loans shrinks in relation to the rest of the budget. 



> You left out my statement "Especially so when you also tax things like capital gains and set your income tax rates appropriately.", with respect to GST/HST



Sale taxes are still regressive. Boooo! Boooo, I say!



> When it comes to Federal transfer payments, in 2014-2015 (from Statistics Canada):
> 
> Quebec: $19,614B, or roughly $2,390 per capita
> 
> ...



Yeah, we're poorer thanks to historical factors. 



> A household can't print money, but it can certainly run up credit. In context it's pretty much the same thing, because the bill always comes due.



Except that a country can print money to pay the bills that are due. This is why there were talks of Greece leaving the EU and the Euro behind. This way it could print money and pay its bills.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I disagree.




Typical 



> Canada gets great interest rates. It is one of the seven triple A nations in the world. That is the best credit rating there is and with the debt at 30% of the GDP, that ain't gonna change soon. Thing is, if you grow your economy and the debt stays the same, the government's budget also grows, so in percentage the amount that goes to pay interests on loans shrinks in relation to the rest of the budget.




We got great interest rates when rates were high. Renegotiate those loans and the cost of debt maintenance drops significantly. In fact in the 2012-2013 fiscal year a whopping $0.11 of every tax dollar went to debt maintenance. That's roughly what all of the healthcare transfer costs were for the same year. It's more than our entire national defence spending for the same year.

Now is the time to be renegotiating those loan rates. If we were going to borrow money now would be the time but since we already owe so much, we're better off paying the debt down and reducing our costs. In the long run it's a bigger pay-off.



> Sale taxes are still regressive. Boooo! Boooo, I say!




There's that disagreement thing I mentioned 



> Yeah, we're poorer thanks to historical factors.




I hear that a lot, from a lot of disparate groups. One of those "historical factors" has been a constant threat to secede, driving away both national and international business. How long do we pay for that, giving Quebec things that the rest of the country can't afford? Bad decisions have consequences.



> Except that a country can print money to pay the bills that are due. This is why there were talks of Greece leaving the EU and the Euro behind. This way it could print money and pay its bills.




Except that a country devalues its currency when it does that, because it doesn't have the GDP to support the value of the currency at par with its neighbours. Anyone want a loaf of bread? It's only one wheelbarrow full of Drachma, on special today.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 8, 2015)

I am not sure there is much point to paying off loans that you can carry. We always talk about making sacrifices for the future but I think it is actually philosophically weak to presuppose that the future deserves better than the present. Especially since those people in the future are determined by what we do in the present. If we could hold steady on the debt for now on and just let in shrink relatively to the economy we would be acting responsibly enough I think.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 9, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I am not sure there is much point to paying off loans that you can carry. We always talk about making sacrifices for the future but I think it is actually philosophically weak to presuppose that the future deserves better than the present. Especially since those people in the future are determined by what we do in the present. . .



Is that not how Greece thought in the past.

Borrow as much as you can for today, and damn tomorrow as it will be someone else problem.

As this last year has shone, tomorrows problem can to ahead this year.

No, thinking of only today and not tomorrow is a bad way to run anything.  You have to consider BOTH.

Which sadly, during any election campaign, the politicians only talk of TODAY, and not how tomorrow it is the taxpayers who will get screwed in the end.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 9, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Is that not how Greece thought in the past.



Not really. Greece is something else and using it to scare voters in a Canadian context is dishonest to use a euphemism.

Greece doctored its books when it came to its finances. It didn't collect the taxes it should. It also joined the Euro zone, but that has a lots of problems the Canadian federation doesn't have. Finally, Greece was a victim of market irrationality. Markets are emotional and more than a few countries with worse debt than Greece could have been hit by the market panic that made Greece's interest rates go up. Even if Greece had bad fundamental economics, it was as much at the wrong place at the wrong time. Spain, Portugal Italy or Ireland could have been the victims of market panic.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 9, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Typical



I knew you were gonna say that. And obviously it is because you are oppressing this member of the Francophone minority. Help! Help! Oppression is being commited! Help!



> We got great interest rates when rates were high. Renegotiate those loans and the cost of debt maintenance drops significantly. In fact in the 2012-2013 fiscal year a whopping $0.11 of every tax dollar went to debt maintenance. That's roughly what all of the healthcare transfer costs were for the same year. It's more than our entire national defence spending for the same year.
> 
> Now is the time to be renegotiating those loan rates. If we were going to borrow money now would be the time but since we already owe so much, we're better off paying the debt down and reducing our costs. In the long run it's a bigger pay-off.



That is the thing, with the debt at 30% of the GDP, we really do not owe that much money. There is lots of leeway and no urgency. If numbers for the interest paid look big, it is because the Tories have been cutting in government spending and transferes for a while. 



> There's that disagreement thing I mentioned



Indeed. Wait. Did I agree?



> I hear that a lot, from a lot of disparate groups. One of those "historical factors" has been a constant threat to secede, driving away both national and international business. How long do we pay for that, giving Quebec things that the rest of the country can't afford? Bad decisions have consequences.



Heh, that is told to Québécois to scare them away from independence. During the 1980 referendum there was talked of "la piastre à Lévesque" or Lévesque's buck. The Canadian dollar was worth 1,10$ Us dollar and an independent Québec was supposed to have an dollar worth 0,60$ thus Lévesque's Buck. Plot twist, in  the 90s the Canadian dollar was worth 0,60$ and it was supposed to be good for industries that exported to the US. With the price of oil going down the Canadian dollar is again going down and that is supposed to be good for Ontario and Québec's exports as Canada is suffering from a form of Dutch Disease. Now it seems a strong dollar is bad for Québec. Ironic. 

There is a lot theatre and rhetoric when it comes to scaring Québécois. Not so much truth.It was during one of the first elections with the PQ participating that a brinks trucks full of money was preparing to leave Québec. Translate it if you can. It is a good example of manipulation of public opinion in Québec.

The real historical factors are colonialism and the Catholic Church. 



> Except that a country devalues its currency when it does that, because it doesn't have the GDP to support the value of the currency at par with its neighbours. Anyone want a loaf of bread? It's only one wheelbarrow full of Drachma, on special today.



It does devaluate the currency and that comes with its issues too. Not doubt about that. Like the rich see the value of their wealth decrease as they are the ones with the most savings. But it doesn't mean the price of goods will skyrocket. Iceland let the value of its money go down and it benefited from it even when prices did go up after the 2008 crisis. It all comes to priorities: the people or the wealthy.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 10, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Is that not how Greece thought in the past.
> 
> Borrow as much as you can for today, and damn tomorrow as it will be someone else problem.
> 
> ...




I did not say screw tomorrow. I said tomorrow does not intrinsically deserve better than today. Why should today pay off today's and yesterday's debts so that tomorrow can be free of worries? Why does today deserve to get screwed by tomorrow?


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I knew you were gonna say that. And obviously it is because you are oppressing this member of the Francophone minority. Help! Help! Oppression is being commited! Help!




Can't help it. It's my Anglo culture 



> That is the thing, with the debt at 30% of the GDP, we really do not owe that much money. There is lots of leeway and no urgency. If numbers for the interest paid look big, it is because the Tories have been cutting in government spending and transferes for a while.




Renegotiating rates isn't paying the debt off. It's just rationalizing the amount that we're paying to service the debt, to reflect the current interest rates. I think that we should do both, but just renegotiating the rates doesn't hurt anything. If it was your personal mortgage that you took out at 15% and the rates had dropped this much you would do it, wouldn't you?



> Indeed. Wait. Did I agree?




Couldn't be. Honoré Mercier would roll over in his grave!



> Heh, that is told to Québécois to scare them away from independence. During the 1980 referendum there was talked of "la piastre à Lévesque" or Lévesque's buck. The Canadian dollar was worth 1,10$ Us dollar and an independent Québec was supposed to have an dollar worth 0,60$ thus Lévesque's Buck. Plot twist, in  the 90s the Canadian dollar was worth 0,60$ and it was supposed to be good for industries that exported to the US. With the price of oil going down the Canadian dollar is again going down and that is supposed to be good for Ontario and Québec's exports as Canada is suffering from a form of Dutch Disease. Now it seems a strong dollar is bad for Québec. Ironic.




There is a lot theatre and rhetoric when it comes to scaring Québécois. Not so much truth.It was during one of the first elections with the PQ participating that a brinks trucks full of money was preparing to leave Québec. Translate it if you can. It is a good example of manipulation of public opinion in Québec.

The real historical factors are colonialism and the Catholic Church. [/QUOTE]

It was more than scare tactics, though there was a bit of that in the amplification of events. A large number of big companies did, in fact, pull their head offices out of Quebec. Why would transfer payments continue? Why would the Canadian dollar be the currency of a 'free' Quebec? Why would the hydro deal with Newfoundland continue? The issue had a lot more levels than the Separatists ever wanted Quebecois to consider.



> It does devaluate the currency and that comes with its issues too. Not doubt about that. Like the rich see the value of their wealth decrease as they are the ones with the most savings. But it doesn't mean the price of goods will skyrocket. Iceland let the value of its money go down and it benefited from it even when prices did go up after the 2008 crisis. It all comes to priorities: the people or the wealthy.




Iceland was a rather peculiar situation. In Greece one of the big issues is that no one seems to pay their taxes, so the government has nothing to work with. In a case like theirs the rich would survive, while the regular folk struggled and starved.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 10, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I did not say screw tomorrow. I said tomorrow does not intrinsically deserve better than today. Why should today pay off today's and yesterday's debts so that tomorrow can be free of worries? Why does today deserve to get screwed by tomorrow?




Perhaps it doesn't deserve better, but it certainly doesn't deserve worse. We're giving the future a worse starting point than we had.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Can't help it. It's my Anglo culture



I bet you use the imperial system instead of the metric one. 



> Renegotiating rates isn't paying the debt off. It's just rationalizing the amount that we're paying to service the debt, to reflect the current interest rates. I think that we should do both, but just renegotiating the rates doesn't hurt anything. If it was your personal mortgage that you took out at 15% and the rates had dropped this much you would do it, wouldn't you?



I have no issue with renegociating interest rates, I have issues with prioritizing paying back the debt over prioritizing economic recovery and growth. 

And you are making me defend economic growth. Growth is not that viable if we consider that trying to fulfill the unlimited needs of a ever growing population with limited resources is one of capitalism's flaws. You happy now? 



> Couldn't be. Honoré Mercier would roll over in his grave!



If you speak English and say Parizeau's name three time while looking in a mirror, he appears and makes you eat poutine.



> It was more than scare tactics, though there was a bit of that in the amplification of events. A large number of big companies did, in fact, pull their head offices out of Quebec.



That is true, but that comes from being in Canada. A country with a small population can only have so many economic centers. Toronto is Canada's economic center and head offices tend to congregate at the same place. Head offices moving to Toronto has been a trend since before the 1960s when the independence movement coalesced into its modern form. If Québec was an independent nation, corporations would need to have head offices here. 



> Why would transfer payments continue?



Section 36 of the Constitution garanties equalization payments. So it is in your interest to get rid of Québec so we aren't a burden to you anymore. Once we leave you do not have to pay us any equalization payments. Seems like sweet deal for the both of us. 



> As long as Québec is in it,  Why would the Canadian dollar be the currency of a 'free' Quebec?



Negociations. Québec and Canada could still share some institutions, like currency, if both parties agree to it. Of course, if negociations fail, Québec could end up with its own currency. Some people could think it is in Québec's interests to have its own too, so who knows. Tar Sand Dutch Disease wasn't a thing in 1995. It isn't like the Canadian dollar wouldn't be recognized the morning after a victorious referendum. So, for a while at least, we'd still have the same currency.



> Why would the hydro deal with Newfoundland continue?



Why wouldn't it? Hydro-Québec, a public corporation, signed a deal with a province. Happens all the time. It isn't like the institutions that signed the deal ceased to exist. Québec signs deals with other nations and states all the time. They would still be in affect. They might need renegociations since some restrictions from Ottawa might disappear and new elements pop up, but they would still be in affect like any contract. Depending on the deal, it won't be in anyone's interests to say the deals are now void. If they were signed in the first place it is because both parties benefited from it. 



> The issue had a lot more levels than the Separatists ever wanted Quebecois to consider.



On that you are mistaken. Independentist leaders really thought out the consequences of what they were doing. Maybe it is Canada that has more to lose than us. 



> Iceland was a rather peculiar situation. In Greece one of the big issues is that no one seems to pay their taxes, so the government has nothing to work with. In a case like theirs the rich would survive, while the regular folk struggled and starved.



The problem with Greece right now is that people are starving thanks to austerity and there is no end in sight. If they had printed money their economy might already be doing better, like in Iceland, and people would be starving. Or just killing themselves.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Perhaps it doesn't deserve better, but it certainly doesn't deserve worse. We're giving the future a worse starting point than we had.




Not sure how true that is yet. World has steadily gotten less violent. Sounds kind of better to me. Not that that is guaranteed to keep happening in the future. But the important question to ask really is under what circumstances most people on Earth will wish they had never been born.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 10, 2015)

A whole generation will say they wish they were never born under Donald Trump's presidency.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 10, 2015)

Some French Politician during the height of the PQ many years ago said that an independent Quebec would still be getting Millions of dollars annually from Canada.

Instead of calling it "transfer payments", it would be called "foreign aid".


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I bet you use the imperial system instead of the metric one.




I'm bisystemal. I was in high school when Metrification was completed.



> I have no issue with renegociating interest rates, I have issues with prioritizing paying back the debt over prioritizing economic recovery and growth.
> 
> And you are making me defend economic growth. Growth is not that viable if we consider that trying to fulfill the unlimited needs of a ever growing population with limited resources is one of capitalism's flaws. You happy now?




I see things that help minimize what is taken out of the average citizen's pocket as being good for the economy. After all, this giving breaks to corporations thing hasn't done anything more than raise their bottom line and give some fat cats thicker pocket linings. Yes, a certain base level of taxation is definitely needed and I'm all for a social safety net, but we also have to be far more circumspect in how we spend that money. We also have to realize that making sweeping changes like universal daycare has an ultimate effect on the cost of living, just as having the majority of households have two incomes had an effect.



> If you speak English and say Parizeau's name three time while looking in a mirror, he appears and makes you eat poutine.




Dammit! That explains Saturday's lunch at Shannonville Motorsports Park. I can blame him for the 20 pounds that I need to lose.



> That is true, but that comes from being in Canada. A country with a small population can only have so many economic centers. Toronto is Canada's economic center and head offices tend to congregate at the same place. Head offices moving to Toronto has been a trend since before the 1960s when the independence movement coalesced into its modern form. If Québec was an independent nation, corporations would need to have head offices here.




Nope, the corps would just do what the larger multi-nationals do with Canada; run everything out of The US, with token offices in Canada. You'd have two or three man operations as the "Quebec Head Office."



> Section 36 of the Constitution garanties equalization payments. So it is in your interest to get rid of Québec so we aren't a burden to you anymore. Once we leave you do not have to pay us any equalization payments. Seems like sweet deal for the both of us.




You don't have to convince me. Right after you pay off your portion of the National Debt.... 



> Negociations. Québec and Canada could still share some institutions, like currency, if both parties agree to it. Of course, if negociations fail, Québec could end up with its own currency. Some people could think it is in Québec's interests to have its own too, so who knows. Tar Sand Dutch Disease wasn't a thing in 1995. It isn't like the Canadian dollar wouldn't be recognized the morning after a victorious referendum. So, for a while at least, we'd still have the same currency.




Divorces are rarely amicable and money is a frequent sticking point 



> Why wouldn't it? Hydro-Québec, a public corporation, signed a deal with a province. Happens all the time. It isn't like the institutions that signed the deal ceased to exist. Québec signs deals with other nations and states all the time. They would still be in affect. They might need renegociations since some restrictions from Ottawa might disappear and new elements pop up, but they would still be in affect like any contract. Depending on the deal, it won't be in anyone's interests to say the deals are now void. If they were signed in the first place it is because both parties benefited from it.




At the very least renegotiation. At worst placed in abeyance.



> On that you are mistaken. Independentist leaders really thought out the consequences of what they were doing. Maybe it is Canada that has more to lose than us.




Oh, I have no dount that they thought out every little detail. They just chose not to share those details with the Quebecois people 



> The problem with Greece right now is that people are starving thanks to austerity and there is no end in sight. If they had printed money their economy might already be doing better, like in Iceland, and people would be starving. Or just killing themselves.




Actually it goes a bit further back than that. As I intimated earlier they first starved their government, while continuing to live their lives as if they were flush with cash. Then they took a bail-out from the major European players, to get themselves back on their feet, but instead continued to live their lives as if they were flush. Then they elected a government that told them they had done nothing wrong and owed nothing to anyone. They're wrong. It reminds me of the selfish, do nothing relative who never seems to have a job, lives by borrowing money from every relative in sight and, once all the possible sources of money through relatives have been exhausted, comes to terms with reality. Or more likely not.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 11, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Dammit! That explains Saturday's lunch at Shannonville Motorsports Park. I can blame him for the 20 pounds that I need to lose.




Sorry if we already treaded this ground in a previous thread but do you live in Hastings-Lennox & Addington or one of the nearby ridings?


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> Sorry if we already treaded this ground in a previous thread but do you live in Hastings-Lennox & Addington or one of the nearby ridings?




No, I'm in Brampton, but I spend a goodly number of my summer weekends in Shannonville as a motorsports (motorcycle racing) photographer and stay with a friend in Napanee when I'm there.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> Not sure how true that is yet. World has steadily gotten less violent. Sounds kind of better to me. Not that that is guaranteed to keep happening in the future. But the important question to ask really is under what circumstances most people on Earth will wish they had never been born.




Greater disparity between the rich and poor in developed nations. Higher taxes on the dwindling Middle Class (however you define that) to make up for the taxes we're no longer taking from the truly wealthy. The resurgence of religious extremism. The Balkanization of nations.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 11, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I'm bisystemal. I was in high school when Metrification was completed.



Were dinosaurs as big as they say?



> I see things that help minimize what is taken out of the average citizen's pocket as being good for the economy. After all, this giving breaks to corporations thing hasn't done anything more than raise their bottom line and give some fat cats thicker pocket linings. Yes, a certain base level of taxation is definitely needed and I'm all for a social safety net, but we also have to be far more circumspect in how we spend that money. We also have to realize that making sweeping changes like universal daycare has an ultimate effect on the cost of living, just as having the majority of households have two incomes had an effect.



Tax breaks are a tool to develop or help certain sectors of the economy at certain times. Like all tools they just need to be used properly and they usually aren't. 

Ottawa is mostly circumspect on how it spents money. Debt is at 30% of GDP, the budget was almost balanced and the Tories have been cutting spending like crazy, no matter the impact. How they managed taxes is a disaster. Those tax breaks are money we need that they throw out the window. 

Universal daycare will have sweeping changes, like universal schooling did. For the better. It will be less of a burden for the middle class as daycare cost is prohibitive and the poor just can't afford it. Some women just quit their job or work less. Whether women work or not, it means households have less income to save or make big purchases like a house. There will still be a cost, but it will be distributed among everyone and we all benefit from it, like we all benefit from public schooling. 

Join us, join the collectivist side. 



> Dammit! That explains Saturday's lunch at Shannonville Motorsports Park. I can blame him for the 20 pounds that I need to lose.



Cardio-vascular diseases is our revenge! Mouahahahahaha!



> Nope, the corps would just do what the larger multi-nationals do with Canada; run everything out of The US, with token offices in Canada. You'd have two or three man operations as the "Quebec Head Office."



To over simpify, if they have a head office, they pay taxes. Mouahahahahaha!



> You don't have to convince me. Right after you pay off your portion of the National Debt....



Heh. If Québec becomes independent we'll take our share with us. No worries. There is no need to pay it off first. 



> Divorces are rarely amicable and money is a frequent sticking point



We'll forced marriages are rarely a joy ride in the first place. I'm pretty sure there will be bitterness after Québec does its own thing, but some negociations will have to happen on some issues. After a certain time, when some are less bitter, others negociations will happen. The US rebelled against the Brits, but they are best buds now. The same will happen to us, as we have mutal interest, a common history and we can't go back to Europe. The only difference is that we'll negociate them like equals. Together, we'll be racist and oppressive to Natives like it was always ment to be! /wipes tear



> At the very least renegotiation. At worst placed in abeyance.



Why abeyance?



> Oh, I have no dount that they thought out every little detail. They just chose not to share those details with the Quebecois people



Like what? 



> Actually it goes a bit further back than that. As I intimated earlier they first starved their government, while continuing to live their lives as if they were flush with cash. Then they took a bail-out from the major European players, to get themselves back on their feet, but instead continued to live their lives as if they were flush.



They never took a "bail out". The money the European Union gave to Greece was borrowed money to repay their borrowed money. Less then 10% went into the Greece economy, the rest just want to banks. 

Germany is seen as almost a victim of Greek's boondoggle, but it is lending money to Greece at huge interets rates and none of it is helping Greece get back on its feet. The worst part is that to get these loans, Greece has to pludge into austerity and that doesn't help its economy one bit. Only people suffer. Thomas Piketty explains why Germany is being hypocritical with Greece as it benefited from generous help after WWII.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh. If Québec becomes independent we'll take our share with us. No worries. There is no need to pay it off first.




In my experience few separatists are so practical as to share your position that Quebec must take responsibility for its share of the debt. Most think they can shirk it because of the tomfoolery of legal entities. I would appreciate if you would at least forcefully convince your brethren of the error of that way,  .


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Were dinosaurs as big as they say?




Don't let anyone fool you. They were mostly smallish.

... and plastic.



> Tax breaks are a tool to develop or help certain sectors of the economy at certain times. Like all tools they just need to be used properly and they usually aren't.
> 
> Ottawa is mostly circumspect on how it spents money. Debt is at 30% of GDP, the budget was almost balanced and the Tories have been cutting spending like crazy, no matter the impact. How they managed taxes is a disaster. Those tax breaks are money we need that they throw out the window.
> 
> ...




Ottawa has been giving tax breaks to industries that don't need them. The oil industry?! Patent toadying to their funding base. For a "conservative" government they've been spending like drunken sailors on shore leave in Thailand. The Liberals cut the debt and eliminated the deficit. Seriously; the LIBERALS. The Conservatives immediately started paying off those who put them in power, after having decried it in the Liberals. They ran deficits in every budget, starting with a larger one than the worst the Liberals had in their previous run. They claim to balanced the budget this time around but only by dipping into a fund that they shouldn't have touched, and so didn't balance. And yes, all this while reducing the amount of money they had coming in with which to pay their operating costs.

Yeaaaaaaaah, I'd rather stay on the "personal freedoms and responsibilities" side 



> Cardio-vascular diseases is our revenge! Mouahahahahaha!
> 
> To over simpify, if they have a head office, they pay taxes. Mouahahahahaha!




Appropriating your cuisine is my revenge! 

Small office, small cash-flow. Small taxes.



> Heh. If Québec becomes independent we'll take our share with us. No worries. There is no need to pay it off first.




Well Canada would no longer be a guarantor for Quebec's loans, so that would be up to the creditors 



> We'll forced marriages are rarely a joy ride in the first place. I'm pretty sure there will be bitterness after Québec does its own thing, but some negociations will have to happen on some issues. After a certain time, when some are less bitter, others negociations will happen. The US rebelled against the Brits, but they are best buds now. The same will happen to us, as we have mutal interest, a common history and we can't go back to Europe. The only difference is that we'll negociate them like equals. Together, we'll be racist and oppressive to Natives like it was always ment to be! /wipes tear




That would be the common history that Quebec doesn't want to be a part of anymore? 

It's not so much a marriage, as it is a conquest. It's just that unlike so many other conquests in history, the winners didn't subjugate, assimilate, or eliminate the losers. To walk away from that is spitting in the face of history and all those forward thinkers who believed that disparate peoples could live together as a nation, rather than trying to kill each other every few decades. The "oppression" talk is based upon a lot of trumped-up 'history.' Things could have gone much differently after The Plains of Abraham, as they did in so many other places.



> Why abeyance?




If the terms under which the original agreements were negotiated no longer apply, then the contracts involved could easily be seen as in abeyance.



> Like what?




I already mentioned transfer payments, currency, etc. Those are the sort of things that Separatists tend to dismiss with a hand-wave, but which have much deeper implications. Quebec can't unilaterally declare something is so, if it's dependent upon the rest of Canada acquiescing. 



> They never took a "bail out". The money the European Union gave to Greece was borrowed money to repay their borrowed money. Less then 10% went into the Greece economy, the rest just want to banks.
> 
> Germany is seen as almost a victim of Greek's boondoggle, but it is lending money to Greece at huge interets rates and none of it is helping Greece get back on its feet. The worst part is that to get these loans, Greece has to pludge into austerity and that doesn't help its economy one bit. Only people suffer. Thomas Piketty explains why Germany is being hypocritical with Greece as it benefited from generous help after WWII.




If you never intend to pay iot back, it becomes a "bail-out." As I said, the history of the Greeks' problems is longer than a couple of loans.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 11, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> In my experience few separatists are so practical as to share your position that Quebec must take responsibility for its share of the debt. Most think they can shirk it because of the tomfoolery of legal entities. I would appreciate if you would at least forcefully convince your brethren of the error of that way,  .




I've never heard this position from anyone. Ordinary citizen, politicians or intellectuals.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 11, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Don't let anyone fool you. They were mostly smallish.
> 
> ... and plastic.



Its fantastic!



> Ottawa has been giving tax breaks to industries that don't need them. The oil industry?! Patent toadying to their funding base. For a "conservative" government they've been spending like drunken sailors on shore leave in Thailand.



Yeah, those are the bad tax breaks I've mentioned.



> The Liberals cut the debt and eliminated the deficit. Seriously; the LIBERALS.



It isn't that much of a shocker. Parties try to depict other parties in certain ways, but it doesn't always reflect the truth. Mulcaire's NDP is facing the same sort of propaganda. They haven't been in power in Ottawa and yet people in this thread already think they'll plunge Ottawa in deficite. 

My biggest issue with the liberals in Ottawa eliminating the deficite in the 90s is that they just transfered the deficite to the provinces. For example, Ottawa use to finance 50% of healthcare, now it is around 20%. It is the provinces that picked up the burden. It is pretty easy to make cuts when voters won't know you're behind them.



> The Conservatives immediately started paying off those who put them in power, after having decried it in the Liberals. They ran deficits in every budget, starting with a larger one than the worst the Liberals had in their previous run. They claim to balanced the budget this time around but only by dipping into a fund that they shouldn't have touched, and so didn't balance. And yes, all this while reducing the amount of money they had coming in with which to pay their operating costs.



More reasons to vote NDP. NDP, it is more than just lustrous facial hair.



> Yeaaaaaaaah, I'd rather stay on the "personal freedoms and responsibilities" side



What freedoms are you afraid to lose with the NDP?



> Small office, small cash-flow. Small taxes.



Not necessarely. Depends on the corporation and what it needs for operations. Uber has a small staff in Montréal, but their cash flow should be interesting. 



> Well Canada would no longer be a guarantor for Quebec's loans, so that would be up to the creditors



Maybe it is the opposite.  Québec has been free of debt for the large part of its existence. Merging with it was attractive for a indebted Ontario in 1841. Works like the transcanadian railway was in large part paid by us.



> That would be the common history that Quebec doesn't want to be a part of anymore?



The conquest, the colonialism, the oppression, the exploitation, the assimilation, the betrayals, the racism...



> It's not so much a marriage, as it is a conquest. It's just that unlike so many other conquests in history, the winners didn't subjugated the defeated, but didn't manage to completely assimilate, or eliminate the losers.



Fixed.

Refering to conquerors and the conquered as "winners" and "losers" presents war as a game. It is quit the distortion of what conquest is. Remember, it was 1760. It wasn't the politically correct invasion of Iraq we get to see today. 



> To walk away from that is spitting in the face of history



The Brits and Canadians pissed enough on us that I have no shame to walk away from that. It is self-respect. The history you were thaught doesn't reflect what really happened. I see no reason to rejoy at thinking of our benevolent oppressors who told us to "speak white" when we talked french in front of them. It is pure racism and shows the kind of open hate we faced. The difference 30 years after the civil rights movement and the Quiet Revolution, racism is more hidden. No one will say "speak white" to your face, but you turn on a radio and you'll hear enough Québec bashing to know. If it were only that, that would be one thing, but it isn't. It is about being second class citizens.



> I already mentioned transfer payments, currency, etc. Those are the sort of things that Separatists tend to dismiss with a hand-wave, but which have much deeper implications. Quebec can't unilaterally declare something is so, if it's dependent upon the rest of Canada acquiescing.



I've talked about currency, the potential outcomes and how a weak dollar benefits Québec when in 1980 it was supposed to be our doom. It isn't like there hasn't been a new currency that pop up in the world in the last 50 years. 

I've also mentioned transfers payments. We pay taxes to Ottawa. Those taxes would be sent to Québec instead, but we wouldn't have to pay twice for the same services or institutions. Like say we would have no need for two ministry of health and two agencies that collect taxes. The exercise has been done before and it balances. In practice will it? Only one way to found out, but a huge gap is not disastrous. And who knows, maybe we'll save money. Transfers payments is just getting the money we already send to Ottawa. 



> If you never intend to pay iot back, it becomes a "bail-out."



Who said they do not want to pay it back? If they could print money, like they did in the past, it would certainly be easier. 



> As I said, the history of the Greeks' problems is longer than a couple of loans.



I know, I've mentione a few of them in this thread.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> My biggest issue with the liberals in Ottawa eliminating the deficite in the 90s is that they just transfered the deficite to the provinces. For example, Ottawa use to finance 50% of healthcare, now it is around 20%. It is the provinces that picked up the burden. It is pretty easy to make cuts when voters won't know you're behind them.




As much as i don't appreciate the downloading, at least it wasn't hidden. It was all out in the open, for the electorate to see. That might have been open government. It might have been arrogance. What it wasn't, was sneaky.



> More reasons to vote NDP. NDP, it is more than just lustrous facial hair.




Why; because they haven't been given their turn to screw up yet? 

I'm opposed to the Conservatives for reasons of government opacity and failure to provide good governance. I'm largely opposed to the Liberals because Trudeau hasn't seen a foot that he didn't think would fit perfectly in his mouth. (People tend to forget, but Harper was damned near as bad when he took over the Conservative helm) I oppose the NDP for their platform. And I'm a union member. And a worker in higher education.



> What freedoms are you afraid to lose with the NDP?




I would lose the freedom to not pay for other people's kids. I would lose the freedom to not see my taxes rise to cover the costs of issues I don't care about. I would lose the freedom to not support a candidate who likes to cozy up to Separatists. 



> Not necessarely. Depends on the corporation and what it needs for operations. Uber has a small staff in Montréal, but their cash flow should be interesting.




Uber flouts the law and has people working for it who neither pay their taxes, nor carry appropriate insurance on a vehicle used for business. They're a completely different kettle of 4 week old unrefrigerated codfish.



> Maybe it is the opposite.  Québec has been free of debt for the large part of its existence. Merging with it was attractive for a indebted Ontario in 1841. Works like the transcanadian railway was in large part paid by us.




As to the current situation, I point to the transfer payments that I previously mentioned. Ontario is the cash cow 



> The conquest, the colonialism, the oppression, the exploitation, the assimilation, the betrayals, the racism...




No moreso than for my Scottish ancestors 



> Fixed.
> 
> Refering to conquerors and the conquered as "winners" and "losers" presents war as a game. It is quit the distortion of what conquest is. Remember, it was 1760. It wasn't the politically correct invasion of Iraq we get to see today.
> 
> The Brits and Canadians pissed enough on us that I have no shame to walk away from that. It is self-respect. The history you were thaught doesn't reflect what really happened. I see no reason to rejoy at thinking of our benevolent oppressors who told us to "speak white" when we talked french in front of them. It is pure racism and shows the kind of open hate we faced. The difference 30 years after the civil rights movement and the Quiet Revolution, racism is more hidden. No one will say "speak white" to your face, but you turn on a radio and you'll hear enough Québec bashing to know. If it were only that, that would be one thing, but it isn't. It is about being second class citizens.




Broken.

No, it wasn't a game. In war there are winners and losers.

Quebec currently has more real political power, in Canada, than does any other Province in Confederation. Quebec flexes its electoral muscles and Federal political leaders quiver. Money streams into the Province above and beyond levels reasonable for just reasons of redistribution. I would say that the history you were taught isn't all that accurate either.

In Ontario we still live with the legacies of bringing Quebec into the fold. Our Catholic School Boards exist because of it. 



> I've talked about currency, the potential outcomes and how a weak dollar benefits Québec when in 1980 it was supposed to be our doom. It isn't like there hasn't been a new currency that pop up in the world in the last 50 years.
> 
> I've also mentioned transfers payments. We pay taxes to Ottawa. Those taxes would be sent to Québec instead, but we wouldn't have to pay twice for the same services or institutions. Like say we would have no need for two ministry of health and two agencies that collect taxes. The exercise has been done before and it balances. In practice will it? Only one way to found out, but a huge gap is not disastrous. And who knows, maybe we'll save money. Transfers payments is just getting the money we already send to Ottawa.
> 
> ...




Quebec receives back billions of dollars more, from the Federal Government, than it pays out to it. That's not as bad as for example what PEI or Nunavut receives, per capita, but make no mistake that there would be a rather large additional bill to pay of the Federal government wasn't sending money Quebec's way.

Even Ontario has become a have-not Province recently, because of the decimation of manufacturing in this Province, but it's just a few percentage points.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 12, 2015)

[video=youtube;DG6fhub9HDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ[/video]


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Appropriating your cuisine is my revenge!




The dish has gone as far as New Jersey, and has been renamed "Disco Fries" there (and has been since at least the 1980s).  I think this pretty much outdoes all other appropriation of the dish, and it is time to let it go.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 12, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> As much as i don't appreciate the downloading, at least it wasn't hidden. It was all out in the open, for the electorate to see. That might have been open government. It might have been arrogance. What it wasn't, was sneaky.



But it was. The provinces are the providers of healthcare. When Ottawa cut healthcare subsidies, it was the provinces who have to either raise taxes or reduce services. At the next election people just remembered the line that the federral budget was balanced and blame Québec or Toronto for the reduction in healthcare services. Like I said before, Ottawa has the money, but none of the responsabilities. 



> Why; because they haven't been given their turn to screw up yet?



Because it has the better platform and leader. If this is about all political parties are the same, it is not accurate. The NDP is pro-choice, ins't working for the tar sands industry, isn't against unionized workers going on strike, is against the UCCB, is for the LSVCC tax credit, is against fees or tax hike for the middle class, etc. 



> I'm opposed to the Conservatives for reasons of government opacity and failure to provide good governance. I'm largely opposed to the Liberals because Trudeau hasn't seen a foot that he didn't think would fit perfectly in his mouth. (People tend to forget, but Harper was damned near as bad when he took over the Conservative helm) I oppose the NDP for their platform. And I'm a union member. And a worker in higher education.



So you are anti-choice, pro-UCCB, anti-LSVCC, for the tar sands industry tax credits, for the federal government stepping in when workers go on strike?



> I would lose the freedom to not pay for other people's kids.



But healthcare is ok? Why is one bad and the other ok?



> I would lose the freedom to not see my taxes rise to cover the costs of issues I don't care about.



Can you pinpoint in their platform where they say your taxes will rise? What they propose is use the 4 billion surplus that will come from cancelling the UCCB to finance their initiatives instead of raising taxes. 



> I would lose the freedom to not support a candidate who likes to cozy up to Separatists.



Writting off 50% of Québec's population only shows that only Québécois who think like the masters are welcomed in the federation. So much for freedom of thought and everyone being equal. 



> Uber flouts the law and has people working for it who neither pay their taxes, nor carry appropriate insurance on a vehicle used for business. They're a completely different kettle of 4 week old unrefrigerated codfish.



Its respect for the law is irrelevant to Uber being an example of a corporation having an head office that has a substantial cash flow with few employees. The kind an independent Québec would get, along with the ones with more employees. 



> As to the current situation, I point to the transfer payments that I previously mentioned. Ontario is the cash cow



Alberta is/was the cash cow. Might I remind you that Ontario has been receiving more transfer payments than Alberta for a while now. But the point was that when Québec was the cash cow, Canada clad to take from it and it was ok to give to the needy. Now that the situation is reverse, we are freeloaders. It is a double standard. 



> No moreso than for my Scottish ancestors



The wrongs the Scotts went through do not cancel the ones we went through. Or the Aboriginales for that matter. 



> Broken.
> 
> No, it wasn't a game. In war there are winners and losers.
> 
> Quebec currently has more real political power, in Canada, than does any other Province in Confederation.



You mean more than oil-industry-powered-Alberta has on the Conservatives? 



> That is Quebec flexes its electoral muscles and Federal political leaders quiver.



This is why the Tories formed a majority government with only 5 elected deputees from Québec in 2011? 



> Money streams into the Province above and beyond levels reasonable for just reasons of redistribution.



Per capita Québec receives less money than Nova Scotia, PEI, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and the NWT. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

We aren't getting any special treatement, especially if we go back in time not too long ago when oil wasn't that big in Canada. The list would be longer. Some provinces just got lucky, or in the case of Newfoundland, stole Labrador and its oil from Québec. 



> I would say that the history you were taught isn't all that accurate either.



So you are saying than when United Canada was created Québécois didn't count for 7/10 of a person? A bit like black people counted for 3/5 of a person in the US.



> In Ontario we still live with the legacies of bringing Quebec into the fold. Our Catholic School Boards exist because of it.



Yeah, that compensates for the racism and exploitation... 



> Quebec receives back billions of dollars more, from the Federal Government, than it pays out to it. That's not as bad as for example what PEI or Nunavut receives, per capita, but make no mistake that there would be a rather large additional bill to pay of the Federal government wasn't sending money Quebec's way.



Which would be compensated by the money we sent to Ottawa and the the things we wouldn't need to pay twice... An independent Québec is very viable economically. At worse, what do we do? Raise taxes or cut spending. The Liberals have pludge Québec in austerity, so cuts are being taken care of. 

Back to Greece, it appears Germany is making money off the Greek crisis. 100 billion Euros it would seem or 3% of its GDP, for a profit of 10 billion Euros. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...y-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But it was. The provinces are the providers of healthcare. When Ottawa cut healthcare subsidies, it was the provinces who have to either raise taxes or reduce services. At the next election people just remembered the line that the federral budget was balanced and blame Québec or Toronto for the reduction in healthcare services. Like I said before, Ottawa has the money, but none of the responsabilities.




When I say that it wasn't sneaky I'm saying that you could see the knife coming. It wasn't in the back. The Conservatives excel at using the knife in the dark.



> Because it has the better platform and leader. If this is about all political parties are the same, it is not accurate. The NDP is pro-choice, ins't working for the tar sands industry, isn't against unionized workers going on strike, is against the UCCB, is for the LSVCC tax credit, is against fees or tax hike for the middle class, etc.
> 
> So you are anti-choice, pro-UCCB, anti-LSVCC, for the tar sands industry tax credits, for the federal government stepping in when workers go on strike?




You like their platform. I don't. Conflating that with single specific issues doesn't make it so.



> But healthcare is ok? Why is one bad and the other ok?




Because I believe in a social safety net, universal health care, and universal education. I see no need to that to be extended further, just because some people don't like having to pay for things themselves.



> Can you pinpoint in their platform where they say your taxes will rise? What they propose is use the 4 billion surplus that will come from cancelling the UCCB to finance their initiatives instead of raising taxes.




The UCCB is a virtual zero-sum shell game, created purely for electioneering. They give the UCCB. They take away the income tax credit. I'm against it because it *IS* a shell game. There is no 'surplus' to use to finance anything else. Universal child care is going to increase my taxes. 



> Writting off 50% of Québec's population only shows that only Québécois who think like the masters are welcomed in the federation. So much for freedom of thought and everyone being equal.




A leader who seems to like the idea of breaking up the country he wants to lead isn't the sort of leader that I want. I also don't think that the Bloc should have been permitted to be a Federal party for the same reason. Provincial? Sure, but not Federal.



> Its respect for the law is irrelevant to Uber being an example of a corporation having an head office that has a substantial cash flow with few employees. The kind an independent Québec would get, along with the ones with more employees.




I disagree. I think that an illegal enterprise makes for a rather poor example. To take it to the next level would you likewise reference Rock Machine or Hells Angels?



> Alberta is/was the cash cow. Might I remind you that Ontario has been receiving more transfer payments than Alberta for a while now. But the point was that when Québec was the cash cow, Canada clad to take from it and it was ok to give to the needy. Now that the situation is reverse, we are freeloaders. It is a double standard.




Ontario was the cash cow, until quite recently. Now it's Alberta. There's a reason for that. Quebec hasn't been the cash cow in rather a long time. Loooooooooong time.



> The wrongs the Scotts went through do not cancel the ones we went through. Or the Aboriginales for that matter.




No, it doesn't. It does, however, put the whining into perspective 



> You mean more than oil-industry-powered-Alberta has on the Conservatives?
> 
> This is why the Tories formed a majority government with only 5 elected deputees from Québec in 2011?




Yes, more than Alberta. At least as much, if not more than Ontario. Not more than the entire rest of the country though. This is why the Tories formed a majority government with 'only' 5 elected MPs from Quebec in 2011.



> Per capita Québec receives less money than Nova Scotia, PEI, New-Brunswick, Manitoba, Yukon, Nunavut and the NWT. http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp
> 
> We aren't getting any special treatement, especially if we go back in time not too long ago when oil wasn't that big in Canada. The list would be longer. Some provinces just got lucky, or in the case of Newfoundland, stole Labrador and its oil from Québec.




I'm well aware of that. That's because they are legitimate have-not Provinces.

Newfoundland's drilling, from what I recall, is offshore. There was nothing to 'steal' from Quebec.



> So you are saying than when United Canada was created Québécois didn't count for 7/10 of a person? A bit like black people counted for 3/5 of a person in the US.
> 
> Yeah, that compensates for the racism and exploitation...




Nope, I didn't say that. I'd like to see some supporting documentation though. What I am saying is that it's bloody well time to get over it, when Quebecois now have at least the same voting power, if not more actual power, as every other voter in Canada. I've gotten over Culloden, despite my ancestors being decimated by it. I've even got friends whose Clans and families were on the other side.

The "half a man" comment that tends to be referenced with respect to Blacks comes from the Confederate States Constitution. At least that's the only reference that I've ever found, myself, in research.



> Which would be compensated by the money we sent to Ottawa and the the things we wouldn't need to pay twice... An independent Québec is very viable economically. At worse, what do we do? Raise taxes or cut spending. The Liberals have pludge Québec in austerity, so cuts are being taken care of.




So give it a try 



> Back to Greece, it appears Germany is making money off the Greek crisis. 100 billion Euros it would seem or 3% of its GDP, for a profit of 10 billion Euros. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...y-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-crisis/




Lending money to Greece was always going to be a losing proposition. It was more of a stick to make them get their house in order. They just ignored the stick, to their detriment.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> [video=youtube;DG6fhub9HDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ[/video]




I'd vote for him.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 12, 2015)

One thing I have not yet heard in this election is the write in ballot: "None of the above".

Of course, it is still early is this long election.

But still...


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 12, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> One thing I have not yet heard in this election is the write in ballot: "None of the above".
> 
> Of course, it is still early is this long election.
> 
> But still...




We do not have the ability to formally decline our ballots, as a vote of protest, at the Federal level. This is despite a recommendation for just that from Elections Canada, about 15 years ago, and that several Provinces do give that ability. In a Federal election all that you have is cast ballots, or spoilt ballots.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 13, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> When I say that it wasn't sneaky I'm saying that you could see the knife coming. It wasn't in the back. The Conservatives excel at using the knife in the dark.



Honestly, the Tories did a lot of bad stufff, but was it really that surprising? Especially after the two minority governments when they pretty much tried to rule as a majority. 



> You like their platform. I don't. Conflating that with single specific issues doesn't make it so.



Platforms are an aggregation of specific issues. I do not like it all, like the proposed tax cut for small businesses, but which party satisfies someone 100% of the time?



> Because I believe in a social safety net, universal health care, and universal education. I see no need to that to be extended further, just because some people don't like having to pay for things themselves.



Daycare is education. It is also a pre-emptive safety net for becoming adults. It gives them better chances at fully realizing themselves. Plus poor parents might be in better position to work as kids are taken care off. And it is a more complex issue than "someone doesn't like to pay things". That can be said about health care too. Heck, you can say if you can't pay for a heart attack, just do not eat chips and drink alcohol. 



> The UCCB is a virtual zero-sum shell game, created purely for electioneering. They give the UCCB. They take away the income tax credit. I'm against it because it *IS* a shell game. There is no 'surplus' to use to finance anything else. Universal child care is going to increase my taxes.



Shell game? It is true that the UCCB is taxable and replaces a previous tax credit, but the revenue from from the taxes do not cover the whole cost of the UCCB and that cost is financed with our taxes. Remove the UCCB and the surplus increases.

And the daycare program proposed is not financed entirely by the government, sadly. Parents will still have to pay 15$ per day per child. If parents have to pay everyday of the week and every week of the year like in Québec, one child will cost 3,900$ a year. A lot, but a lot less than what parents have to pay now. The government pays the difference. It also sets the maximum prices a daycare can charge, so it doesn't over pay. 



> A leader who seems to like the idea of breaking up the country he wants to lead isn't the sort of leader that I want.



You really think Mulcaire is an independentist? 



> I also don't think that the Bloc should have been permitted to be a Federal party for the same reason. Provincial? Sure, but not Federal.



Yeah, cause the rule of law shouldn't apply equaly to Québécois with ideas you do not like. 



> I disagree. I think that an illegal enterprise makes for a rather poor example. To take it to the next level would you likewise reference Rock Machine or Hells Angels?



Cause they do not pay taxes. Cause criminal gangs are illegal. Cause Uber is not illegal, some of its activities are. 

But what if I said Google's Montréal head office instead? Better?



> Ontario was the cash cow, until quite recently. Now it's Alberta. There's a reason for that. Quebec hasn't been the cash cow in rather a long time. Loooooooooong time.



So? Atlantic Canada never was and you're not calling them freeloaders, even if per capita they take more money than Québec.



> No, it doesn't. It does, however, put the whining into perspective



Cause calling out exploitation and racism is whinning. Yeah, its that attitude that condencending attitude and disregard for what happened that fosters independentist sentiments. Just change the word Québécois for Jews and tell me you'll call them whinners.



> Yes, more than Alberta.



That is hilarious. Québec controls the Tories, not Alberta? So the oil tax credits were for us? 



> At least as much, if not more than Ontario. Not more than the entire rest of the country though. This is why the Tories formed a majority government with 'only' 5 elected MPs from Quebec in 2011.



Because Canada wanted to punish Québec for two minority Conservative government?



> I'm well aware of that. That's because they are legitimate have-not Provinces.



We hide our gold?



> Newfoundland's drilling, from what I recall, is offshore. There was nothing to 'steal' from Quebec.



Land comes with offshore land.



> Nope, I didn't say that. I'd like to see some supporting documentation though.



When United Canada was created, Québec's population was 650,000. Ontario's 450,000. Yet they had both the same number of representatives in government. That means a Québécois represented about 7/10th of an Ontarian. This was done to subjugate us. 







> Canada West, with its 450,000 inhabitants, was represented by 42 seats in the Legislative Assembly, the same number as the more-populated Canada East, with 650,000 inhabitants. With both of the former colonies having an equal number of seats, the democratic nature of Canada East's legislative representation was thus fundamentally flawed. Despite the Francophone majority in Lower Canada, most of the power was concentrated on the Anglophone minority, who exploited the lack of a secret ballot to intimidate the electorate.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Canada#Legislative_Assembly

Guess they do not teach that in Ontarian school. 



> What I am saying is that it's bloody well time to get over it, when Quebecois now have at least the same voting power, if not more actual power, as every other voter in Canada. I've gotten over Culloden, despite my ancestors being decimated by it. I've even got friends whose Clans and families were on the other side.



Being part of the majority in power helps with injustice. We aren't in power. The past is one thing, but it continues today. The disrespect and racism, but also the promotion of policies that aren't beneficial to us or just detrimental. 



> The "half a man" comment that tends to be referenced with respect to Blacks comes from the Confederate States Constitution. At least that's the only reference that I've ever found, myself, in research.



It was in the US Constitution from the start. 







> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, *three fifths of all other Persons*.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise



> So give it a try



Stop trying to stop us. 



> Lending money to Greece was always going to be a losing proposition.



... Germany made money off it and it seems it will continue.



> It was more of a stick to make them get their house in order. They just ignored the stick, to their detriment.



What stick? They just got 10% of the money loaned to them and had to do horrible cuts to get it.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 13, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Honestly, the Tories did a lot of bad stufff, but was it really that surprising? Especially after the two minority governments when they pretty much tried to rule as a majority.




That they _succeeded_ in running the government as if they had a majority is on the Opposition parties, who stood by and let them.



> Platforms are an aggregation of specific issues. I do not like it all, like the proposed tax cut for small businesses, but which party satisfies someone 100% of the time?




I don't expect to be 100% satisfied with a party's platform, but occasionally there's a 'poison pill' that makes me be unable to support a party. In the case of the NDP it's a couple of little sugar cubes in a big pile of manure, from my point of view.



> Daycare is education. It is also a pre-emptive safety net for becoming adults. It gives them better chances at fully realizing themselves. Plus poor parents might be in better position to work as kids are taken care off. And it is a more complex issue than "someone doesn't like to pay things". That can be said about health care too. Heck, you can say if you can't pay for a heart attack, just do not eat chips and drink alcohol.




Daycare is baby sitting.



> Shell game? It is true that the UCCB is taxable and replaces a previous tax credit, but the revenue from from the taxes do not cover the whole cost of the UCCB and that cost is financed with our taxes. Remove the UCCB and the surplus increases.




Yes, a shell game, that the NDP are declaring virtually the full value of as the funding for their plans. Where will that money _really_ come from? When you're talking about a net $158.22 per child, from a touted amount of $720.00 then yes, that's essentially a zero sum shell game. It's also patent political pandering and Mulcair is using their 'financial statements' to support his own.  



> And the daycare program proposed is not financed entirely by the government, sadly. Parents will still have to pay 15$ per day per child. If parents have to pay everyday of the week and every week of the year like in Québec, one child will cost 3,900$ a year. A lot, but a lot less than what parents have to pay now. The government pays the difference. It also sets the maximum prices a daycare can charge, so it doesn't over pay.




So people actually have to pay a pittance to take care of their own children? Compare those daycare costs to those of a similar family in Ontario. I have friends whose spouses essentially work so that they can cover the cost of daycare (if only they could see it!). Yes, perhaps eight times the amount paid by a family in Quebec.



> You really think Mulcaire is an independentist?




I don't care if he is or isn't. You know a man by the company he keeps.



> Yeah, cause the rule of law shouldn't apply equaly to Québécois with ideas you do not like.




No, because a Federal party should make an effort to run at a Federal level. That's not one Province.



> Cause they do not pay taxes. Cause criminal gangs are illegal. Cause Uber is not illegal, some of its activities are.
> 
> But what if I said Google's Montréal head office instead? Better?




Having a motorcycle club isn't illegal, though some of its activities may be illegal.

Google would be a better example. How many people do they employ?



> So? Atlantic Canada never was and you're not calling them freeloaders, even if per capita they take more money than Québec.




Well we weren't talking about Atlantic Canada, were we? If we're having a discussion about bicycles and you bring up how motorcycles create pollution, you are then being disingenuous as to my position and motives. As you are by making this statement.

But if you want me to comment on that, I will. I'm from The Maritimes. I don't live there, because there are no jobs there. If you want to talk about freeloaders then I would mention the fishermen who work for their season and then collect Employment Insurance based on the pay they received in that period, which could be as much as $100K for a plum job, which is actually more than enough to see them through the whole year if they actually budgeted. THAT is freeloading.



> Cause calling out exploitation and racism is whinning. Yeah, its that attitude that condencending attitude and disregard for what happened that fosters independentist sentiments. Just change the word Québécois for Jews and tell me you'll call them whinners.




It certainly is whining, when it doesn't actually have a negative effect on your life today. See Morrus's thread about "angry posting" and how it keeps you being angry 



> That is hilarious. Québec controls the Tories, not Alberta? So the oil tax credits were for us?




Calling out one thing doesn't negate disproportionate transfer payments, payments to support a separate media system, an entire wing of the National broadcaster dedicated to essentially one Province, that 6 of the last 11 Prime Ministers have been from Quebec (Rather disproportionate, no?), ...



> Because Canada wanted to punish Québec for two minority Conservative government?




No, because the rest of Canada just didn't give a damn about what Quebec wanted at the time. Characterizing it as 'punishment' of Quebec is rather telling. If there was any punishment going on that involved the word "Quebec" then it was punishing the Quebec arm of the Liberal Party, for their pay-off scandals.



> We hide our gold?




Hiding it is apparently unnecessary, as you receive a disproportionate amount in transfer payments anyway.



> Land comes with offshore land.




Yes, it does, and the oil rigs are offshore from Newfoundland. If that was not the case I would agree with you.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_01_e_37710.html



> When United Canada was created, Québec's population was 650,000. Ontario's 450,000. Yet they had both the same number of representatives in government. That means a Québécois represented about 7/10th of an Ontarian. This was done to subjugate us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Canada#Legislative_Assembly
> 
> Guess they do not teach that in Ontarian school.




Oh, so that's your logic. By that same logic I am a significantly smaller fraction of a person by virtue of living in the Greater Toronto Area, instead of Parry Sound or Napanee. It's a political expedient to avoid "the tyranny of the majority." "Subjugation" would be to deny any vote, as was the case with women and blacks in history.

THAT DOES IT! I'm part of an oppressed people. I demand that the Golden Horseshoe secede from Ontario!



> Being part of the majority in power helps with injustice. We aren't in power. The past is one thing, but it continues today. The disrespect and racism, but also the promotion of policies that aren't beneficial to us or just detrimental.




The past continues to be an issue precisely because you won't let go of it. Try it. The rest of us have and only comment on it when you bring it up.

Your well being is balanced against the rest of the country. That's what being a country is. You can't get everything that you want, just because you want it. Something isn't your due, simply because you demand it.



> It was in the US Constitution from the start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise




OK, so it was again involved in giving proportional representation, when slavery was still legal US-wide. It continued to provide Southern US States with disproportionately high representation, in government, until such point as slavery became universally illegal in the US. not quite "from the beginning", but close enough.



> Stop trying to stop us.




I'm not. I'm recommending it 

I've given up on trying to convince Quebecois to stay in Canada. I'm done. Stay or go, but stop standing in the open door. You're letting the flies in.



> ... Germany made money off it and it seems it will continue.
> 
> What stick? They just got 10% of the money loaned to them and had to do horrible cuts to get it.




Cuts that wouldn't have had to be as bad, if they had taken their own situation seriously. If they had started collecting all of those delinquent taxes, that they need for government operations.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 13, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> That they _succeeded_ in running the government as if they had a majority is on the Opposition parties, who stood by and let them.



The opposition managed to block and change some laws, but a the problem with minority governments is that no one wants to be the one responsable the next election. The Tories were good tacticians. I'll give them that. 



> I don't expect to be 100% satisfied with a party's platform, but occasionally there's a 'poison pill' that makes me be unable to support a party. In the case of the NDP it's a couple of little sugar cubes in a big pile of manure, from my point of view.



Like what manur aside from the daycare program?



> Daycare is baby sitting.



It is educating and assuring a child's developpement during a most crucial period. Seriously. I've seen kids 4 years old barely able to talk because parents didn't talk to them. Those kids will have all sort of issues growing up. 



> Yes, a shell game, that the NDP are declaring virtually the full value of as the funding for their plans. Where will that money _really_ come from? When you're talking about a net $158.22 per child, from a touted amount of $720.00 then yes, that's essentially a zero sum shell game. It's also patent political pandering and Mulcair is using their 'financial statements' to support his own.



We're talking about close to two billions dollars, it doesn't meet the definition of zero.   



> So people actually have to pay a pittance to take care of their own children?



Huh? 



> Compare those daycare costs to those of a similar family in Ontario. I have friends whose spouses essentially work so that they can cover the cost of daycare (if only they could see it!).



Wouldn't that mean that she would be better off at home raising the kids? 

See what? I'm not sure I understand that part.



> Yes, perhaps eight times the amount paid by a family in Quebec.



Yeah, daycare is way too expensive. This is why it is a good national policy to have universal daycare. 



> I don't care if he is or isn't.



That is just laziness. If he isn't, and he isn't, he won't promote or do Québec's independence. But that is non-sensicale to think he could. That is up to Québec.



> You know a man by the company he keeps.



That is just a saying, not an argument. Besides, what you saying is that 50% of Québécois are untouchable and should be bannished from political activities. You aren't for discriminating Québécois? A good Québécois is a docile Québécois?



> No, because a Federal party should make an effort to run at a Federal level. That's not one Province.



It ran at a federal level. Even form the official opposition at the federal level. What you want is control of political activities of those you disagree with. 



> Having a motorcycle club isn't illegal, though some of its activities may be illegal.



They still are not a for-profit that pay taxes. 



> Google would be a better example. How many people do they employ?



All I could find was 50.



> Well we weren't talking about Atlantic Canada, were we?



So? We are poor, they are poorer. They get more money, we get more hate. Doesn't make sense. 



> If we're having a discussion about bicycles and you bring up how motorcycles create pollution, you are then being disingenuous as to my position and motives. As you are by making this statement.



You're saying Québec takes too much money from equalization payments. I point out that there are others who take more because they have worse economies. Shouldn't they be blame for being poor, like we are blamed for being poor? Why the hate only for Québec? 



> But if you want me to comment on that, I will. I'm from The Maritimes. I don't live there, because there are no jobs there. If you want to talk about freeloaders then I would mention the fishermen who work for their season and then collect Employment Insurance based on the pay they received in that period, which could be as much as $100K for a plum job, which is actually more than enough to see them through the whole year if they actually budgeted. THAT is freeloading.



Yeah, I've heard a lot about fishermen and the money they make. 



> It certainly is whining, when it doesn't actually have a negative effect on your life today. See Morrus's thread about "angry posting" and how it keeps you being angry



It still does have a negative impact on our lives. There is still racism, there is still a desire to assimilate us and we still suffer from economic disparity. What Canadians are asking is for us to shut up because we are inconviniant. It is that attitude that keeps the sovereignist movement alive. 



> Calling out one thing doesn't negate disproportionate transfer payments, payments to support a separate media system, an entire wing of the National broadcaster dedicated to essentially one Province, that 6 of the last 11 Prime Ministers have been from Quebec (Rather disproportionate, no?), ...



The funny thing is, the payments are proportional to our needs to be on equal footing with the rest of Canada. We are poor thanks to centuries of colonialism. We're one fourth of the population, but one fifth of the economy. We're less poor than the Maritimes and we get less money. I guess we get the hate cause of our ethnicity. 

There are other francophones outside of Québec. Do you think francophone tax dollars should be used to finance an exclusively anglophone media? Why should you exclusively benefit from our money? Cause we're your subservients? What if your tax dollars just financed one francophone media? No need for two, right? If you do not mind assimilation, why not let us assimilate you with all francophone media?

15 of Canada's 22 PMs came from outside Québec. And one was a senator that served for less than year. Do not worry, we haven't taken control. 



> No, because the rest of Canada just didn't give a damn about what Quebec wanted at the time. Characterizing it as 'punishment' of Quebec is rather telling. If there was any punishment going on that involved the word "Quebec" then it was punishing the Quebec arm of the Liberal Party, for their pay-off scandals.



The liberals have always been corrupt. This is in part why the Bloc was the better option. 



> Hiding it is apparently unnecessary, as you receive a disproportionate amount in transfer payments anyway.



It is proportional to our lack of wealth. This is why the maritimes get more, they are more poor than us. But we are more poor than Ontario, so we get more. If you want to explain why you think we are richer than we are, please do. 



> Yes, it does, and the oil rigs are offshore from Newfoundland. If that was not the case I would agree with you.
> 
> http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_01_e_37710.html



Cool. Then we just aren't lucky enough to have oil. And we stay poor. *plays sad violin*



> Oh, so that's your logic. By that same logic I am a significantly smaller fraction of a person by virtue of living in the Greater Toronto Area, instead of Parry Sound or Napanee. It's a political expedient to avoid "the tyranny of the majority." "Subjugation" would be to deny any vote, as was the case with women and blacks in history.
> 
> THAT DOES IT! I'm part of an oppressed people. I demand that the Golden Horseshoe secede from Ontario!



Really? Reductio ad absurdum? You're just deflecting that simple fact: the system was rig to keep us away from power and keep us subjugated. It was done based on Lord Durham's rapport that recommanded "the assimilation of the inferior race". The moral is that history is not like it was presented to you. 



> The past continues to be an issue precisely because you won't let go of it. Try it. The rest of us have and only comment on it when you bring it up.



Of course, you're in power. You do not care. History, as we've been seeing in this thread, depicts Canadian as goody two shoes and doesn't talk about the dark parts. Of course you want us to shut up about the dark parts. It might mean you'd have to change things or at least listen to our grievances. 



> Your well being is balanced against the rest of the country. That's what being a country is.



A federation. And we didn't ask to be part of it. It was forced.



> You can't get everything that you want, just because you want it. Something isn't your due, simply because you demand it.



That is one thing. The argument is that being in Canada is not in Québec's interest or that Canadians do not have Québec's interest at heart. For example, your comment about the french media is a symptom of that. We need a media in our language to get people informed and avoid assimilation. Yet it makes you bitter to pay for your supposed partner to be informed and preserve its identity.



> Cuts that wouldn't have had to be as bad, if they had taken their own situation seriously. If they had started collecting all of those delinquent taxes, that they need for government operations.



Let go of the past.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 13, 2015)

You know what? I'm done. It's all been said


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 13, 2015)

Remember, vote NDP! The beard is love. The beard is life.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 13, 2015)

I still have time to submit my own bid to run on the Rhinoceros Party ticket, though I don't know if I trust me enough to vote for me.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2015)

Goldomark said:
			
		

> So? We are poor, they are poorer. They get more money, we get more hate. Doesn't make sense.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466388-Canadian-Federal-Elections-eh/page5#ixzz3ikOyfGsH




Asked and answered in the other thread.  Atlantic Canada isn't trying to break up the country every twenty years or so.  No, I stated that wrong.  Atlantic Canada isn't pissing millions of dollars down the toiled every couple of decades, stirring the pot and trying to secede and then failing because Montreal will never agree to separating from Canada.

Sort out your own house first, make a decision, and live with it.  As it is, all you're doing is pissing off your neighbours by constantly crying from the rooftop that this town sucks, and then never actually packing up your stuff and leaving.

Piss or get off the pot.  And I mean exactly that.  If you aren't going to separate, how about letting the issue lie for a while?  Let it fade to the background until Quebec has sorted out its economic issues and maybe, then, bring this back up as an issue.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 14, 2015)

Folks,

The tenor of this thread is leaning such that I am going to have to ask that everyone stay respectful, or I will have to close the discussion.  Politics is allowed, but only on the basis of normal board rules on civility.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Asked and answered in the other thread.  Atlantic Canada isn't trying to break up the country every twenty years or so.



That doesn't explain poverty. What you seem to be saying is that we are less deserving than Atlantic Canada. 

Poverty in Québec comes from centuries of colonialism. We weren't owners of industries or land. We got small salaries for mostly extracting natural resources and maybe doing the first transformation, while the profits went elsewhere.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That doesn't explain poverty. What you seem to be saying is that we are less deserving than Atlantic Canada.
> 
> Poverty in Québec comes from centuries of colonialism. We weren't owners of industries or land. We got small salaries for mostly extracting natural resources and maybe doing the first transformation, while the profits went elsewhere.




Why aren't you the owners of industry or land?  Quebec is one of the largest provinces, has a population base as large as any other province and larger than most, great education system, and so on.  Yet, virtually no foreign factories, like you see in Ontario, for example.  Why is that?  Why are there major Ford, Chrysler, GM and Toyota factories all within a hundred kilometres of London Ontario, yet, Montreal, which is ten times the size of London, has what, Nissan?  

Is it because of colonialism, or political instability?  

You are certainly no less deserving than any other province.  What you are, OTOH, is far less politically stable and that shows in your economy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why aren't you the owners of industry or land?



Sigh. You need to re-read what I wrote carefully. Pay attention to verb tense.



> Is it because of colonialism, or political instability?



There isn't any political instability and there weren't any before the 1960s and the rise of modern Québec nationalism. There was colonialism and its effect can still be felt today. Our economic developpement was gimped for a long time so we still are doing some catching up. 

It seems that I'm repeating myself over and over and I'm not getting through.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Sigh. You need to re-read what I wrote carefully. Pay attention to verb tense.
> 
> There isn't any political instability and there weren't any before the 1960s and the rise of modern Québec nationalism. There was colonialism and its effect can still be felt today. Our economic developpement was gimped for a long time so we still are doing some catching up.
> 
> It seems that I'm repeating myself over and over and I'm not getting through.




Ummm, how do you figure that the separatist movement is not political instability?

You're getting through.  I just disagree with what you're saying.  How far back are you going to drag this?  When were French Canadians not allowed to own land?  At what point in Canadian history?

Your lack of industry has very little to do with colonialism and everything to do with the fact that you've spent the last 50 years making yourselves very unappealing to any industrial investment.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ummm, how do you figure that the separatist movement is not political instability?



No coup d'état, during elections voting goes without an itch, no massive strikes related to nationalism, no protests related to nationalism since the 60s (before independentist parties started getting elected), terrorism ended in the 70s, governments have been voting budgets constinously each year and there has been no default on paying the debt. When both referendums didn't lead to independence it was business as usual after. There wasn't any violence or social instability after. 



> You're getting through.  I just disagree with what you're saying.  How far back are you going to drag this?  When were French Canadians not allowed to own land?  At what point in Canadian history?



I didn't say they couldn't legally.



> Your lack of industry has very little to do with colonialism and everything to do with the fact that you've spent the last 50 years making yourselves very unappealing to any industrial investment.



Industries existed before the last 50 years, why weren't those investments made before that? Why wasn't Québec as developped as Ontario before the last 50 years?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No coup d'état, during elections voting goes without an itch, no massive strikes related to nationalism, no protests related to nationalism since the 60s (before independentist parties started getting elected), terrorism ended in the 70s, governments have been voting budgets constinously each year and there has been no default on paying the debt. When both referendums didn't lead to independence it was business as usual after. There wasn't any violence or social instability after.
> 
> I didn't say they couldn't legally.
> 
> Industries existed before the last 50 years, why weren't those investments made before that? Why wasn't Québec as developped as Ontario before the last 50 years?




Surprisingly good question.  Why wasn't Quebec developed?  Note, most of the industrial development in Ontario is done by non-Canadian companies, primarily American companies.  Could it possibly be because Quebec insists on French, and tries to remove itself from Canada every couple of decades?  Which, by the way, is political instability.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Industries existed before the last 50 years, why weren't those investments made before that? Why wasn't Québec as developped as Ontario before the last 50 years?




I'm not sure it is relevant.  Industry developed 100 to 50 years ago would be dreadfully outdated today.  And, industrialization tends to move around over time.  How many locations that were industrial powerhouses, say, 75 years ago are still powerhouse locations today?  

As an example, Detroit, known as the "Arsenal of Democracy" during WWII, is now a dreadful mess, an economic swamp, and all that car manufacturing has gone elsewhere?

Meanwhile, the computer, electronics, and biotech that you'd really want today?  Pretty much all less than 50 years old, and pretty much none of it built up where heavy manufacturing was done before.  So, how do we figure the past would have been a help today?


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure it is relevant.  Industry developed 100 to 50 years ago would be dreadfully outdated today.  And, industrialization tends to move around over time.  How many locations that were industrial powerhouses, say, 75 years ago are still powerhouse locations today?
> 
> As an example, Detroit, known as the "Arsenal of Democracy" during WWII, is now a dreadful mess, an economic swamp, and all that car manufacturing has gone elsewhere?
> 
> Meanwhile, the computer, electronics, and biotech that you'd really want today?  Pretty much all less than 50 years old, and pretty much none of it built up where heavy manufacturing was done before.  So, how do we figure the past would have been a help today?



I think you're missing my point or I wasn't clear. Hussar's argument is that Québec is poor today because of the independentist movement that started in the 1960s or about 50 years ago. My counter argument is that Québec was always poor. Even before the independentist movement started being a political force and thus cannot be blamed for the poverty.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Surprisingly good question.  Why wasn't Quebec developed?  Note, most of the industrial development in Ontario is done by non-Canadian companies, primarily American companies.  Could it possibly be because Quebec insists on French, and tries to remove itself from Canada every couple of decades?  Which, by the way, is political instability.



My question was: why was Québec poor before the nationalist movement becamed a political force? You can't blame it for that. 

And I would had, why has the situation actually improved when the nationalist movement became a political force?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I think you're missing my point or I wasn't clear. Hussar's argument is that Québec is poor today because of the independentist movement that started in the 1960s or about 50 years ago. My counter argument is that Québec was always poor. Even before the independentist movement started being a political force and thus cannot be blamed for the poverty.




No, I got that.  My point is that you shouldn't assume that the reasons of the past (whatever they may be - we haven't actually established the major historical influences) are also the reasons for more recent times.  

My thesis has always been that there is a point where you need to stop pointing fingers, because everyone has likely made plenty of mistakes, and everyone is in part to blame.  That is the point where further focus on blame is not constructive.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 18, 2015)

Umbran said:


> No, I got that.  My point is that you shouldn't assume that the reasons of the past (whatever they may be - we haven't actually established the major historical influences) are also the reasons for more recent times.




Some actions have a more lasting impact then others. If because of colonialism our GDP is say at 1,000 in 1960 and our neighbor's is at 2,000, even if we both have a growth of 10% annually starting in 1960, we'll never be able to catch up the neighbor's GDP.

So, even if the economic situation has improved, 50 years later we'll still be poorer than our neighbor.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I think you're missing my point or I wasn't clear. Hussar's argument is that Québec is poor today because of the independentist movement that started in the 1960s or about 50 years ago. My counter argument is that Québec was always poor. Even before the independentist movement started being a political force and thus cannot be blamed for the poverty.




Wait, what?

The separatist movement in Quebec is a HELL of a lot older than 50 years.  You've been trying to leave Confederation since the 19th century and probably longer.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 19, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> The separatist movement in Quebec is a HELL of a lot older than 50 years.  You've been trying to leave Confederation since the 19th century and probably longer.




And yet you used the 50 years bench mark. 







> Your lack of industry has very little to do with colonialism and everything to do with the fact that you've spent the last 50 years making yourselves very unappealing to any industrial investment.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ons-eh/page6&p=6682474&viewfull=1#post6682474

You're moving the goal post.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> And yet you used the 50 years bench mark.  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ons-eh/page6&p=6682474&viewfull=1#post6682474
> 
> You're moving the goal post.




Nope, just used that as a point.  I never said the Separatist movement was only 50 years old.  But, major industrialisation changes in Canada are largely that old as well.  Yes, I realise that there was industrialisation before that.  I know.  But, the big push you see starts in the 1950's, after the second world war.  Before that, most of Canada was agrarian and there was far less foreign investment in industry.

However, the fact that you've now spent about three generations making your province less appealing to foreign investment means that you're reaping what you sow.  

Even if it wasn't the language issue, where are the Renault factories in Quebec?  Or Peugeot?  These are international car manufacturers with plants all over the world.  Yet, no investment in Quebec.  Well, that's not entirely true, Nissan has a factory in Quebec, so, I suppose Renault gets in there a little bit now.  

But why aren't there Ford and GM and Toyota factories in Quebec?  Why are they in Ontario?  Are you saying they're part of colonialism?  How can that be when they aren't even Canadian companies?  Or could it be that the higher ups in those companies, when they decide to build a new factory, take into account that ten, twenty years down the road, the province they built their multi-million dollar facility in, might not be part of Canada anymore and may just decide to abrogate any previous treaties?

Is an independent Quebec part of NAFTA?  Are you sure?  Are you willing to bet hundreds of millions of dollars on it?  Is an independent Quebec still bound by all treaties that Canada made?  Again, are you so sure that you're willing to bet millions of dollars?  Or, instead, do you move your factory a couple of hundred kilometres west, put it in Ontario and not have to worry about it at all?


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Nope, just used that as a point.  I never said the Separatist movement was only 50 years old.  But, major industrialisation changes in Canada are largely that old as well.  Yes, I realise that there was industrialisation before that.  I know.  But, the big push you see starts in the 1950's, after the second world war.  Before that, most of Canada was agrarian and there was far less foreign investment in industry.
> 
> However, the fact that you've now spent about three generations making your province less appealing to foreign investment means that you're reaping what you sow.



So it isn't the last 50 years, but it is the last 50 years. Gotcha. 

Thing is that you aren't aware of, is that living standards, income and the economy have improved in the last 50 years. Since the modern nationalist movement fought colonialism. It is the opposite of what you are postulating. The Quiet Revolution helped Québécois, not the opposite. It doesn't mean we aren't poor, just less poor than we were. 

You do know what colonialism is, right? Do you deny Québec was under such a system and that it affected negatively the local population and its economy? I'm really curious to know your answer to this.



> Even if it wasn't the language issue, where are the Renault factories in Quebec?  Or Peugeot?  These are international car manufacturers with plants all over the world.  Yet, no investment in Quebec.  Well, that's not entirely true, Nissan has a factory in Quebec, so, I suppose Renault gets in there a little bit now.
> 
> But why aren't there Ford and GM and Toyota factories in Quebec?  Why are they in Ontario?  Are you saying they're part of colonialism?  How can that be when they aren't even Canadian companies?  Or could it be that the higher ups in those companies, when they decide to build a new factory, take into account that ten, twenty years down the road, the province they built their multi-million dollar facility in, might not be part of Canada anymore and may just decide to abrogate any previous treaties?



You are focusing a lot on the car industry, as if it is the only industry in Canada. That is a dying industry in Western countries, even Canada. Globalization means these jobs are moving away to places with cheaper. It is the case of most industries who's labor doesn't need to be qualified or can be automated. To say that now there aren't many car indusries in Québec is ridiculus. We do have a nice computer game industry though. Same with pharmaceutical research. Those are less exportable as you need highly qualified employees.

In a colonial system, most industries focus on natural resource extraction and its exportation to other lands were it is transformed. Establishing secondary and tertiary industries was never in the interest of colonial powers. British or other foreign investors who wanted our natural resources didn't pay much, if any, in terms of royalties/license fees either. This sort of system is something that is hard to break out of. It takes local capital, of which we do not have much. We were farmers in inhospitable lands or cheap labor for the colonial power, so we barely made a living, forget savings. Most of our elite went back to France after the conquest, so forget its capital. What was left was the conquerer that did not want to invest much in us, the inferior race, to paraphrase Lord Durham, and made sure we stayed cheap exploitable labor too. 

It took us a while to remove our chains and take better control of our destiny and economy. It still means we are poorer than most part of Canada, because we come from so far, but we aren't as poor as we use to be. 



> Is an independent Quebec part of NAFTA?



It is in the US's interest to keep free trade going with Québec and vice versa. So all parties can either use the current treaty until renegociations are done, if necessary. Besides, I'm sure Canada and the US both like that their ships can sail the St-Laurent cheaply. I'm sure we can come to an agreement. *twirls moustache*

[/quote]Are you sure?[/quote]Yes. Québec sells a lot of natural resources to the US. A lot of US industries would be affect if prices go up. We also sells a lot of electricity. Cheap green electricity to states like Vermont and New York. The irony is, if I remember correctly, that a lot of Canada was against free trade when it was being negociated during the 1980s, except for Québec. Parizeau campaigned ferociously to get it, as he saw it as a positive for an independent Québec. 

Maybe you'll be able to get rid of NAFTA once we leave!



> Is an independent Quebec still bound by all treaties that Canada made?



Yes. A yes at a referendum doesn't mean Québec becomes a country the morning after. All treaties will still be in affect. Independence will be a process that occures over time and renegociating treaties, if need be, will be part of the process. Besides, it isn't like treaties are a one way thing. Those who signed them signed them for a reason. They have a vested interest in them too. It isn't like Québec would be the first country to come out of another in the modern era. 



> Again, are you so sure that you're willing to bet millions of dollars?



Are other countries willing to bet *their* millions?  



> Or, instead, do you move your factory a couple of hundred kilometres west, put it in Ontario and not have to worry about it at all?



I thought we didn't have industries? 

Anyway, why would compagnies spend millions to move to Ontario when all is fine in Québec? Cause we're evil? I swear we aren't like the French! We are more like French Lite. French Lite: same rude taste, none of the smell.


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 20, 2015)

Interesting. Distraction for drivers or freedom of speech violation? Be careful! Naughty word that generally means coitus. http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/albe...ens-charter-defence-vgtrn?utm_source=vicefbca


----------



## Kramodlog (Aug 21, 2015)

For those who can translate, an average of all the polls that came out this week and a second average ajusted for the Tories getting more votes during the election than in polls. http://www.lactualite.com/actualite...Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

Seems like minority territory. Either NDP or Conservative. Buuuuuut, the election is still far away. Lots can change.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Ah, ! It looks like 1993 again.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 20, 2015)

Looks like a majority Liberal government again.  Cool.  If the 90's come back to Canada, that's a bloody good thing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

I'm glad the tories were removed from power, but I would have prefered a minority government and a NDP one. Four years of uncheck Trudeau reign doesn't sound too great.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 20, 2015)

Wow, the Bloq got creamed this time around. Yikes.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm glad the tories were removed from power, but I would have prefered a minority government and a NDP one. Four years of uncheck Trudeau reign doesn't sound too great.




Apart from the scandals in the Quebec arm of the party, last time around, the Liberals did pretty well. They were actually more fiscally conservative than have been the Conservative government that we just voted out. My preference is also for minority governments, as a check on the government in power, but we needed to oust the Conservatives at any rate.



Hussar said:


> Wow, the Bloq got creamed this time around. Yikes.




That's a good thing


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Wow, the Bloq got creamed this time around. Yikes.




You're late one election. The BQ had a worse election in 2011. They doubled their seats since last time.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 20, 2015)

BQs share of the popular vote when down though.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 20, 2015)

That is true. They got 10 seats and a bit more votes than the Green Party who only got one seat. The current electoral system isn't representative. You just need 40% of the vote to form a majority government.

I like the German system where you vote for a local representative and then vote for a party list.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That is true. They got 10 seats and a bit more votes than the Green Party who only got one seat. The current electoral system isn't representative. You just need 40% of the vote to form a majority government.
> 
> I like the German system where you vote for a local representative and then vote for a party list.




Well, the system has never been representative to be fair.  That 40% number has been around since day 1.

Yeah, I missed out the last election.  I'm living overseas, so, wasn't paying attention too much the last time around.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 21, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, the system has never been representative to be fair.  That 40% number has been around since day 1.



That its sort of a tradition doesn't make it more acceptable.



> Yeah, I missed out the last election. I'm living overseas, so, wasn't paying attention too much the last time around.



And look what happened.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 21, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, the system has never been representative to be fair.  That 40% number has been around since day 1.
> 
> Yeah, I missed out the last election.  I'm living overseas, so, wasn't paying attention too much the last time around.




"First Past the Post", for the most part, works. It means that you can elect a person who, theoretically, represents your regional interests in government. I don't see how that would be the case with proportional representation and, quite frankly, it makes me worry that there would be a Balkanization of politics in Canada. Ranked balloting makes more sense to me than does proportional representation. If you haven't been away too long then hopefully the previous government didn't manage to pull you ability to vote in Canadian Federal elections 

As an aside your name wouldn't happen to be Chris, would it? a couple of years back, when I was active on the DPReview photography forum, there was a Canadian named Chris living in (IIRC) Fukuoka, who was on that board. Longshot, but thought that I'd ask.


----------



## Cor Azer (Oct 21, 2015)

First past the post is only good because it's easy to count. Pretty much every other system requires calculations, weights, or cross-referencing tables.

I'm a fan of ranking/preferential ballots, not proportional ballots. Better compromise to have 80% of people's second choice, than one that is 40%'s first but 60%'s last.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 21, 2015)

List candidates are dumb. It should be considered a serious failure of imagination that any system should need a list of candidates without regional attachment. At the very least if you wanted to go with something like MMP the candidates that fill out the ranks should be selected from those who got the highest number of votes without winning their regional seat, just with some cross-referencing function so that no province ended up with more than its fair share of candidates being sent to Parliament overall. 

I favour something like Stephane Dion's system, which would have super districts with multiple seats assigned to them and balanced internally. So everyone would still be a representative of their district, but the districts would be bigger overall.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 22, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> "First Past the Post", for the most part, works. It means that you can elect a person who, theoretically, represents your regional interests in government. I don't see how that would be the case with proportional representation and, quite frankly, it makes me worry that there would be a Balkanization of politics in Canada. Ranked balloting makes more sense to me than does proportional representation. If you haven't been away too long then hopefully the previous government didn't manage to pull you ability to vote in Canadian Federal elections
> 
> As an aside your name wouldn't happen to be Chris, would it? a couple of years back, when I was active on the DPReview photography forum, there was a Canadian named Chris living in (IIRC) Fukuoka, who was on that board. Longshot, but thought that I'd ask.




Sorry, nope, not me.  I'm actually in Kanda, not Fukuoka.    Been out of Canada for about 20 years now, so, voting hasn't really been a priority.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, nope, not me.  I'm actually in Kanda, not Fukuoka.    Been out of Canada for about 20 years now, so, voting hasn't really been a priority.




Well it was worth asking. He was a damned good photographer  and posted lots of shots from his day-to-day life


----------

