November 28, 2000
7:42 AM Subscribe
i did some snooping around on the cbc website and i found this and this. the first is the graphic that they used after the liberals won, the second is the graphic they had ready if the liberals lost.
hmm, chretien looks more tired in the second one. perhaps he is looking to some martin supporters on his left, waiting to pummel him? hmm...martinites attacking from the left just doesn't make any sense!
This post was deleted for the following reason: removed at poster's request -- mathowie
I know very little of Canadian politics. I'm curious what the Canadian MeFi'ers think of Eric Margolis' opinions.
posted by netbros at 7:57 AM on November 28, 2000
posted by netbros at 7:57 AM on November 28, 2000
One thing that Margolis doesn't even discuss (except for dismissing it outright) is health care, which is a massive concern for most Canadians. Also, welfare and other government assistance programs that help define us as a socialist nation.
These do create a massive burden on taxpayers, one which most of us are willing to pay for these benefits.
I find it extremely interesting that vilified Ontario - "chock full of bureaucrats and government-pampered unionists" - is the wealthiest province. Ontario puts more money into the national coffers than any other province (largely due to population, it's not inherently better).
Alberta has a health care system in which people can pay to be bumped to the front of the line, for better services. They effectively have a two-tier health care system. Ontario doesn't. This is because after the federal government yanked a large deal of funding from the provincial health care systems Alberta no longer made enough money to support a health care system at the level Ontario does.
And yet, Alberta's still largely been painted green this election (green being the Alliance official colour, but they are not an environmentalist party). They're looking for dramatic changes to the system, moving towards a system where provinces have more power (according to this article at least) over their money, but they can't afford to.
I honestly don't get it. British Columbia, which is also largely Alliance, has a great deal more money, so I can understand it - they can support themselves in-province, it makes sense.
Finally, and probably most importantly, Canada can not survive as a socialist nation on tax rates comparable to those in the States. It's just not possible to have government run programs without higher taxation.
posted by cCranium at 8:32 AM on November 28, 2000
These do create a massive burden on taxpayers, one which most of us are willing to pay for these benefits.
I find it extremely interesting that vilified Ontario - "chock full of bureaucrats and government-pampered unionists" - is the wealthiest province. Ontario puts more money into the national coffers than any other province (largely due to population, it's not inherently better).
Alberta has a health care system in which people can pay to be bumped to the front of the line, for better services. They effectively have a two-tier health care system. Ontario doesn't. This is because after the federal government yanked a large deal of funding from the provincial health care systems Alberta no longer made enough money to support a health care system at the level Ontario does.
And yet, Alberta's still largely been painted green this election (green being the Alliance official colour, but they are not an environmentalist party). They're looking for dramatic changes to the system, moving towards a system where provinces have more power (according to this article at least) over their money, but they can't afford to.
I honestly don't get it. British Columbia, which is also largely Alliance, has a great deal more money, so I can understand it - they can support themselves in-province, it makes sense.
Finally, and probably most importantly, Canada can not survive as a socialist nation on tax rates comparable to those in the States. It's just not possible to have government run programs without higher taxation.
posted by cCranium at 8:32 AM on November 28, 2000
netbros, Margolis is full of shit.
Other countries call this socialism. In Canada, it's termed `justice and compassion.'
What's wrong with a little socialism? It means everybody.. and I do mean EVERYBODY gets free medicare. That's not such a bad thing, is it? It's one of the few reasons Canada was rated the #1 country to live in, in a study done just a while back (I forget which one.. someone wanna help me out here?)
Decentralization would bring Canada closer to the exemplary model of Switzerland
Um, OK... of course Switzerland's model works. The only people they allow into the country are people who have a networth over x millions of dollars. Any country that works on that premise is bound to succeed regardless of how it handles things. Of course, this is exactly what the Alliance wants though. A country of rich, white Canadians.
*Defense: .... Grade: F
Cutbacks in defense = more money for other things, right? Considering we've got our big brother down south who've "got the bombs" as Dennis Miller would put it, there's little reason for Canada to put so much money into the military when the U.S. already has those bases covered.
*Foreign Relations: ... Grade: D-
Americans and Canadians have been working hand in hand together pretty much since the end of the Great Depression. We have the longest unguarded national border, and are extremely closely tied together by trade. How has foreign policy pissed off the Americans?
In three decades, the once mighty Canadian dollar has been stealthily degraded by Ottawa from US$1.06 to today's Trudeau dollar at a humiliating 64 cents. Ver few Canadians understand 40% of their assets has been stolen. A currency once the equal of the Swiss franc has become wampum. The government assures its citizens the debauched dollar does not matter.
The weak dollar DOESN'T matter. It's one of the reasons the Canadian economy is doing as well as it is. Do you know why we have a budget surplus? It's because the low dollar makes our products a bargain, so other countries are encouraged to import our stuff. Take a freaking macroeconomics course, Eric.
Canada is thus denied vital long-term capital inflows, meaning the increasingly uncompetitive and inefficient economy will fall ever further behind the US, Europe, and Asia. There is a total lack of confidence in Canada's economic leadership under the left.
I'd like to see some numbers here to back this claim up. These statements are completely unfounded, and I think if you look at Canada's growth compared against that of the other G7 countries, you'll notice that we have never been at the bottom of the pack. The last time I checked, I believe our growth was only second to that of the United States.
And to say that we're falling behind Europe and Asia is a joke. The Canadian dollar is one of the few currencies to hold its own against the US dollar. All other currencies have been hammered.
I'm so sick of reading crap like this. I'd continue arguing, but this post is getting far too long. And I probably shouldn't have taken his views too seriously considering he can't even spell "Bloc Quebecois" properly.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 8:49 AM on November 28, 2000
Other countries call this socialism. In Canada, it's termed `justice and compassion.'
What's wrong with a little socialism? It means everybody.. and I do mean EVERYBODY gets free medicare. That's not such a bad thing, is it? It's one of the few reasons Canada was rated the #1 country to live in, in a study done just a while back (I forget which one.. someone wanna help me out here?)
Decentralization would bring Canada closer to the exemplary model of Switzerland
Um, OK... of course Switzerland's model works. The only people they allow into the country are people who have a networth over x millions of dollars. Any country that works on that premise is bound to succeed regardless of how it handles things. Of course, this is exactly what the Alliance wants though. A country of rich, white Canadians.
*Defense: .... Grade: F
Cutbacks in defense = more money for other things, right? Considering we've got our big brother down south who've "got the bombs" as Dennis Miller would put it, there's little reason for Canada to put so much money into the military when the U.S. already has those bases covered.
*Foreign Relations: ... Grade: D-
Americans and Canadians have been working hand in hand together pretty much since the end of the Great Depression. We have the longest unguarded national border, and are extremely closely tied together by trade. How has foreign policy pissed off the Americans?
In three decades, the once mighty Canadian dollar has been stealthily degraded by Ottawa from US$1.06 to today's Trudeau dollar at a humiliating 64 cents. Ver few Canadians understand 40% of their assets has been stolen. A currency once the equal of the Swiss franc has become wampum. The government assures its citizens the debauched dollar does not matter.
The weak dollar DOESN'T matter. It's one of the reasons the Canadian economy is doing as well as it is. Do you know why we have a budget surplus? It's because the low dollar makes our products a bargain, so other countries are encouraged to import our stuff. Take a freaking macroeconomics course, Eric.
Canada is thus denied vital long-term capital inflows, meaning the increasingly uncompetitive and inefficient economy will fall ever further behind the US, Europe, and Asia. There is a total lack of confidence in Canada's economic leadership under the left.
I'd like to see some numbers here to back this claim up. These statements are completely unfounded, and I think if you look at Canada's growth compared against that of the other G7 countries, you'll notice that we have never been at the bottom of the pack. The last time I checked, I believe our growth was only second to that of the United States.
And to say that we're falling behind Europe and Asia is a joke. The Canadian dollar is one of the few currencies to hold its own against the US dollar. All other currencies have been hammered.
I'm so sick of reading crap like this. I'd continue arguing, but this post is getting far too long. And I probably shouldn't have taken his views too seriously considering he can't even spell "Bloc Quebecois" properly.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 8:49 AM on November 28, 2000
thirteen: the 53% is the REAL tax rate (i.e. take away income taxes, then sales taxes, etc.), I believe... and it's only 53% for the very top tax bracket.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:47 AM on November 28, 2000
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 10:47 AM on November 28, 2000
After reading that creep Margolis i was already to go off on a rant of my own... thank you PWA Badboy for saving me the trouble. Well said!
posted by Niccola Six at 10:57 AM on November 28, 2000
posted by Niccola Six at 10:57 AM on November 28, 2000
Margolis seems pissed that we have the gall to do things differently than the US. A lot of people seem that way.
The thing about health care here is that for all its warts, it is two things: a) high quality, and b) about half as expensive, as a proportion of GDP, as in the US.
It could be better. The system has been starved of money. But it's money we have - just that people have chosed not to spend on health care. I hope that will change.
The other thing to realize is that we've always had two-tier healthcare in Canada. The "pay-as-you-go, move to the front of the line" tier is called the United States, and if you're rich and need your elective surgery NOW, you've always had the option to go to the US and get it done. And thousands of people do that every year.
Taxes are too high, absolutely. But positing that healthcare is why that is so is a red herring. By keeping a single-payer system we have managed to build a very good system that is relatively inexpensive.
posted by mikel at 11:06 AM on November 28, 2000
The thing about health care here is that for all its warts, it is two things: a) high quality, and b) about half as expensive, as a proportion of GDP, as in the US.
It could be better. The system has been starved of money. But it's money we have - just that people have chosed not to spend on health care. I hope that will change.
The other thing to realize is that we've always had two-tier healthcare in Canada. The "pay-as-you-go, move to the front of the line" tier is called the United States, and if you're rich and need your elective surgery NOW, you've always had the option to go to the US and get it done. And thousands of people do that every year.
Taxes are too high, absolutely. But positing that healthcare is why that is so is a red herring. By keeping a single-payer system we have managed to build a very good system that is relatively inexpensive.
posted by mikel at 11:06 AM on November 28, 2000
Yeah, that's another thing... Margolis pointed out that any American could pay a few hundred dollars per month to have the same level of health insurance. Fact of the matter is, there's a LOT of poor people out there who can't even afford such a luxury.
I remember a while back, here on MeFi, there was a post to a quiz-type game that let you choose the things you could buy for your family if you were a single-income mother of two.
I'd imagine the situation is quite a realistic model, and it's these people that really do benefit from Canada's universal health care and other social programs.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 AM on November 28, 2000
I remember a while back, here on MeFi, there was a post to a quiz-type game that let you choose the things you could buy for your family if you were a single-income mother of two.
I'd imagine the situation is quite a realistic model, and it's these people that really do benefit from Canada's universal health care and other social programs.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 AM on November 28, 2000
Re: 'we got the bombs'
That's Dennis Leary. Different asshole
Otherwise, where do I sign up (-:
posted by alana at 11:21 AM on November 28, 2000
That's Dennis Leary. Different asshole
Otherwise, where do I sign up (-:
posted by alana at 11:21 AM on November 28, 2000
« Older 2 Million ballots - thrown out. | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If there's a minority government, the Liberals are still the "ruling" party, but they'd have to make significantly more deals with other parties to get the bills passed through the House of Commons.
posted by cCranium at 7:49 AM on November 28, 2000