Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't rile me up because Alberta got those revenues because of the constitution which says that they belong to the province.

The Atlantic provinces didn't get the revenue because the constitution said that off-shore resources belonged to the feds.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to see the socialists try to stomp on Alberta. Do they believe that everyone should go back to farming? With BSE and the price of cattle, it's not realistic. You think you have separtists in Quebec? If we get effed around again, you'll probably be looking at the Republic of Alberta.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm just saying the federal government revenues are being boosted by the big jump in the price of oil and that I think they should use some of that extra money to help EVERYONE deal with implications of the big jump in oil prices. I don't think they are doing a good job in doing that.


Why everyone? What exactly do you mean and propose by help?
Helping seniors on a fixed income who arent able to pay for the increase in the cost of energy to heat their homes is one thing. This is very different than the Canadian govt artifically keeping the price of energy down. The rising cost of energy is or will be very soon an issue in every country as we have global demand increase.

Countries that have done what you suggest are Saudi Arabia with Saudi Aramco, Venezuela under Chavez, and of course Russia under Putin. Now as you say this is a grey issue.

On the one hand these measure allow the governments to control the resources and implement populist programs (generally to support the regime and help the people). In this sense they are attractive, support the socialist ideology, and are often successful in the short run.

But, I as a pro-freetade/capitialism/globalizationer feel that in the long run it will only drive up costs, discourage investment, and make the whole process less efficient and therefore overall less beneficial to Canada. Whereas if we artifically keep the price down by helping people cope we will lose money because people will consume more and we will sell at a lower price than what we could get by selling to the Americans.

If we want to sell our oil on the free market Canadians must deal with the real price of energy.
plantguy





Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 452
Reputation: 96.8Reputation: 96.8
votes: 1
Location: Lower Economy, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you ever looked at those little stickers on the side of gas pumps showing how much of the cost of gas is taxes. The Feds and the Provinces could go a long way to reducing the cost of energy (especially heating fuel) without regulating energy costs or imposing restictions on the oil companies. Wasn't it part of the Cons election platform to cap gas when the cost exceeded $1.15/ltr.? We're there now, so I think its a promise worth implementing.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Helping seniors on a fixed income who arent able to pay for the increase in the cost of energy to heat their homes is one thing.


Don't forget, GST is charge on home heating fuel, and Harper cut the GST.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Wasn't it part of the Cons election platform to cap gas when the cost exceeded $1.15/ltr.? We're there now, so I think its a promise worth implementing.


It was part of the 2004 platform, not the one the CPC was elected on.

According to his comments concerning the 2004 proposal for pharmacare, Harper considers the 2004 platform to have been rejected by voters and due to this is no longer part of the priorities of the party.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
Helping seniors on a fixed income who arent able to pay for the increase in the cost of energy to heat their homes is one thing.


Don't forget, GST is charge on home heating fuel, and Harper cut the GST.


Good point about the GST, Cool Blue. Also if you look at seniors who are "surviving" on old age and canada pension, maybe a little interest off of their money in the bank. They also receive from the federal government $7,188.60 along with the max OAS of $5,952.00 plus they also receive a provincial benefit of $2,759.04. So with an income of around $16,000 they also do not pay any tax. This is for a single senior.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Tuna wrote:
First of all I'm not proposing changing our economic system to socialism.

It sure sounds like that's what you're advocating. Please show me any point of what you're arguing that doesn't fit into the definition of socialism.

Big Tuna wrote:
Second of all I'm not even going to bother arguing with someone who beleives "socialism has not helped anybody ever". There are plenty of examples of "socialism" that benefit people greatly. A great example is our local credit union.

Open YOUR mind up a bit. The short-term benefits which you're claiming as being helpful are like feeding an infant nothing but stolen candy. In the short-term, the kid is happy but in the long term, not so good. Credit unions aren't a good example of socialism. They're a good example of capitalism.

Big Tuna wrote:
Also, if our medicare system has never helped anybody ever I must be missing something.

Again, you're talking about short-term benefits. Open up your mind to a bigger picture. Our medicare system is deeply flawed and hugely expensive but it's a sacred cow which was untouchable under the previous administration. Let's hope the Conservatives butt out of medicare and allow the provinces to find solutions which include private clinics.

Big Tuna wrote:
Sometimes working together to benefit everyone isn't that crazy an idea. Open up your mind a bit. The world isn't black and white.

How hilarious to hear you asking others to open their minds since you yourself are so closed-minded.

-Mac
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL. It's funny how this has become a debate about socialism!
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
LOL. It's funny how this has become a debate about socialism!

That's essentially what the whole discussion hinges on, isn't it? It's amazing how so many who legitimately believe themselves to be conservatives yet they easily advocate for interference in the economy for socialist reasons.

-Mac
plantguy





Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 452
Reputation: 96.8Reputation: 96.8
votes: 1
Location: Lower Economy, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't reducing the taxes on energy be the opposite of socialism? As the prices go up, the decrease in the GST is largly eliminated, as the tax is a percentage, not a flat tax
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plantguy wrote:
Wouldn't reducing the taxes on energy be the opposite of socialism? As the prices go up, the decrease in the GST is largly eliminated, as the tax is a percentage, not a flat tax

Have you ever noticed those stickers on the petroleum pumps which give a breakdown of how much taxation there is on fuel? If those taxes were reduced, the ripple effect throughout the economy would be huge, simply huge.

The problem is until the various levels of government implement significant program cuts, they can't afford to significantly reduce taxation. There are many Trudeau-topian legacy programs which should be axed, it's ridiculous. It isn't even a matter of reducing services, it's a matter ending duplication of services (especially where those services interfere in provincial jurisdiction), ending funding to multicultural experiments, dumping idiocies of dubious worth like "Official Bilingualism" and suchlike.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think changes in the price of gas affect anything in the short term. You still have the same car, you can't just switch cars on short notice (unless you are Craig or gc). You are still going to work, and all the same places, probably at the same time. When the price goes up, you may see the beginnings of a shift to smaller cars after a year or two. Same thing when the price drops, there is not going to be a mad rush to trade in the all the Smart Fortwos' on 1967 Cadillacs, there is not going to be some huge spike in demand.

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f.....html#34239
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I don't think changes in the price of gas affect anything in the short term. You still have the same car, you can't just switch cars on short notice (unless you are Craig or gc). You are still going to work, and all the same places, probably at the same time. When the price goes up, you may see the beginnings of a shift to smaller cars after a year or two. Same thing when the price drops, there is not going to be a mad rush to trade in the all the Smart Fortwos' on 1967 Cadillacs, there is not going to be some huge spike in demand.

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f.....html#34239

True enough. Even if gas taxes were chopped, many retailers would keep the prices at the same level instead of reflecting the drop in transportation costs. The economy rarely changes quickly. But just in case...



-Mac
plantguy





Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 452
Reputation: 96.8Reputation: 96.8
votes: 1
Location: Lower Economy, Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice car. In my neck of the woods we call them driveway ornaments. Nice to look at, but they never leave the driveway.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Record oil prices

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB