From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:06:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.055802.15759@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>Also, that the GST funds have been earmarked to write down our
>>>deficit helps to reinforce the idea of fiscal responsibility,
>>>something that our population needs to be reminded of repeatedly ...
>
>>so, has the deficit gone down since the GST was introduced?
>
>I don't think that it has gone up as quickly; and remember that they GST
>funds that are to be used for writing off the deficit cannot be used for
>anything else, so the government is enforcing some kind of diet ...

baloney. i can't believe you actually believe this. as i pointed out
in a previous post, the concept of "earmarking" specific funds for 
writing off the deficit is an insidious trick designed to fool the
masses. a deficit means you spend more than you take in. therefore
*all* funds that you take in will reduce the deficit (providing
you don't spend them). what is the difference between applying GST
to the deficit and using income tax to pay welfare programs, or
vice-versa? you think the source of the dollars makes a difference?
it's all an illusion...

and of course the deficit hasn't gone up as quickly... if they
raise the income tax rates another few points it will probably
again go up less slowly. is that supposed to be an accomplishment?
"we took in more taxes and reduced the *rate* at which we increase
the *rate* at which we spend more than we take in?" what an
outrageous claim. you *sure* you don't work for the government?

>>look, i have filed both canadian and US income tax returns in the last
>>year. there is *no* comparison. i did a rough calculation before
>>i moved here that showed that a gross salary of $250,000 in canada
>>is equivalent to a salary of $140,000 in the states in terms of
>>purchasing power. and that doesn't even take into account the difference
>>in the value of the dollar. (no, my wife and i don't make anywhere near
>>that amount -- but i hope that we will be able to some day).
>
>You lost tons of deductions because you're not in Ontario any more.
>You lost a few more 'cos you're outside of Canada.

come on, i've filed canadian returns while living in canada too...
and i've read the books. my wife knows all about this too.
the deductions i have lost have nothing to do with being outside
canada - that is a special, temporary case not worthy of discussion.
>
>>>If you refuse a certain number of assignments, you lose your welfare
>>>up north.
>>
>>oh yeah, this system works real well. i was working for a computer
>>systems firm in '87 in toronto (when things were going well). a
>>man in his 50's walked in the front door, unshaven, in dirty clothes,
>>and asked if we had a job for him. the person responsible said no,
>>so he asked if we could sign a form for the government saying
>>that he had tried to obtain employment.
>
>Shoulda called the Toronto Sun.  They would have eaten it up.

they would have yawned and hung up the phone. happens every day.

>Write
>a letter to your MP.  Have your company president write to his/her MP
>esp. if the MP is in Cabinet -- on letterhead -- we don't make enough
>of a stink on this.

why? so i can be labelled a basher of unemplouyment benefits?
you think they even give a crap? i'm only one vote...

>>how have they moved toward fiscal sensibility? mulroney (conservative)
>>promised to reduce the deficit and instead raised it; peterson
>>(liberal, former premier of ontario) raised the deficit and then
>>covered it up; rae (NDP, current premier of ontario) has been so 
>>fiscally sensible he got the province's credit rating downgraded...
>
>Mulroney had to fight momentum from the 20 years of Trudeau, which
>were all right until the bill came due ... every budget issued has
>been a further clampdown on the treasury ... did you catch last
>week's?  Lots of cuts and the interest groups are screaming ... not
>even George Bush dared to be so bold.  I don't know if it's all that
>well thought out, I'm still catching up with real news ... (-;

i was a big supporter of mulroney and hater of trudeau. but he hasn't
done nearly enough. trudeau's been gone (from parliament anyway)
for a long time.

it's good that he's finally doing something, it took him long enough.
>
>David Peterson had a lot of spending commitments momentum going back
>to the Bill Davis/John Robarts Conservative dynasty and couldn't do
>much; Rae will be a one-term deal and can't inflict that much damage.
>Being from Ontario, you realize that his mandate is a protest vote.

that is bull. david peterson was almost as big a socialist as rae.
and rae will do plenty of damage before he gets turfed out on his ear,
if that happens. he already has. and i don't care that it was a
protest vote -- that matters little as he runs up record deficits
and writes legislation that would make any free-market capitalist
physically ill.

>
>>>don't forget that some of that "socialism" (if you use the broad,
>>>all-encompassing American definition) was instigated by the
>>>business establishment itself
>>
>>how so?
>
>Health insurance.  In Quebec, private insurers have warned against 
>any thought of reprivatizing portions of their provincial plan last
>spring.  I've not heard a peep out of London, ON about reprivatizing
>the basic health portion ...

poor reasoning. the fact that they don't want to have it reprivatized
is not the same as "instigating" it. and that statement is likely
misleading anyway. the reason they are not interested in reprivatization
is that it would be accompanied by a slew of regulations. in other
words, it wouldn't be true privatization: the gov't would say
to the companies: "ok, you guys provide insurance, but use our
rules, don't dare not cover anyone because it's their fundamental
right, and try not to make any money -- it makes us look bad". if you
don't believe this, look at car insurance.

>>>But there is a trend ... GM closed a plant in Van Nuys, CA and then
>>>consolidated its production in Bromont.  IBM's exploitation of our
>>>Canadian brains comes at the same time that other firms are doing so
>>>in other areas, like Ericsson in Montreal (I'm jobhunting all over 
>>>the continent, it's not just what I'm reading in the papers, and 
>>>I'm amazed at the changes that I've seen up north since the past
>>>five years that I've been out of the market).
>>
>>that's the most optimistic extrapolation i've heard in a long time.
>
>Did you ever look for an R&D job in the mid-80's?  The difference is
>now astounding.  I was a bright Bachelor's graduate and got nowhere.
>I was lucky to hitch onto the BNR/NorTel track through grad school,
>and I owe them a lot.  I look at younger siblings of friends getting
>out of school now (Bachelors, Masters) and where they can get entry
>level R&D jobs, they have a lot more places to send resumes to than
>I did.  Not just me, ask people from 10-15-20 years ago.

you are living in a dream world. you sound like george bush a year ago.

--
charles
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64865 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10470 alt.rush-limbaugh:11946 alt.politics.bush:14755