Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I hate the candidate in my riding, but support that party!! Frustrating!!

   

Canadian energy consumption is nowhere near base levels. In fact it is the highest in the world. Case in point: Ontario residents use 30% more energy than New York State residents, and they're a stone throw away from each other.

Trust me, there's certainly enough suburbanites in this country who warm up the GMC Yukon to get a drink from the Starbucks around the corner. We have a long way to go to make our country more efficient, and it will be for our better health, too.

   

And your point? I won't being voting Liberal just to take a shot at SUV driving suburbanites at my own detriment.

The Carbon Tax doesn't just apply to SUV drivers you know or heavy energy consumers you know... even those living efficient lifestyles will see increases in their bills.

   

Again, you are missing the point. I don't know how good you are with economics, but this is how it works.

Take this example. Imagine you are graphing two lines on a cost-time axis. One line shows your expenses if you don't install better insulation in your house, and the energy expenditures as a result. Another line shows your expenses if you put in the insulation, and the building expenses associated with that. At a certain point, you will see the lines intersect.

Over time, the energy efficient upgrade will pay for itself. It could be 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, whatever. When taxes are shifted to energy consumption, that can mean that the upgrade will pay for itself in 1 year rather than 3 years. Hypothetically, of course.

Now multiply this with the millions of homes and businesses across the country, and there become huge gains in efficiency as a nation. It is encouraged by the economic incentives of this tax shift.

If it is implemented correctly, then the average Canadian, by definition will have no change to his tax level. Half the country will have a higher tax level, and the other half will have lower. But the great thing is, you can control how much you pay by your own discretions, unlike income taxes.

   

Lucky you... to have the money lying around to re-insulate your house.

What about those of us who don't?

Heating your home is NOT a discretion... gas to drive to work and school is NOT a discretion... food for your family is NOT a discretion.

And not all of us have the thousands upon thousands of dollars to spend on "energy efficient" upgrades that won't pay themselves off for five or ten years...

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you are the one who "isn't getting it".

   

I'm kind of hoping the GG refuses to dissolve Parliament. That would be funny.

   

I wouldn't find a unelected official overruling our democratically elected government very funny...

I'd expect the powers of the GG post to be re-evaluated after such an event.

   

For a federal election, the candidate in your riding is of litter importance in the grand scheme of things. We are voting on a leader truly, so you have to look at that. I suggest basing your vote on your favorite leader...

... and be sure it's not Stephen Harper. He is Satan.

   

haha you know I'm from newfoundland right??? no one here is going to vote for federal conservatives

   

I beg to differ. I agree that heating, gas and food in many cases are not a 'discretion'. However, the money you spend on those items can be influenced by a variety of lifestyle changes. Some might require some upfront costs, but in the long run they should balance out.

Heating costs can be reduced by dropping your in home temp 1 degree and wearing a sweater. If you can't afford to replace the insulation (I know can't), then replace an old window or two with new ones that trap more heat.

Gas costs can be reduced by either moving closer to where you work/go to school or buying a more efficient vehicle. You don't have to downscale to a compact either. Trade in the pick-up and buy a mini-van instead. Or trade in the big sedan and buy a smaller 4cylinder version.

Even food costs can be reduced, simply by using coupons, buying items in season/on sale, or at a nearby store instead of driving halfway across the city to go to Superstore/Costco/whereever. Eating meals out costs far more than eating at home too.

I'm definitely not suggesting you do all of these steps at once, but gradually over time. I made one step last year, replacing my gas guzzling Taurus with a Jetta Diesel. Now I get double the mileage for about 8% cheaper fuel costs. This year, I rode my bike to work about a dozen times (one hour each way), further reducing fuel costs.

   

Again. Economics. You have to spend money to save money. If the modifications pay themselves off in one year, that means that in year two, year three, year four, etc. you are making money from your upgrade.

But hey, if you like to do nothing that's perfectly okay. I suppose when you have a leak in your roof, you just leave it to grow into a bigger and bigger hole because it will cost too much to fix it today. And when your car has a punctured tire, you probably don't repair it because that's an expensive luxury and you only consider short-term economics.

I walked to school every day that I was a student, and I somehow survived it, so I don't see why today's children need to be taxied one-by-one to school by mommy. Yes, this is an example of discretionary spending.

I'm not angry at people who drive everywhere (despite that it makes them unhealthy and obese), but believe it or not, many auto trips are indeed discretionary. I'm not angry, I'm just showing you examples of how far away Canadians are from being wise with energy usage.

   

Actually, that is the duty of the GG. The State does not answer to the Government. It answers to the Crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair

   

Pretty much a Fait de Complété at this point but if she did tell them no on what grounds could she refuse and have it stick? Your faking it, I don't buy that you can't get along now get back to work?

   

I think exactly that. Harper has managed to pass the bills he set out to. I don't see where he's been blocked, nor been defeated in motions of confidence.

He set the date of the next election, but just wants an election because it may be good timing.

   

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who testified before the Senate Committee examining the bill on Dec. 6, 2006, explained that this "saving provision" was inserted in order to deal with a situation where the government had lost the confidence of the House, making an early election necessary.

Mr. Nicholson went so far as to suggest that if the prime minister were to seek a dissolution before the date fixed for the next election, the governor-general would be entitled to satisfy herself that the prime minister had, in fact, lost the confidence of the House before granting the request.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next