Matt

Go to www.bcliberals.com, or better yet listen to this?, and read this from their website, yes it's a biased source but it backs up what I say.

Click here to view the trailer. I have to say this looks interesting, I am surprised how many fairly well known people are in this film though.

You seem to be missing information though such as how the budget has been balanced twice under generally accepted accounting principles (the same ones many accountants use), as well as how they payed off some of the debt.

The Liberals have had two balanced budgets under generally accepted accounting priciples. I am talking about what I know. The Liberals have paid off some of the debt even. Did you ever think that maybe you are going to N.D.P. friendly sources? No one is impartial. Also, you can deny it all you want, but the Liberals have put money to pay off the debt this year as well as had two balanced budgets under the generally accepted accounting priciples.

Taxing the rich will in turn make it more difficult for students to live. They control the cost of goods and/or services, who do you think is going to pay the tax at the end of the day? Also why are you so adament on punishing people who were successful at business? They probably struggled too to get to the point they are at. While I would like to see them give it back, I do not think there is a way to force them too. They control the cost of goods and/or services again. Students have to live off of those goods and services too. An increase in price can make their lives just as difficult as before. This can also cause layoffs which would hurt other peoples lives as well. It also leaves less money to help more people who have since been affected.

The cuts happened recently. But the closures never happened, and even though attendance is rising, some of those buildings are aging and it was worth it more to add on to existing schools that are still in really good shape. Also attendance is still low enough that they could close down older schools. Bizud, tuition fees have to stay at the rate of inflation or else the institutions are losing money. You have mentioned how teachers,and nurses deserve raises but what about the administration of the schools? Should they take home less too every year so students can pay less? Adminstration is not an easy job in itself either. Also, the Liberals have paid off the debt this year as well as balanced the budget, the N.D.P. government only balanced the budget twice in all their terms. Privitizations have to be made to some organizations as well. They were losing substantial amounts of money. That money could be better used to be spent on social programs than on ventures that are losing money.

I don't understand what you're talking about with second chances, guy, I just said free education. And some people have a lot more of those dollars, and can thus pay a lot more. Free education would only benefit the best and brightest as shown through the European system. Less people have the chance to use the education system in Europe because it is free. This means the people who did not do well in high school for whatever reason would not get that chance to go college, upgrade their courses and go back onto the education path which can lead to better careers. In Europe, if you are not on the right path towards University, than you have no other choice but to go into apprenticeship programs and lose the chance to do some jobs you may of preffered to do because of low grades. In Canada, more people have the chance to utilize post-secondary education. This means that everyone has to pay a service charge so that more students can use that system though. This means people who may have had to accept jobs they were not interested in before, can now continue to go to school, and if they work hard enough to upgrade their courses, go to university and find the job they would prefer to be doing. Some people will have to work hard to pay for it, some will have to take out student loans, but at this is only temporary compared to a life of having to work crummy jobs simply because some people did not want to pay a little bit of the fee so they could take part in University as well. Ecnarf, you are right homeless people most likely have little work experience. But, usually the higher up jobs do not come into the economy later. What this does is build up peoples work experience as well as create a stepping stone for them. As the company is gaining more and more business in one area they are more likely to begin considering moving an office to that area to over see operations there. This can either help the now former homeless person if they promote within (which some companies (such as hotels)) do, or help a trained professional who learned what he needed to know at one of universities. Lets say the trained professional is one of the second chance people I mentioned who would not have had that chance had there been free education. Right there we have helped two people. The best case secenario is definitely they both get hired for headquater type jobs of course, but at the very least both people are not on the street.

People can keep what possesions they want, but some of what we value are not neccessities. My views on Post-Secondary Education: I believe that is how we can help people. People make mistakes, but especially when they are younger, however, if we adopt a European system like you have suggested, we would be taking away their second chances that Canadians have created over time. I believe people deserve a second chance, especially in Education. It's a trade off to let more people to college and university, but by paying less, less receive the chance to better their careers. Nurses received wage increases lately, but if you would like to see more Nurses, the B.C. Liberals are the way to go in B.C. The N.D.P. did not raise the amount of classroom space in Nursing/health care type courses, the Liberals did. As more people come out of those programs, we are likely to see more nurses around to help relieve the current amount. We can only create the amount of social incomes along with the amount of income we have to spend on them. There are so many dollars, and no more unfortunately. The way to help homeless people is to help them find a job so they can be working, thus having an income coming to hopefully stay off the streets.

Wait...you're saying it'd be okay to restrict what families buy for their kids, but not how much profit a corporation makes? Are you on drugs? That's fascism (one accepted definition for fascism is the government running the economy in collusion with big business). I never said we should restrict what people buy. What I said was is there are ways to conserve money, especially on un-neccesary expenses such as TVs, and Computers in people's bedrooms. If people are so worried about money, that would definitely be one cost saver for people that are not well off. Also the debt has to be paid off, I do not believe we should put that off. We should work out ways to create jobs for people so they can support themselves.

Just because people have taken things in that direction in the past does not mean it will happen again. Already the Liberals in B.C. have increased health care funding for the last three years. The Liberals are remanaging the province, and privitization had to happen in some areas. The ferry service is now run like it's privately owned (and it is in some ways) because it lost so much money. Hydro had to have some of it privitized because they had no money to do anymore projects. The N.D.P. mismanaged things so the Liberals have had to make some very tough calls in the best interests of getting B.C. out of the problems. Sometimes the problem has to get worse before it becomes better.

I'm talking about raising big business tax which will not help at all, ecnarf. I've been through what will probably will happen too already. Business has the right to make money too, they took the risk on the people they employeed and it is expensive to replace people so they should be able to make some money off of the person. Maybe we should rethink what people buy these days too. I know people who do not have a lot of money, yet put computers, tvs, etc. into their kids rooms. Right there could be a cost saver. Money is wasted when it should not be. But if we do not have a strong economy we do not have money to help people that do those types of things. Also the debt has to be paid off or it will continue to build up leaving less for the people every year.

Communism is one form of government, one which you have basically suggested there. What you have to remember is Conservatism is a growing force in North America, which is a throw back to the old. Why it is happening is not really important at this venture, but it is happening. Also we have our social programs to start with, but people need to work, it is unfair for them to say sit around instead of being ""free" to either rent themselves to others", because people will stop working over it. That can damage our economy. Our economy is as ever bit as important as people because it is not possible to help them without money flowing in. You can give examples of other countries, but remember this, Canada is a different country than a European one. I am not saying that we should go copy North American countries either. But we should progress in ways we can like building a stong economy so we can put money back into the programs, like we did in the big boom during the fifties. We should continue to pursue ways of continuing to be understanding everyone. We can try to help people down on their luck, but without money coming in from the economy, our resources to do so are quite limited. I believe the way we can help people is by helping them receive a job. We can use the extra money in from taxes that have now been generated to help more people. And then we can keep working to help people out that way. Also free post-secondary is a bad idea because in Europe less people get to go to University. We do try to help people in this area too because more people have a second chance to turn their school life around, they can go to college and work at trying to become better and they can take University Transfer courses so they can go back onto that path. It is a trade off either way, help more people but you have to charge them some money, or help less people and charge them nothing. I personally would rather see the more people, more money option because some people need it or else they would have to take jobs they do not want to take simply because they cannot go to post-secondary due to lower grades. That is an area we should not generalize because some people can work harder and will given the chance. Canada has been eliminating the debt since 1993, it is a slow process but the Liberals have been working on it.

Actually they should be paid based on how well you do. If you do a good job, you deserve a little extra money, if you do a poor job, you do not. We have to give people a reason to do well or else some will take advantage of that, unfortunately.

.............

People will strike though whenever their wages are lowered though. People do not like to give up extra money it seems. And we have no reason to copy other societies, I think we should progress as Canadians.

Many of the buildings were built after the baby boom when there were far more students that were born during the baby boom utilizing them. Not there are less students compared to when the baby boom happened. Many schools have also had expansions added on to them providing more space in them. So that's why many of the school closures happened. Also teachers can be generalized that way because that is how some people decided whether or not they deserve a raise.

Actually many people would be layed off here to cover the costs of money that is lost. This would have more people out of work, needing help from the government. The more people the government has to help, the less money there is to help them with.

Actually it's been proven, look at the ferry corporation which is starting to turn itself around now that it is being treated like a private corporation. We should aspire to be anybody but ourselves. We should be Canadians, we incorporate other traditions into our own such as the British one, but we do things our own way. We do not copy the rest of the world.

The polls mean nothing, if the Liberals ride it out, they could come out on top again anyways in the future.

Did you ever think that perhaps that they raised tax to such a level that competively the business could not raise the price? Or perhaps they raised the prices at the rate of wage increases, something North American business' have failed to do in the past.

See response to your response in other thread.

The Liberals have been working on creating jobs, but the government cannot run the entire economy, that's more of a socialist principle. While Canada does have some aspects to it that are socialist we are also a democracy and should let people have a chance to create their business too. Plus under crown corporations, raises are rare so there is less incentive to work harder. Under a more free market system there is which leaves us competitive which we should not forget.

Listen to this? It mentions how they have paid down the debt at one point. $1.7 Billion towards the debt. $125 million saved a year in interest costs. And raising taxes or taking debt is un-acceptable because it leaves less for future generations. It's the reason were in this situation now.

As I have said before...

The whole point of proportion is to vote for the person or party you support and they might have some say. The Death Penalty no longer existing is not exactly a popular decision yet it still has not come back. I believe that is a good thing for us, but people disagree. Unpopular decisions can be a good one depending on the situation. If Paul Martin did not know about the scandal that could just mean it had nothing to do with the Liberals but a couple of their party members. I have explained why raising rich peoples taxes would be bad before. They will most likely not pay them, but they will put it into the cost of their goods and/or services. This means it costs more for a poorer person to buy goods, this means they have less buying power. Layoffs follow, which means even more people have less buying power, and more layoffs follow. This could follow into a reccession and possibly even a depression. This does not help poor people, but actual hurts them further because they can buy less then before. This also leaves less money for social programs that could help them out.