Reform's phoney 'brain drain' issue: bad research or lie?
Steve Ranta
The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
Preston's latest 'factual' basis for this claim was the statistic that
45,000 Canadians moved to the U.S. last year to work.
Unfortunately for the service of truth and reasonable debate, Preston
failed to mention that an approximately equal number of Americans moved
the Canada last year to work.
Continual desperation on the part of right-wingers to find arguments to
make the rich richer are not unexpected.
However, Reform has tried to maintain that it is a party committed to
truth - unlike the established Eastern pro-elite parties which will lie to
the common people to keep the elites in control.
Now Preston has been caught red-handed misleading Canadians with a false
argument for further enrichening high-income Canadians at the expense of
social services for all.
It must stretch even a Reformer's gullibility to accept that Preston's lie
was just a mistake.
However, even if it was a mistake, what does that say about the integrity
of information from Reform, and perhaps even where their information comes
from?
Why was Reform apparently armed with information from the U.S. Immigration
serice, but not from Immigration Canada, which was readily available?
Everything from Preston's Lincoln quotes, through his father's
subservience to American oil companies, through to Reform's calls for
Canada to become more like America points suspiciously to foreign control
of Reform's agenda.
The fact that Preston's brain drain 'fact' was used in the context of a
call to make Canada more like the U.S. by reducing taxes on high income
earners and cutting government services adds to the concern.
The challenge for Reformers who believe their party has some integrity is
to publicly request an apology from Preston. If none is forthcoming, the
conclusion that Reform is a top-down, pro-elite party which will lie to
push a pro-American agenda becomes more and more obvious.
- -
Steve Ranta
Fredrick Ghahramani
You're completely Right! There are foreign interests controlling the
Reform Party....but they're not Americans! It's the Illuminati and the
Freemasons. It's gotta be. That whole quote about highly skilled Canadians
leaving to work in the US...geddit? WORK in the US? And what is work
directly related to? Unions! And what are Unions related to? Jimmy Hoffa!
And what's hoffa related to? Italian Mobsters, who come from florence, who
opposed Musolini by going underground in their masonic temples. so....
CLEARLY! Reform's bottoms up approach is a sham to funnel funding to the
Illuminati and freemasons....wait till I get to the Nicaraguan Geurrilas!
As such, I as a member of the Refom Party DEMAND Preston Manning
publically make the following claims:
1. Reform does not have Bulsheviks in it's toilets.
2. Freemasonary be left between an adult male and his doctor.
The future of our party is riding on it.
>- -
>Steve Ranta
--
+============================+
|Frederick Ghahramani Esquire|
|"Ayatollah of Rock'n-Rolla!"|
| SFU Engineering Science |
Lech K. Lesiak
> However, Reform has tried to maintain that it is a party committed to
> truth - unlike the established Eastern pro-elite parties which will lie to
> the common people to keep the elites in control.
Anyone who believed that Reform was committed to truth ain't been to any
of their gatherings. I went to few of them in Calgary when Reform first
started up and were not known in the rest of the country. Their
obfuscation was apparent to anyone with any grey matter between his ears.
At that time Reform was on a reduce government spending and a Triple-E
senate kick. When I asked Preston Manning why they wanted an elected
senate when all estimates showed it would cost anywhere from three to ten
times as much as what we now have, he avoided answering the question.
Sounds just like the leaders of the other parties, doesn't it?
I stopped going to Reform meetings because I was starting to feel like a
Jew at a Nazi party rally.
Salut,
Lech
Calgary, Alberta
Tiresias
Steve Ranta wrote in message ...
>The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
>was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
>forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
>
>Sorry, but Preston was using accurate statistics, Steve. These were
printed in the FP. There are far, far more educated and entrepreneurial
Canadians going to the U.S. than the reverse. It stands to reason. Taxes
are much lower and jobs far more plentiful in the U.S.
Steve Ranta
In article <78cl1.65$Vd5.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Tiresias"
<tire...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Steve Ranta wrote in message ...
> >The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
> >was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
> >forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
> >
> >Sorry, but Preston was using accurate statistics, Steve. These were
> printed in the FP. . .
Unfortunately, Preston twisted the truth completely around by omitting the
statistics that showed that there was no net drain of workers.
. . .There are far, far more educated and entrepreneurial
> Canadians going to the U.S. than the reverse. It stands to reason. Taxes
> are much lower and jobs far more plentiful in the U.S.
There is a large brain drain from New Zealand to Australia, even though
right-wingers over here generally admire New Zealand's right-wing, high
income disparity economy.
- -
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <6n3dp2$d...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, "Lech K. Lesiak"
<lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
. . .
> Anyone who believed that Reform was committed to truth ain't been to any
> of their gatherings. . .
I remember going to a town hall meeting which started with the new Reform
M.P. saying she wanted to hear local concerns so she could represent them,
and the continued with the M.P. then answering most audience concerns with
the suggestion that they be submitted to the Reform policy conference.
The audience, especially those who found out they had been duped by
Reform's promises, was not pleased. There were no more town hall
meetings.
. . .
> Sounds just like the leaders of the other parties, doesn't it?
> I stopped going to Reform meetings because I was starting to feel like a
> Jew at a Nazi party rally.
It was clear toeverybody at the town hall meeting that many of the Reform
supporters in the audience were extremely interested in talk of
immigration limits, which they took as support for racism.
In any case, the hypocrisy of a top-down, pro-corporation party
masquerading as 'populist' makes Reform a non-starter as a serious
grassroots movement.
- -
Steve Ranta
David Deilley
Ross John Lambourn, using the fake name Tiresias, wrote:
>
> Steve Ranta wrote in message ...
> >The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
> >was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
> >forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
>Sorry, but Preston was using accurate statistics, Steve.
As far as they went - yes. His dishonesty is found in his lie of
omission. Of course, I would expect to find YOU defending dishonest
debating techniques. You constantly try this yourself in the
newsgroups.
> These were
> printed in the FP. There are far, far more educated and entrepreneurial
> Canadians going to the U.S. than the reverse.
Cited with out a source.
Based on your own record of lies and economic illiteracy, I don't
believe a word of it.
lu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Fredrick Ghahramani (fgha...@sfu.ca) wrote:
: You're completely Right! There are foreign interests controlling the
: Reform Party....but they're not Americans! It's the Illuminati and the
: Freemasons. It's gotta be. That whole quote about highly skilled Canadians
: leaving to work in the US...geddit? WORK in the US? And what is work
: directly related to? Unions! And what are Unions related to? Jimmy Hoffa!
: And what's hoffa related to? Italian Mobsters, who come from florence, who
: opposed Musolini by going underground in their masonic temples. so....
: CLEARLY! Reform's bottoms up approach is a sham to funnel funding to the
: Illuminati and freemasons....wait till I get to the Nicaraguan Geurrilas!
: As such, I as a member of the Refom Party DEMAND Preston Manning
: publically make the following claims:
: 1. Reform does not have Bulsheviks in it's toilets.
: 2. Freemasonary be left between an adult male and his doctor.
: The future of our party is riding on it.
: +============================+
: |Frederick Ghahramani Esquire|
: |"Ayatollah of Rock'n-Rolla!"|
: | SFU Engineering Science |
--
Wow! Rabid and ungrammatical...Do they breed them at SFU or just give
them the RIGHT training?
David Deilley
lu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> Wow! Rabid and ungrammatical...Do they breed them at SFU or just give
> them the RIGHT training?
Well... he DID say he was in Engineering.
Steve Ranta
In article <35955DD2...@coastnet.com>, David Deilley
<blo...@coastnet.com> wrote:
> Ross John Lambourn, using the fake name Tiresias, wrote:
> >
> > Steve Ranta wrote in message ...
> > >The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
> > >was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
> > >forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
>
> >Sorry, but Preston was using accurate statistics, Steve.
>
> As far as they went - yes. His dishonesty is found in his lie of
> omission. . .
And the connection Preston makes between the supposed 'brain drain' and
the need to cut back government and increase the take-home pay of high
income earners.
- -
Steve Ranta
John Corman
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 17:55:44 GMT, sra...@direct.ca (Steve Ranta)
wrote:
>The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
>was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
>forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
>45,000 Canadians moved to the U.S. last year to work.
>Unfortunately for the service of truth and reasonable debate, Preston
>failed to mention that an approximately equal number of Americans moved
>the Canada last year to work.
Knowing that you would never post without some credible reference, I
wonder if it indicates the demographics of these two migrating groups.
For example, if one high tech entrepreneur leaves Canada for the US
and in return we get the girl friend of a welfare recipient, its only
a fair exchange in your eyes Steve.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Steven C. Britton
Steve Ranta wrote:
>
>And the connection Preston makes between the supposed 'brain drain' and
>the need to cut back government and increase the take-home pay of high
>income earners.
Had you looked beyond your Fascist ideals, Steve, you would have noticed
that Reform's tax relief would save a family with two working parents,
combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and a
two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
taxes.
The base personal amount would be raised to $7,900, which takes a whole pile
of low-income earners right off the tax roles.
That's hardly tax cuts to the rich.
=================================================================
Being Reform is Never Having to say you're Tory
=================================================================
Steven C. Britton
sbritton at nucleus dot com -- To annoy spammers
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1386
Sean Holland
In article <35969...@news.nucleus.com>, "Steven C. Britton"
<spamb...@spam.spam> wrote:
>
>Had you looked beyond your Fascist ideals, Steve, you would have noticed
>that Reform's tax relief would save a family with two working parents,
>combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and a
>two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
>taxes.
>
>The base personal amount would be raised to $7,900, which takes a whole pile
>of low-income earners right off the tax roles.
>
>That's hardly tax cuts to the rich.
If the above is true I'm almost tempted to vote Reform. However, on the
issue of professionals moving to the US to make a big pile of money
instead of just a pile, I don't get it. You couldn't pay me to live down
there rather than here. Well, maybe you could, but it would have to be
enough that I could come back to Canada to retire after a year.
--
Sean Holland
Steven C. Britton
Sean Holland wrote:
> Steven C. Britton wrote:
>> ... Reform's tax relief would save a family with two working parents,
>>combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and a
>>two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
>>taxes.
>>
>>The base personal amount would be raised to $7,900, which takes a whole
pile
>>of low-income earners right off the tax roles.
>>
>>That's hardly tax cuts to the rich.
>
> If the above is true I'm almost tempted to vote Reform.
The above is true.
It would be accomplished through
(a) increasing the Base Personal Amount from $6,456 to $7,900 which brings a
whole swack of low-income earners off the tax roles.
(This also could be indexed to inflation which eliminates a phenomenon
called "bracket creep" where people who receive annual raises equal to
inflation don't suddenly find themselves paying tax)
(b) eliminating the 3% annual surtax introduced by the Federal Tories.
(c) increasing the Spousal Amount from $5,380 to $7,900.
(d) extending the child care deduction to all parents of children under 12,
regardless of whether they use receiptable third-party child care or not.
(Currently, it's only available to those who use day-care centres.)
(e) Cutting EI premiums by 28% (since there's a massive surplus in the fund
(creating the false image of a balanced federal budget) this won't hurt
anyone.)
(f) Eliminating the 5% surtax on high income earners.
(g) Cutting capital gains taxes in half.
[Fresh Start platform document, Page 11]
>However, on the
>issue of professionals moving to the US to make a big pile of money
>instead of just a pile, I don't get it. You couldn't pay me to live down
>there rather than here. Well, maybe you could, but it would have to be
>enough that I could come back to Canada to retire after a year.
When I graduated from school here in Calgary, about half my class went to
the States to work. Worse than that, when my girlfriend graduated from the
same course 8 months later, 2/3 of her class went to the States to work.
Why? Lower taxes, higher wages, and more job prospects.
Steve Ranta's spin on the brain drain being "Reform Lies" is just a case of
the pot
saying to the kettle, "You're black!" It's happening. It can be stopped by
reducing taxes -- not for the "rich", but for everybody.
David Deilley
Steven C. Britton wrote:
>
> Steve Ranta wrote:
> >
> >And the connection Preston makes between the supposed 'brain drain' and
> >the need to cut back government and increase the take-home pay of high
> >income earners.
>
> combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and a
> two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
> taxes.
And what would it cost them in
a) offsettiong taxes/user fees elsewhere?
b) deficit financing (the Harris approach to tax cuts)?
c) loss of public services?
Steve Ranta
In article <35975363...@news.island.net>, jco...@island.net (John
Corman) wrote:
. . .
> Knowing that you would never post without some credible reference, I
> wonder if it indicates the demographics of these two migrating groups.
> For example, if one high tech entrepreneur leaves Canada for the US
> and in return we get the girl friend of a welfare recipient. . .
It's probably because of Free Trade and the de-industrialisation of Canada
by the transnationals.
- -
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
. . .
> The base personal amount would be raised to $7,900, which takes a whole pile
> of low-income earners right off the tax roles.
That's not much of a break for low-income earners compared to Reform's
proposal to cut capital gains taxes and income taxes on the rich by 5%.
- -
Steve Ranta
Steven C. Britton
Steve Ranta wrote:
>. . .
>> The base personal amount would be raised to $7,900, which takes a whole
pile
>> of low-income earners right off the tax roles.
>
>That's not much of a break for low-income earners compared to Reform's
>proposal to cut capital gains taxes and income taxes on the rich by 5%.
Consider where there will be more use made. A family of two working parents
each making $30,000 a year would save over 80% of their taxes! Since the
$30K is roughly 25% taxed, each is NOW paying $7,500 in tax. ($15,000
combined). That family would SAVE $12,750 under Reform's plan.
That's like going from an income of $45,000 a year to $57,750 a year!
That's a HUGE difference -- 22% raise!
Compare that to 5% of whatever you would consider to be a rich person's
income; and add that on to the fact that most people have already taken
advantage of the capital gains issue anyway...
Since you seem to be perpetually unable to define WHO a rich person is, I
will wait for your answer with interest.
Lech K. Lesiak
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, John Corman wrote:
> Knowing that you would never post without some credible reference, I
> wonder if it indicates the demographics of these two migrating groups.
> For example, if one high tech entrepreneur leaves Canada for the US
> and in return we get the girl friend of a welfare recipient, its only
> a fair exchange in your eyes Steve.
Do you really believe that US welfare recipients easily get into Canada?
The last immigrant from the US that I met is a linguistics prof at the U
of A. I suspect she is more representative of the average immigrant from
the US than are welfare recipients or LA gang members.
Cheers,
Lech
Steve Ranta
In article <6n8hgr$u...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, "Lech K. Lesiak"
<lkle...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
. . .
> The last immigrant from the US that I met is a linguistics prof at the U
> of A. I suspect she is more representative of the average immigrant from
> the US than are welfare recipients or LA gang members.
Which raises the question of whether it is worse to have foreigners taking
jobs from Canadians, or whether it is worse to have people trained at your
society's expense leave to work in other countries.
- -
Steve Ranta
Steven C. Britton
David Deilley wrote
>Steven C. Britton wrote:
>>
>> Had you looked beyond your Fascist ideals, Steve, you would have noticed
>> that Reform's tax relief would save a family with two working parents,
>> combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and
a
>> two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
>> taxes.
>
>And what would it cost them in
>
Doesn't matter in that respect. The important institutions such as health
care would be preserved as they are -- with $4 Billion more put into Health
Care.
> b) deficit financing (the Harris approach to tax cuts)?
Actually, the deficit would have been eliminated first (without lying to
Canadians by including the E.I. surplus in the figures) and then taxes would
have been reduced. Secondly, institutions such as the CBC would have been
privatized, saving billions right there -- annually.
> c) loss of public services?
If the loss of the CBC is a "loss of a public service" so much the better.
David Deilley
Steven C. Britton wrote:
>
> David Deilley wrote
> >Steven C. Britton wrote:
> >>
> >> Had you looked beyond your Fascist ideals, Steve, you would have noticed
> >> that Reform's tax relief would save a family with two working parents,
> >> combined income of $60,000 a year ($30,000 each) 31.7% of their tax; and
> a
> >> two-parent family with one parent working for $30,000 a year 84% of their
> >> taxes.
> >
> >And what would it cost them in
> > c) loss of public services?
>
> If the loss of the CBC is a "loss of a public service" so much the better.
Ahh... now the Reformer gets vague. Billions of dollars in tax cuts
finacnced by chopping the CBC? I don't think so.
P.S. Millions of Canadians actually love the CBC - esp. radio. I am
sure it is one of the reasons that some people won't vote for reform.
Sean Holland
In article <3597F87D...@coastnet.com>, David Deilley
<blo...@coastnet.com> wrote:
(snip)
>P.S. Millions of Canadians actually love the CBC - esp. radio. I am
>sure it is one of the reasons that some people won't vote for reform.
Reform's plan to privatize the CBC is certainly one reason I can't
bring myself to vote for them, no matter how much I'm hurting financially
and looking wistfully at their promises of tax breaks. One thing that
troubles me about Reform is that they don't seem to mind us being absorbed
culturally by the US. Their apparent indifference to this danger is one of
the main reasons I can't bring myself to support them. (Note that I used
the term "bring myself to...." twice, indicating that there ARE things
about Reform that tempt me, but not enough, I'm afraid.)
--
Sean Holland
David Deilley
Sean Holland wrote:
>
> In article <3597F87D...@coastnet.com>, David Deilley
> <blo...@coastnet.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >P.S. Millions of Canadians actually love the CBC - esp. radio. I am
> >sure it is one of the reasons that some people won't vote for reform.
> Reform's plan to privatize the CBC is certainly one reason I can't
> bring myself to vote for them,
It also illustrates their "blind spot" thinking. They assume that
everyone in Canada who isn't a Stalinist hates the CBC -- it is beyond
them that there are people who shere their goal of lower taxes who
actually also believe the CBC is a valuable national institution.
Steven C. Britton
Sean Holland wrote:
>
> Reform's plan to privatize the CBC is certainly one reason I can't
>and looking wistfully at their promises of tax breaks.
First of all, CBC-Radio and SRC-Radio would go nowhere under Reform. They
would be retained as crown corporations.
If you want CBC-TV that badly, you won't mind a PBS-Style setup.
>One thing that troubles me about Reform is that they don't seem to mind us
being
>absorbed culturally by the US. Their apparent indifference to this danger
is one of
>the main reasons I can't bring myself to support them.
You've been swayed by the fear-mongering of the other parties. This will
not, can not and wouldn't happen.
I. Am. Canadian.
The CBC doesn't protect my Canadian identity. I do.
(Since the CBC has less than a 20% market share of Canadians, it's
irrelevent.)
>(Note that I used the term "bring myself to...." twice, indicating that
there ARE things
>about Reform that tempt me, but not enough, I'm afraid.)
What would Reform have to do to get your support? If you hold the following
four principles, (a) fiscal responsibility, (b) social responsibility (c)
democratic accountability, and (d) the idea of a Reformed Federalism (equal
citizens and provinces in law rather than the current "more equal than
others" approach) then we have some common ground on which to talk; so let's
talk!
Steven C. Britton
David Deilley wrote:
>> > c) loss of public services?
>>
>> If the loss of the CBC is a "loss of a public service" so much the
better.
>
>Ahh... now the Reformer gets vague. Billions of dollars in tax cuts
>finacnced by chopping the CBC? I don't think so.
Nothing vague there... I'll quote from Fresh Start again:
" the following departments and agencies will disappear, with any retained
programs integrated into a smaller, more streamlined federal government:
* Regional Development Authorities
* Office of Official Languages
* All Secretaries of State
* CRTC
"The following three Crown corporations will be privatized:
* CBC - TV and SRC-TV [CBC and SRC Radio will be retained, as will NewsWorld
and Reseau de L'information (RDI)]
(Read that twice, David, just to make sure you see that Reform would
actually KEEP CBC Radio)
* Via Rail
* Canada Post (in a manner that ensures all Canadians -- including rural
Canadians -- are guaranteed at least the level of service they receive
today)
"Four major departments will be very significantly reduced in scope, with
remaining activities merged into a smaller number of departments.
Individual programs in these departments that are essential, which can be
shown to be in the national interest, or clearly have broad taxpayer support
will be retained:
* Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada, Museums Canada and amateur sports funding
will be retained).
* Indian Affairs and Northern Development (treaty obligations to Canada's
First Nations will be respected).
* Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
* Transport
"More modest additional savings will be achieved by merging, refocusing, or
reducing spending in the following departments and agencies:
* Finance, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry, Justice, and
Solicitor General, National Defence, National Revenue, Public Works,
Treasury Board, Privy Council Office, Parliament, Citizenship and
Immigration, Human Resources Development, Agriculture, Natural Resources,
Fisheries and Oceans (the Coast Guard will be transferred to Defence)"
So much for your accusation that I was getting vague...
>P.S. Millions of Canadians actually love the CBC - esp. radio. I am
>sure it is one of the reasons that some people won't vote for reform.
Since (a) Reform would keep CBC Radio, that's a non-starter; and (b) if
people love CBC-TV so much, then they won't mind paying for it in either a
PBS-style format, or buying it scrambled like you buy the upper cable
channels. There's no reason people who don't get cable shouldn't be able to
rent a de-scrambler for their antenna either.
David Deilley
You WERE getting vague - no question about it.
Thank you for the additional information.
Could you go one step further and put savings figures beside these?
David Deilley
Steven C. Britton wrote:
> What would Reform have to do to get your support?
Get rid of the nutbars, anti-french bigots and cranks in the party for a
start.
> If you hold the following
> four principles, (a) fiscal responsibility,
You mean like Saskatchewan - yes. Like Ontario (which is probaly closer
to your Reform vision) - NEVER!
I don't trust reform on this.
(b) social responsibility
You mean a country where blacks and gays get sent to the back of the
store, and where government imposes hateful bible-belt morality on the
population? No thanks.
> (c)
> democratic accountability,
This from a party that cheers an MP who threatens fisticuffs in the
House of Commons. Give me a fucking break!
> and (d) the idea of a Reformed Federalism (equal
> citizens and provinces in law rather than the current "more equal than
> others" approach) then we have some common ground on which to talk; so let's
> talk!
Reform doesn't want reformed federalism - it wants a balkanized,
weakened country with a castrated national government - easy pickings
for the Americans.
Bill Robinson
Steve:
The brain drain is real. Ask any high tech company owner. The NDP have
their head stuck in the sand on high taxes and the "spend spend spend"
mentality. High taxes redsitribute high income earners. Programmers and
scientists work hard and put in long hours for their money. They want to
keep more than 30 to 40%.
Steve Ranta wrote:
>
> The centrepiece of Reform's latest push for reducing taxes on the wealthy
> was Preston's claim that Canada's high taxes and big government were
> forcing Canadians to go to the U.S. to work.
>
> Preston's latest 'factual' basis for this claim was the statistic that
> 45,000 Canadians moved to the U.S. last year to work.
>
> Unfortunately for the service of truth and reasonable debate, Preston
> failed to mention that an approximately equal number of Americans moved
> the Canada last year to work.
>
> Continual desperation on the part of right-wingers to find arguments to
> make the rich richer are not unexpected.
>
> However, Reform has tried to maintain that it is a party committed to
> truth - unlike the established Eastern pro-elite parties which will lie to
> the common people to keep the elites in control.
>
> Now Preston has been caught red-handed misleading Canadians with a false
> argument for further enrichening high-income Canadians at the expense of
> social services for all.
>
> It must stretch even a Reformer's gullibility to accept that Preston's lie
> was just a mistake.
>
> However, even if it was a mistake, what does that say about the integrity
> of information from Reform, and perhaps even where their information comes
> from?
>
> Why was Reform apparently armed with information from the U.S. Immigration
> serice, but not from Immigration Canada, which was readily available?
>
> Everything from Preston's Lincoln quotes, through his father's
> subservience to American oil companies, through to Reform's calls for
> Canada to become more like America points suspiciously to foreign control
> of Reform's agenda.
>
> The fact that Preston's brain drain 'fact' was used in the context of a
> call to make Canada more like the U.S. by reducing taxes on high income
> earners and cutting government services adds to the concern.
>
> The challenge for Reformers who believe their party has some integrity is
> to publicly request an apology from Preston. If none is forthcoming, the
> conclusion that Reform is a top-down, pro-elite party which will lie to
> push a pro-American agenda becomes more and more obvious.
>
> - -
> Steve Ranta
--
Bill Robinson
Socialism is the concept. Facism is the typical instantiation.
Steven C. Britton
David Deilley wrote:
>Thank you for the additional information.
>Could you go one step further and put savings figures beside these?
Not for the individual programs, but I can tell you the total figure would
be a savings of about $15 billion.
Steven C. Britton
David Deilley (who is beginning to sound like an Ian McKenna alter-ego)
wrote:
>Steven C. Britton wrote:
>
>> What would Reform have to do to get your support?
>
>Get rid of the nutbars, anti-french bigots and cranks in the party for a
>start.
Really smart answer there, Dave. You make it sound like ALL Reformers are
like this; while I'll admit that, as with all organizations, there are a
FEW (and a very small few), the VAST MAJORITY of Reformers are reasonable,
caring people who actually want to improve Canada.
>> If you hold the following four principles, (a) fiscal responsibility,
>
>You mean like Saskatchewan - yes. Like Ontario (which is probaly closer
>to your Reform vision) - NEVER!
>I don't trust reform on this.
You support raising taxes to eliminate a deficit. Real smart. Kill the
economy further. Ya, okay.
Harris/Klein have it right. (I think Klein got it better, but Harris is
doing the right thing)
>(b) social responsibility
>
>You mean a country where blacks and gays get sent to the back of the
>store, and where government imposes hateful bible-belt morality on the
>population? No thanks.
Smart. Bring up a quote that was taken completely out of context over three
years ago. Nice try.
This is yet another lie perpetuated by Reform's enemies and the
Reformophobic media.
>> (c) democratic accountability,
>
>This from a party that cheers an MP who threatens fisticuffs in the
>House of Commons. Give me a fucking break!
You're a racist, David.
>> and (d) the idea of a Reformed Federalism (equal
>> citizens and provinces in law rather than the current "more equal than
>> others" approach) then we have some common ground on which to talk; so
let's
>> talk!
>
>Reform doesn't want reformed federalism - it wants a balkanized,
>weakened country with a castrated national government - easy pickings
>for the Americans.
B.S. Reform wants a strengthened country where the provinces have control
over their own distinct characteristics. Centralizing government is what
weakens this country, not decentralizing it.
If you think about it, what's the best way to ensure a good RRSP portfolio?
all in one place or a diversified (decentralized) portfolio? The answer is
obvious.
kflo...@kermode.net
>Steve:
>
>The brain drain is real. Ask any high tech company owner. The NDP have
>their head stuck in the sand on high taxes and the "spend spend spend"
>mentality. High taxes redsitribute high income earners. Programmers and
>scientists work hard and put in long hours for their money. They want to
>keep more than 30 to 40%.
Wouldn't we all..
K