[smorgdonkey]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But despite that they got in again eh?

It amazes me what the Canadian public will ignore...yet mention adscam and people STILL get all freaky. When Harper's sh** rolls down hill everyone who voted for him will be able to thank themselves.

[Caelon]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

But despite that they got in again eh?

It amazes me what the Canadian public will ignore...yet mention adscam and people STILL get all freaky. When Harper's sh** rolls down hill everyone who voted for him will be able to thank themselves.

You might want to look at wage and price controls and see if that fits? or NEP or Shawinigate? etc. etc, etc.

[smorgdonkey]

Caelon Caelon:

You might want to look at wage and price controls and see if that fits? or NEP or Shawinigate? etc. etc, etc.

Most people don't get freaky with Shawinigate-not enough people remember what it was...and yes, people out west still get freaky with NEP but at least NEP was a policy that had good intentions and a fundamental flaw. The addition of high and low set-points to trigger a 'revert back to market' would have made the NEP work fine.

[Caelon]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

Caelon Caelon:

You might want to look at wage and price controls and see if that fits? or NEP or Shawinigate? etc. etc, etc.

Most people don't get freaky with Shawinigate-not enough people remember what it was...and yes, people out west still get freaky with NEP but at least NEP was a policy that had good intentions and a fundamental flaw. The addition of high and low set-points to trigger a 'revert back to market' would have made the NEP work fine.

I see you need a memory refresh. When Bob Stanfield campaigned on the need for wage and price controls, which Liberal leader stated it was the worst thing and the Liberals had a better plan. For an extra 10 points how long did it take the same Liberal leader to institute wage and price controls after the election was over?

The NEP only had good intentions if you liked the idea of raping one area of the country for the benefit of another. Trigger points would not have fixed the 'fundamental' flaw.

[smorgdonkey]

With all of the Federal revenue collection and redistribution what would really be the difference between that and any other money?

...and hey...I am not blind...I see whatever administration which happens to be in power alter the opposition's ideas and use them as their own with hardly a coat of paint on them to disguise them as something new!! I am talking about current and former administrations.

[Caelon]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

With all of the Federal revenue collection and redistribution what would really be the difference between that and any other money?

...and hey...I am not blind...I see whatever administration which happens to be in power alter the opposition's ideas and use them as their own with hardly a coat of paint on them to disguise them as something new!! I am talking about current and former administrations.

The philosophy of tranfer payments is to equalize the delivery of government services between the richer and poorer areas of the country. The NEP was specifically designed to strip the wealth being generated in one province where there was no political support for the benefit of a region that formed the power base for the party. It was not for the good of the country.

As for your second point what part of former administration did I miss in my example.

[smorgdonkey]

Well...that's definitely a difference but not as much of a difference given that Canada was viewed as a lot different than the United States back then and what was in Canada was for Canadians not just the province (read:State). Quebec, of course, excluded.

I wasn't making the point that I was unsure about whom you were referring to...I was just making it clear that multiple administrations have 'repackaged' ideas and reintroduced them as something new.