Thursday, September 15, 2011

Daily Digest September 14, 2011


Dechert scandal shows Canadians missed the warnings of Chinese espionage
 China's astonishing industrial engine ­ the best hope of the world's economy in this recession ­ requires a lot of fuel.

>>>>>>>>>> INFOS <<<<<<<<<<



How come for why in the talks about the border and perimeter security that have been going so well
it seems nothing was arrived at as promised not 12 but now 17 months ago? And this is the headline to-day
Canadians anxious over Buy America provision in Obama's jobs act

Buy American' deal

Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Government Procurement

"a commitment to explore the scope for a long term government procurement agreement between Canada and the U.S.,
within the next 12 months, to deepen on a reciprocal basis, procurement commitments beyond those in the WTO GPA and NAFTA."

From: William Wade Izzard Edmonton, Alberta
September 14/11
Joe Hueglin:
The Bob Dechert, MP Theme Song: "The Spy Who Loved Me, Is Keeping All My Secrets Safe Tonight."

From: Dan Kahraman
Subject: Human Rights Violations In Libya
Subject: Dick Cheney warns of Israeli preemptive strike on Iran

From: Robert Ede
To:, torstar <>

Dear Tim & Ed,
After attending the Calgary Congress in 2006 (Link Byfield and Danielle Smith were chairs/hosts) as self-appointed representative from "western Markham", I learned that the real Reform Party slogan was "The West wants In ......or else".
After Majority (via PQ candidates masquerading as PC's - sound familiar?) Mulroney 1984-1988 (also) pandered to his Quebec caucus, the Albertans you refer to in How the west got in thought they too would play the sovereignty-association/ independence 'card'.
Deleting the "or else" came when they talked with folks from across the Manitoba/Ontario border.
Look it up

Robert Ede,
Thornhill ON
--"Everything is Backwards" -
 That's what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
and "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

From: Beverley Smith
Subject: income splitting- why not go all the way to fairness

Income splitting as  tax policy is based on the assumption that money coming into a home is shared and does not go just to the earner.  It was recommended in Canada by a 1960 Commission but  never enacted though many other countries notably the US and France do permit people to declare on their tax forms that their income is shared and to have, as a result, a lowered tax rate.  In Canada not permitting income splitting results in unequal taxation of equally earning households based not on amount earned but on who earned it. Chartered accountants over the years have noted that a household for instance with two earners each making $30,000 pays a low tax while the house next door, earning $40,000 and $20,000 pays more, the one next to it earning $50,000 and $10,000 pays even more, while the one at the end, earning $60,000 and zero for the two adults, pays the most tax, in some cases nearly 40% higher than the first group. Canada continues to tax based on the individual, assuming no sharing, so the earner is placed in the tax bracket of that earner alone. Others argue that all four households above have the same amount of money so the same 'ability to pay tax' and should be taxed equally. Some economists have even pointed out that a household of four single adult students, pays less tax than a single earner supporting a spouse and two children.  Issues of fair taxation mix with issues of reality --whether income really is shared which for most households in a family is simply the fact.  There have however been moves over the years to permit income splitting and a quick summary of these follows

-pensions can now be split so income splitting is already now in place for seniors

-income splitting is possible for parents raising a handicapped child

-income splitting is already allowed for the well-to-do one of whom declares himself a professional corporation.  That person can then deduct the spouse as an employee of the corporation

-the wealthy also can create family trusts whereby they can create an income sharing with their offspring

During marriage most Canadians raising children still are not allowed to income split however. ( The failure to permit this more general sharing might now be viewed as a discrimination based on age, or wealth and a legal argument could be made)

There are also two other glitches. The Canadian government does not just permit but assumes income splitting for the GST and for child care expense deductions. The income of the other spouse is assumed to be part of the equation and can reduce significantly the benefits paid back by the state. This means in essence that the state asks more tax of people and pays back less, because it says you can't split income as you earn but assumes you do split income when it has to pay you.
The second element however is in divorce law.  By a recent revision of the Ontario Family law provisions, though you cannot split income on your tax form during marriage, on divorce, you can.  (some might even see this as an incentive to divorce, and that may be looked at for its ethical nature.) In  Ontario law all assets accrued during a marriage, including the matrimonial home and inheritances, are equally split on divorce. In addition there are now these provisions to recognize the value of the caregiver, unpaid or lower paid spouse

-spousal support requests, what used to be called alimony, do recognize the length of the marriage, what each person contributed to the relationship not just financially, the age and health and employability of the parties, whether it is reasonable to assume that the lower earning spouse can become financially independent at a reasonable level

-what things the spouse' did to make it possible' for the other to have a career and income

-whether either spouse now 'needs to stay home' with a child

-current childcare arrangements and the amount of time each party normally spends tending the child, and the disruption to the child's life that changing that would involve

-how a spouses' ability to earn income has been affected by responsibilities in the relationship

One legal guide points out that in Ontario "The law assumes that each spouse has contributed equally to the relationship, financially and in other ways."

(my feeling is that if we are moving to income splitting for some but not for all, and the exclusions have no real reason for exclusion, then we should permit it for all. That's only fair

Beverley Smith
Calgary Alberta

From: John Halonen
Subject: Re: Daily Digest September 13, 2011


Joe:  Old wounds never die, but continue to fester forever.

        When the Conservative Federal Government stole or even accepted revenue that legally was the right of the US Treasury then the future of Canada went with it.
       2 Billion at that time was not insignificant and no matter how much we continue to lose our sovereign rights to others, the trust between the once friendly nations may be lost forever.
       Brian Mulroney`s Government will in the future be remembered as the one that destroyed the Canada as we once knew it.

       One cannot resolve this behind closed doors, but only when a truthful acceptance of what occurred is there a possibility to have a better future relationship.
        John Halonen

From: Henry Atkinson
Subject: Fwd: Family fights wind power gag order | Ontario | News | Toronto Sun

From: Mahmood Elahi
To: <>
Subject: Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority

The Editor
The Toronto Sun
Copy to: Mr. L Ian MacDonald, columnist for The Toronto Sun.
Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority:
With a contrived majority and without charismatic Layton, Tories will have to provide their opposition
Re "Majority muscle," by L. Ian MacDonald (Sept. 11).
Thanks to our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has won a contrived "majority," despite winning only 40 per cent of votes. By appointing partisan Senators, he has also a majority in the Senate. Mr. Harper is called a "control freak" and he has now total control of both the houses of the parliament. We have now all the elements of an elected autocracy in place.
With the demise of charismatic Jack Layton, the official opposition is without a strong voice. In such a situation, the Conservatives may have to opposition to their own government as happened in Japan during the majority rule for decades by one party. Since the end of the Second World War till its defeat last year, Japan was ruled by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). The opposition parties were so demoralized that the LDP had to provide opposition to its own government. In fact, LDP prime ministers were more afread of the critics within their own party. The Conservative backbenchers may have to provide such an opposotion to their own government on issues they disagree individually.
Finally, as inventors of democracy --- the ancient Athenians --- tell us, democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Democracy was invented by the Athenians who believed that aristocrats and oligarchs didn't have any divine right to rule and ordinary citizens must have a say in the governing. So they invented a system of government involving all citizens and called it Demokratia --- government by the people. But when they allowed the majority to rule, the poor majority imposed heavy taxes on the rich minority. To stem any tyranny of the majority, they created the Athens Council, composed of 500 citizens chosen through lottery representing a cross section of the people. The Athens Council had the power to override any decision that ignored the legitimate concerns of the minority. Without such a non-partisan citizens forum and with a weakened opposition, the Conservatives will also have to provide the opposition to their own governing party for the sake of democracy.

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject:  DD  Mahmood Elahi Subject: Re: NATO in Libya: what's true, what's not.

Joe--How can Elahi state what he did in his post to the DD??  We are supposed to 'remember 9/11' and the people killed by their own government.  And yet killing Libyans is to be ignored?  I guess only Americans and Canadians are worthy of notice?  We can not possibly be classed as terrorists because we are not now killing in the West?  The arrogance goes beyond anything I could even imagine in a nightmare. 
Subject: This is the country that Harper is losing our sovereignty to?? 

The Americans already own most of our industry.  They will just move it to the
 US and we can go to hell?

Ottawa says new 'Buy America' bill not acceptable

Like Stelco? Ooops sorry, USSTEEL.
Subject: US Homeland Security now tracking medical records of Canadians
Subject: Farage: Greece Under  Full Globalist Dictatorship...

Is it any wonder the Greek people are now burning EU flags and drawing swastikas across them?

An appointed leader for the EU--how democratic is that?  Sadly, destroying Greece, the birthplace of democracy, is being used to show the world that democracy is not allowed any longer.  The banksters well and truly control the planet.  The same thing is happening here with Harper's 'loss of sovereignty' move.  Don't worry, be happy???"

Subject: UK riots 2011: Liberal dogma has spawned a generation of brutalised youths

Joe--re the message posted by Henry Atkinson--this is exactly what our 'leaders' want.  This gives them the excuse to clamp down on us even more.  (9/11 was also used for that.)  The governments need fear to control us and this type of incident is exactly what they want.  Perhaps they even instigated it?


You're not suggesting there were plants in the Black Bloc at the G20 affair now are you?