babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Harper’s lies are costing Canadian taxpayers $1.4 billion a year. It gets worse. Here

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Harper’s lies are costing Canadian taxpayers $1.4 billion a year. It gets worse. Here
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 08 February 2008 04:40 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/harpers-lies-are-costing-canadian.html


Loss sustained by taxpayers: $1.4 billion and counting

Loss sustained by Canada Pension Plan: $300 million of your money

Loss sustained by those who trusted Harper in last election:
$35 billion

A 10% solution means we still have a 90% problem: Main stream misleadia , or is it simply brain dead misleadia?

Inside Boy Wonder: Mark Carney

Public face: Jim Flaherty

Public Menace: Stephen Harper

Proof of Tax Leakage: Missing in action

Missing in action: Auditor General

Prime Minister’s Prime Motivators: Gwyn Morgan, Paul Desmarais Jr, Dominic D’Alessandro and the CCCE

Worst Performance before the Standing Committee of Finance by an Ex-Goldman Sachs Investment Banker: Mark Carney

Essential Enablers
: NDP

Recent Enablers: Bloc Quebecois

In full pursuit of the truth: Green Party

Seniors’ advocacy for sale or rent:
CARP

Turning a complete blind eye:
Canadian Banks

Turning the screws: TD Bank

Hypocrite du jour: John Manley

What’s most at stake:
Our democracy and " target="_blank">http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-are-odds-on-this-brian-mulroney.html"> trust in our elected representatives

What can you do as a Canadian: Vote wisely , Tell your friends, family and co-workers

Send them a video: a You tube video , before we all go down the tubes. Since it will be Our tubes and not theirs. Of that you can be certain. Bank on it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dr Mike
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14937

posted 08 February 2008 05:02 AM      Profile for Dr Mike        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A few others ..........


Quote of the day : "it`s not my fault"

Worst Performance in a Supporting role : the Senate.

Worst performance in a non-supporting role : the Liberal Party of Canada.

Getting Nowhere : Question Period.

Totally Pissed-off : Trust Investors.

Most Hopeful Persons in Canada : Trust Investors.

Who have you not heard from in a long time : Your Conservative MP.

Who do you wish you would never have laid eyes upon : Jim Flaherty.

The Progressive Conservative Part of Canada : Non-existent.

Peter McKay : "it`s not my Fault".

Elizabeth May : Goodbye Peter McKay.

Mike.


From: Rodney Ont Canada | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 February 2008 05:26 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barry Campbell and income trusts: One well-connected Liberal

quote:
Throughout the fall, the Yellow Pages Group, Canada's largest non-energy income trust, worked hard to ensure the Liberals made the decision they wanted on income trusts.

Publicly, CEO Marc Tellier criticized the Martin government for putting the investment model in doubt. But behind the scenes, Tellier and the Yellow Pages Group had hired the best representative money could buy to make their case directly to the Finance Department.

According to Industry Canada's Lobbyist Registration website, Barry Campbell and his firm, Campbell Strategies Inc., were the sole lobbyists for the Yellow Pages Group on income trusts.

(https://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ec/lrrs/guest.do)

And the Yellow Pages Group couldn't have picked anyone more connected to Paul Martin's Liberal government to make their case:


- A Liberal MP from 1993-1997, Barry Campbell was appointed Finance Minister Paul Martin's parliamentary secretary in 1996 » http://campbellstrategies.com/barry.html;

- Campbell played a major role raising funds for Paul Martin in Toronto during Martin's 2003 leadership campaign (Toronto support key to victory; Many city MPs helped Martin; Financial backing also crucial The Toronto Star, Friday, November 14, 2003);

- And a 2003 Hill Times article listed Barry Campbell as one of "the people to whom [Paul Martin] turns, and will turn, to for advice on important issues." (Backrooms, The Hill Times, October 13, 2003)
As we know, Campbell and his client, the Yellow Pages Group got their way.

And as Bloomberg News, among others, has pointed out, The Yellow Pages Income Fund rose 3.4 per cent AHEAD of the announcement that the federal government wouldn't tax income trusts such as Yellow Pages.

Yellow Pages also had a press release all ready to go and out the door just 33 minutes after the Finance Minister had made the income trust announcement public.



From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 03:43 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Fidel, you have quite the talent for cutting and pasting. Not sure what your point, sorry make that someone else's point is. Here's a piece you won't want to read:

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board: Dabbling in cover-ups at the behest of Harper/Flaherty

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/canada-pension-plan-investment-board.html


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 09 February 2008 04:57 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's the point:

Income trusts were a loophole that distorted capital markets, diverting investment away from the fastest-growing parts of the economy.

In a world where income trusts had never existed, there would be no reason to introduce them. Now that they're gone, there's no good reason to bring them back.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 05:07 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stephen: That's a great argument....if only it were true. Try doing a little research before engaging your two lips in the rote repetition of other people's unproven claims.

Try by reading this:

”Income trusts are efficient. at investing, growing, PwC. survey shows”

www.pwc.com/ca/eng/ins-sol/publications/itr-fs_1206.pdf

Or this:

Income trust buyouts: Lots of activity, little tax revenue

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid=3634&cid=177044,00.html?WT.mc_id=caen_gg_IT_buyout

But maybe the best plcae to start would be at the beginning, as the Green Party is calling for:

Green Party calls for inquiry into the alleged tax leakage of income trusts

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/07.12.2007

Failing which, sounds like you prefer being part of the problem and not part of the solution:

Mark Carney has hijacked our democracy

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2007/12/mark-carney-has-hijacked-our-democracy.html


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 09 February 2008 05:09 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Explain to me why income trusts are a good idea.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 05:13 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Better yet explain to me why the government's actions are warranted. Based on facts this time if you would be so kind/so informed.

In science you have to first prove the "null" state. Proving their actions is that "null" state.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 09 February 2008 05:20 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You want to change policy. Explain why we should.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 09 February 2008 05:34 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brent, I feel compelled to tell you that the person to whom you are explaining "science" and whom you insist should "do his research" is an economics professor at a major Canadian university.

Not that that should prevent you from questioning his position, but you should know that his grasp of "science" is likely bona fide.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr Mike
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14937

posted 09 February 2008 06:23 AM      Profile for Dr Mike        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr Gordon,
Can you explain to an ordinary investor why the government felt it necessary to act in such a ruthless manner when something as simple as grandfathering existing trusts would have accomplished the very same thing without killing so many innocent investors such as myself.

There were so may other ways to reach the same goal.

We were broadsided without need.

Mike.


From: Rodney Ont Canada | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 February 2008 06:36 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Mike:
Can you explain to an ordinary investor why the government felt it necessary to act in such a ruthless manner

You do realize that you're on a left wing board asking people to defend a Conservative government, don't you? Yes, you can point to the long-standing NDP policy in opposition to income trusts. But that has nothing to do with the way the Conservative government suddenly reversed its own position with no warning. Why not ask Conservatives to defend Conservatives? To do that, you have to go where the Conservatives are. They're not here.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brent, I feel compelled to tell you that the person to whom you are explaining "science" and whom you insist should "do his research" is an economics professor at a major Canadian university.

Not that that should prevent you from questioning his position, but you should know that his grasp of "science" is likely bona fide.

Great for him. I on the other hand have a B.Sc. from U of T and an MBA from Queens and spent 20 years in the investment banking industry in Canada. most recently as the Executive Managing Director and Head of Equity Capital Market at BMO.

Between the two of us, that counts for nothing.

Facts count. Where are his?


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 06:46 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You do realize that you're on a left wing board asking people to defend a Conservative government, don't you? Yes, you can point to the long-standing NDP policy in opposition to income trusts. But that has nothing to do with the way the Conservative government suddenly reversed its own position with no warning. Why not ask Conservatives to defend Conservatives? To do that, you have to go where the Conservatives are. They're not here.

Hey pogge I got news for you.....this was only made possible by Layton of the Newly Duped Party of Canada....he doesn't believe in science either....or democracy....or due diligence...or fact gathering...or consultation.

I know, I have spoken with the idiot.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 February 2008 06:58 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brent Fullard:
Hey pogge I got news for you...

Are you talking to me, genius? It's hard to tell because with all those qualifications you're spouting off about, you can't seem to learn to use the quote function so we can tell the words you're quoting from the ones you're writing.

I always get a kick out of the one-issue wonders who show up here to convince everyone of the righteousness of their cause and then proceed to act like jerks and accomplish the exact opposite. Don't mistake me for someone who's interested in having a conversation with you. I'm not.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr Mike
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14937

posted 09 February 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for Dr Mike        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
pogge,

I "had" been a Conservative supporter for 37 years --I supported Harper when he said no trust tax--so I have a right to respond to MR Gordon`s criticism of the trust model & his support for the Tax Fairness Plan.

He gives the impression that there was no alternative to the all-or-nothing tax.

An odd left wing comment showing support for the Cons as he did.

At least that is the impression he is giving.

Mike Popovich.


From: Rodney Ont Canada | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 07:22 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pogge spewed"

"Don't mistake me for someone who's interested in having a conversation with you. I'm not."

Ditto your complete lack of facts.....you do a lot of conversing for someone not interested in conversing.

You are right about one thing however, this is a one issue topic, namely the proper functioning of Parliament. Or do you prefer democracy to be conducted on the basis of enshrining falsehoods into tax legislation.

If parliament doesn't work, democracy wont either. But by all means, flip the channel. The Saturday cartoons featuring Jack Layton are on. I hear he's going to campaign on ATM fees. Maybe he would be more successful on that file if he advocated raising them.....or realize that the banks aren't he only players in that market. Did the NDP even bother to research the facts behind that "issue" and learn about the existence of the white label ATM providers.

Layton has proven himself in person to me to be a fool. Sounds like you've found "your man" and your "issue".

Meanwhile I will still fret over the small narrow single issues like the proper functioning of democracy. I want to make sure Parliament is ready for Jack's ATM Fee Bill. Or is it Jack L'ATM?


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 February 2008 07:27 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Mike:
so I have a right...

No one is questioning your rights here.

quote:
... to respond to MR Gordon`s criticism of the trust model & his support for the Tax Fairness Plan.

Stephen can correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't get the impression he was defending the Conservative government's specific actions, merely stating that he sees no reason to revert back to the previous policy now that the change has been made.

You're obviously new here and I was attempting to point out to you that you might be wasting your time in looking for something you won't find here. But it's your time.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 09 February 2008 07:39 AM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I'll give 'em this... it takes a lot of chutzpah to argue that closing a tax loophole is lowering tax revenues.
From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 09 February 2008 07:41 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's about right. The policy should never have been in force in the first place, and there's no good reason to bring it back.

But I am sympathetic to the plight of those who took various politicians' word at face value and made investment decisions based on their promises. But then again, lots of people make investment decisions that go sour because of changes in policy. At least in this case, the policy we ended up with is the good one; that's not always the case.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 09 February 2008 09:19 AM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brent Fullard:
Pogge spewed"

"Don't mistake me for someone who's interested in having a conversation with you. I'm not."

Ditto your complete lack of facts.....you do a lot of conversing for someone not interested in conversing.

You are right about one thing however, this is a one issue topic, namely the proper functioning of Parliament. Or do you prefer democracy to be conducted on the basis of enshrining falsehoods into tax legislation.

If parliament doesn't work, democracy wont either. But by all means, flip the channel. The Saturday cartoons featuring Jack Layton are on. I hear he's going to campaign on ATM fees. Maybe he would be more successful on that file if he advocated raising them.....or realize that the banks aren't he only players in that market. Did the NDP even bother to research the facts behind that "issue" and learn about the existence of the white label ATM providers.

Layton has proven himself in person to me to be a fool. Sounds like you've found "your man" and your "issue".

Meanwhile I will still fret over the small narrow single issues like the proper functioning of democracy. I want to make sure Parliament is ready for Jack's ATM Fee Bill. Or is it Jack L'ATM?


I don't personally see anything wrong about a right wing poster coming here to discuss the issues respectfully. Coming to level vague accusations and unsubstantiated insults with little or no content or evidence (as above), however, is definitely just trolling.

That said, I am in line with others here: Income Trusts were a STUPID idea, and Harper was stupid to promise to keep them in order to get elected. Without that promise, my bet is he would NOT have been elected, so it was simply fraudulent behaviour for personal gain, imo.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 09 February 2008 09:32 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Saga said:

"I don't personally see anything wrong about a right wing poster coming here to discuss the issues respectfully. Coming to level vague accusations and unsubstantiated insults with little or no content or evidence (as above), however, is definitely just trolling.

That said, I am in line with others here: Income Trusts were a STUPID idea, and Harper was stupid to promise to keep them in order to get elected. Without that promise, my bet is he would NOT have been elected, so it was simply fraudulent behaviour for personal gain, imo. "

Right wing? Left wing? Is that the way you delve into an issue? First define the partisan lines and then retreat to dogma and factless opinion if that's what you mean by IMO. Perhaps IMFO would be more appropriate. IMFactlessO

Sorry, I belong to no such mindless classification. As for my alleged dearth of facts, please consult the links provided in the original post.

They are on the top of this thread.....neither to the left or the right.....simply up.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 09 February 2008 10:39 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Income trusts are a very bad idea that basically take retained earnings and distribute them to unit holders of the trust.

Its similar to a ponzi scheme - based on diminishing returns. A trust unitholder is hoping to realise total return on disbursements of income on a depleting asset rather than a capital gain on an appreciating asset.

The original idea for income trusts was to farm out the mature, depleting assets of an explorer and utilise the proceeds for more exploration and development. This method gives the explorer the capital for growth and the trust the income for disbursement because the trust only grows by raising capital from unit sales to purchase more mature assets.

Fine as far as it goes but the ever expanding greed of those seeking better returns opened the door for the smart money that preys on greed to structure more products to peddle until the scam attracted the attention of the tax people who's duty it is to close loopholes.

In a nutshell, the problem with trusts is that there are too many people securitising,tranching and marketing and not enough people actually creating anything.

I'm no economics professor and I always pay close attention when Professor Gordon posts because his comments jive with common sense- One only gets something for nothing when the other party gets nothing for something.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 09 February 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Income trusts should be banned period, not taxed. Trust fund babies can whine to each other all they want, this is one of the few issues where Harper was half right. If they ever go hungry they can always eat their parents and claim an environmental deduction.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 10 February 2008 03:55 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Note to Elizabeth May:

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/note-to-elizabeth-may.html


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 10 February 2008 04:08 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jester said:

"I'm no economics professor and I always pay close attention when Professor Gordon posts because his comments jive with common sense- One only gets something for nothing when the other party gets nothing for something"

Questions:

(1) Am I to take it then, that you are an adherent to The Common Sense Revolution

(2) I have no idea what the latter half of that sentence meant

(3) Are you willing to supplant "common sense" arguments with "fact based" arguements? If so, where are the governments facts to support alleged tax leakage. Afterall, that should be quite easy to prove. Meanwhile all they provided was 18 pages of blacked out documents under the Access to Information, which they them demanded be returned?

Does that fit your model of "common sense" or the greater test of being remotely plausible, transparent or accountable?

If so, see you on the other side of the gulag, Komrade Jester.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 10 February 2008 08:12 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do not have a BSc or a BA or an MA or an MBA or even a PhD.

I do believe, however, that it does not advance the goal of reasoned argument to insult your interlocutor, make fun of her or him, engage in sarcasm, use inflammatory language, and so on.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2008 08:38 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brent Fullard:

Does that fit your model of "common sense" or the greater test of being remotely plausible, transparent or accountable?

If so, see you on the other side of the gulag, Komrade Jester.


There was little transparency with the crooked Librano regime. And the HarpoCons aren't much better. But lack of transparency in Ottawa and Queen's Parks is a long-time issue.

The tax leaks with income trusts will boil down to some obscure argument that medium size corporations needed the money to do reseasrch and developement. And that's a laffer, because Canada ranks, as a general rule, way down the list when it comes to private enterprise sinking money back into R&D inside Canada. That's a load of baloney. They just want to be able to have their cake and to eat it, too.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 10 February 2008 09:18 AM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel said:

"There was little transparency with the crooked Librano regime. And the HarpoCons aren't much better. But lack of transparency in Ottawa and Queen's Parks is a long-time issue."

And the logic being what? That it's okay. That we should revert to the lowest standard of transparency and therefore accountability. No thanks. I am not a "taker" of government as it is, but rather a "demander" of government as it should be.

Defining issues, as you are doing, on strictly partisan terms is a waste of everyone's time, mine included.

As for the second half of your post, it made no sense to me what you were attempting to say.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 February 2008 11:17 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You still haven't explained to us why IT's are needed in Canada but few other countries at the same time.

You want transparency? Then vote for more competitive government. And the way we achieve that is through the pro-democracy movement for which NDP'ers are enthusiastic supporters. If we want a competitive economy that ranks in the top ten in the world, then we need a more competitive electoral system like those same top ten countries utilize today.

If you want to maintain things like ye Old White Boy's Club and a federal system of patronage, kick-back and graft, then by all means, continue supporting either one of the old line parties in power and sharing power in Ottawa since the time of the Russian Tsars. What we have in Canada is a subserviant to U.S. interests plutocracy. That's just the way it is, Brent.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brent Fullard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14807

posted 10 February 2008 03:51 PM      Profile for Brent Fullard        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel said: "You still haven't explained to us why IT's are needed in Canada but few other countries at the same time."

Two points:

(1) It's not me who acted. Its the government who acted. Better that they justify their actions. Which they clearly have not.

(2) For example this falsehood in the Ways and Means motion:

"bringing Canada’s approach to the taxation of trusts and partnerships back in line with other jurisdictions"

which is unmit

igated BS that many people lap up as if it were honey....or the truth. Please acquaint yourself withe $480 billion vibrant and growing income trust market in the US....which just happens to go by the name of MLPs:

www.canadianenergytrusts.ca/documents/DiggingDeeper.pdf


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 10 February 2008 04:09 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brent, I said before that I was sympathetic to the plight of investors who made portfolio decisions based on what Stephen Harper promised.

But each time you post this sort of stuff, that sympathy gets eroded.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 10 February 2008 04:26 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never lapped up honey. I've never seen anyone else lap up honey. Am I living a sheltered life?
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 23 February 2008 06:30 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If so, see you on the other side of the gulag, Komrade Jester.

Zounds! From "paranoid right-winger perpetually whining..." to "Komrade Jester".


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca