Thank-you Mr. Fellman.
Again the disgraceful fraser-institute mouthpiece, the sun, has sunk to a new low in one-sided, neo-con inspired propaganda.
I'm sure that when the creme de la creme of bc get their next big tax break they'll quickly reinvest it in bc's newest big industry- private for profit security companies to patrol our new gated communities.

p.s.- to those poor souls living in stanley park...christy's comin' to getcha!!

So what else is new with the Sun, the paper of record for the Fraser Institute.

This embarrassing paper is nothing more than a shill for the Liberals, Issy asper (the owner), and the Fraser Institute.

Shame on the Sun!

What chaps me is, if the economy is doing so fantastic.. and business is returning to BC, why the hell do we need to start giving tax breaks?
What do I care if the economy is doing well and I don't get anything from it?
If capitalism is so great, why is it so wrong for citizens to capitalize on the companies that use their provinces resources and workforce through government taxes?

I don't doubt that the many employed in public service are very much on the defensive when people go into rants about taxation.

Unless we wish to return to the jungle it is understood that we must pay taxes.

IT IS HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT.

Government at all levels is very much about property management. When waste and corruption occur our taxation makes us slaves.

I was foolish enough recently to mention a book I don't own and haven't read: Tax me, I'm Canadian.

The title is clever and grabby since Canadians do, on the whole, tend to be a wimpy apathetic lot - as evidenced by a poll reported today on political involvement.

I suspect that it was reference to that book, plus other references in previous posts to feeling over-taxed, that caused some petty-minded to consider me persona-non-grata on this board.

I've paid my dues toward the organized AND
and unorganized labor in this province and will put my record against anyone's.

Great letter, Michael! Many Americans are still caught up in that whole fallacy, focussing blame on "incompetent bureaucrats" while seemingly oblivious to the tax cuts that hamstrung them -- tax cuts that they themselves demanded and supported.

I'm still waiting to hear from Bush & co where their private sector was when it was a matter of life and death. I mean, why didn't New Orleans' hurricane victims just check into the closest Four Seasons?

As to the Sun's complaint that "income taxes 'confiscate roughly 44 percent of income' of those whose net tax is $88,000 or more", do the editorial writers really know anyone in that tax bracket who doesn't have accountants and wealth managers helping them to legally avoid much of that tax burden? Say, starting with $20,000 tax-deductible political donations to re-elect their favourite neo-cons?

Their average reader might be more interested in knowing what taxes those people actually end up paying, and how many lower/middle income earners end up paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthy do. And lastly, how on earth did we all allow ourselves to buy into the completely illogical idea that all taxes are evil and that somehow all the infrastructure and supports that we'd ever need would miraculously be there for us without us having to pay a cent for it? (And yes, that includes costly, capital-intensive infrastructure that permits the private sector to function and corporate bailouts, not just welfare and relief for the poor.)

Skeptikool:
I agree.
Taxes aren't the problem; it's how they are spent.
For those who agree with the status quo, I mean for those who are appologists for the current system, I pose a challenge: go out and try to start your own business, work 60 to 80 hour weeks, get little or no vacation every year, ante up and pay with a smile when the tax collector comes, and then tell me how you feel when some bureaucrat or politician takes out his pals for some fine dining in Ottawa, Victoria or even Vernon.
If you're still smiling, I'd like to know.

Yes, it's how taxes are spent. For example, the U.S. administration CHOSE to spend their citizens tax dollars on waging war in Iraq (aka enriching the pockets of their pals in arms/security business such as Haliburton, General-Electric, etc), but their citizens apparently approve because Bush was voted back into power.

So, I cannot understand why we in Canada, through our Canadian taxpayer dollars, should bail out the U.S. government when it has abdicated its reponsibility toward its own citizens and continues to spend money to wage war. Did you know that yesterday U.S. jet fighters bombed the Syrian border? So, they can afford to continue to spend billions to kill people, but apparently didn't want to give their attention or money to their own people?!

Did you also know that the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations just threw a monkey-wrench into the UN's plans to establish a major aid project for Africa -- the U.S. ambassador is demanding that the UN drop the Africa aid package and put a "war on terror" program in place instead. Yah, forget the starving orphans and rape victims, but let's keep banging the old "terrorist under ever bed" drum so we can continue to spend taxpayer dollars on bogus "anti-terrorist" goods and services instead of positive programs like ensuring your citizens aren't left to die like dogs when a natural disaster hits. The arms merchants have never had it so good.

So, can anyone tell me why we should help the richest, most powerful country in the world rather than the hundreds of thousands of orphans in Africa or the truly poor countries in south Asia who lost 150,000 lives in the tsuanami? It's like giving money to the Nazis because we want to help the concentration camp victims. Much of this money will be siphoned off into the Haliburton empire and other Bush croney companies who will get the rebuilding contracts.

If you are concerned about Canada aiding this criminal government and thereby allowing them to continue to wage war when there are many others around the globe and in our own country who desperately need our help, please let your Member of Parliament know, as well as cabinet ministers and the PM. Their emails, phone numbers and mailing addresses can be found at:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&Sect=hoccur&Order=PersonOfficialLastName

I don't read the Vancouver dailies because they are nothing but propaganda rags.

However, reading this is shocking.

There seems to be no limit to their obscenity.

The taxes in the US are now too low to support the infrastructure which is turning the US into a third world country.

I have never seen such greed and dishonour in my life. I am so disappointed in some people who call themselves Canadians, but who obviously stand for nothing.

And anyway...

It isn't government that is "BAD", it is government run by Neo-Con incompetents who are UNABLE to run government, or anything for that matter, but the country (and our province) into the sand.

remember reading that when mulroney came into power corporations were paying 41% of taxes in Canada and when he was finished they were only paying 14%!

paul martin has reduced their taxes significantly so it will be interesting to read what percentage they pay now, after all he just gave a 4.7 billion tax break to them.

This money could have been used to improve the lot of Canadians or against our debt but no he had to give it to the corporations.

"So, can anyone tell me why we should help the richest, most powerful country in the world rather than the hundreds of thousands of orphans in Africa or the truly poor countries in south Asia who lost 150,000 lives in the tsuanami?"

Sunny:
Do you remember Trudeau's analogy: Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is like that of “a mouse in bed with an elephant..?”
I'll add a little. Elephants have good memories.
And like you said, they are the richest, most powerful country in the world.
Worse yet, you say they are a "criminal government."
So if this "criminal" elephant ever wakes up, gets angry and decides to lash out at us, at least we'll have allies: hundreds of thousands of African orphans.

The wealthy pay most of the taxes, how much more do you think you can squeeze out of them. If you are so concerned about low taxes, simply send in double what is required of you. Nobody will object to that.
I believe that the 'Fair Tax" system that eliminates income tax and replace it with a sales tax of 22% on everything.
This would cut out a lot of jobs in the Canadian Revenue Agency.
It would also catch drug money as well.

Of course Dr Fellman would support the tax regime: our taxes pay his salary, and paid for his education.

That's the same reason why social service agencies never declare victory against social problems that they are set up to solve. They become hooked on the public purse, and addicted to the government cash that they get.

Powerful and richest do not go hand in hand anymore. Like "sustainable development" who also filed for divorce. From a power standpoint the US has a very big stick, one of the biggest, its military. But they aren't rich from an economic standpoint. They have to import oil for one, and while they have plenty of rich people, what good did that do them in the gulf coast?

They will never have to lash out at us, we are willingly giving them our resources in the form of corporate financing and takeovers. They have to invade the middle eastern nations to secure other sources of oil. Did it ever occur to anyone that the cost of these military campaigns and homeland security, might not be required if they just turned off the lights at night? Maybe drove less or put clean technology on the market?

There is another thread about creation or ID vs evolution, and just for agruments sake, say there is a god, or a cosmic Judge and jury. We humans squander away all that was given to us and then we have to answer a few tough questions at the inquirey.
God: OK, let me get this straight. You use oil to fuel your world, and oil is a finite comodity. You fight over it so you can use more of it to fight each other for it. So instead of using it wisely and sharing, you killed each other for the right to run out of it first? I'm sorry what am I missing here? What? You built your economy around this liquid resource, knowing it was going to run out? I see, and these other conservation intitiatives were what? Voted down? What does that mean? You willfully destroyed what? The biosphere that we put in place to keep you alive? Hang on a second here! Are you sure this is one of my creations? This sounds more like the work of Lucifer. Send this file downstairs!

You've got to give it to the Aspers. Spit in the wind, fabricate history, protect drunk political friends and then run out another clunker about terrible taxes and hope no one trips over the elephant lingering between the lines.

Was the Sun editorial writer on drugs or was he/she looking for a raise?

BTW, does anyone know if Canwest's corporate headquarters in Winnipeg are in any danger of being flooded should one of Winnipeg's rivers overflow?

A guy can dream, can't he?

Martin said:

What a ludicrous comment. Taxes help pay for every person's education in Canada. Assuming that Martin went to school, either primary, secondary or post-secondary, the same goes for him. Once again, people must grasp at straws to find something denigrating to say.

Many Americans have been critical of the slow response of their Federal Govt. to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Yet many Americans, as well as the Bush administration, have been in support of cutting back on govt. services, running government "like a business" and shifting services to the private sector. Well, they get what they pay for. The're now seeing the results of running government "lean and mean".
The government is supposed to serve the public. Maybe a positive outocome from this disaster will be that the Bush administration and the American people will realize that goernment services are important, and they have to pay for them.
Tax cuts don't look so good now...do they?
Those "nasty" taxes, who needs them anyways.

What nobody dares to mention is that profits are also a form of taxation without representation, because they're added unilaterally on top of balanced, legitimate income, under the clause "what the market will bear".

At least, when taxes are paid to governments in a so called democratic society, there's a certain degree of accountability. But when people are hit with daily rising prices, without any logical, or legitimate reasons, like by the oil companies etc. etc. and the public receives no benefits, or accountability, from that taxation by profits, nobody dares to make a beep, because profits are untouchable and sacrosanct and anybody who dares to question, or limit them must be a communist.

A healthy society must have taxes and also taxation by profits, but society must also have the right to demand accountability on "how those profits are spent". In other words, the same rule must apply to both, or society will be stolen blind on the demands of the stockmarkets. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Ed,

I've never been into economics as you have - and clearly, your experiences have made you a wise old fart.

I do know this though, that often competition is illusory, and that a business may increase prices at will and does not HAVE to give reasons.

Governments going to bat for the consumer diminished as GST and PST were applied and those governments became beneficiaries of that taxation.

There is absolutely no valid reason why Canadians should be paying for gasoline based on the world price for oil. As a letter writer mentioned today, the same greed that drives that oil company has the gas jockey, that many like to dump on, getting minimum wage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the bulk of taxation is paid by the middle-income earner, those making under $100,000 a year.

There are quite a few blue collar workers who earn $88,000/yr and pay the full 44% tax Name cites, since they're allowed very limited, if any, expenses. On the other hand, it's a pretty dumb businessman who can't scare up enough deductions/expenses to reduce taxes to a minor scale. Similarly, there are Corporations which make millions and don't pay a nickel. It's called "Creative Bookkeeping"

And the "reinvestment" of Corporate profits? Sure, in China.

fdf FDf FDf FD FD FD

I agree with both postings above. Not only the gas jockey gets the minimum wage, but the worst poverty and destitution on Earth can be found in oil producing countries, while their so called GDP goes up and their quisling governments surround themselves with luxury and private armies.

As I keep repeating, neoclassical market economics may have started as an error of judgment, or rather as a pseudo religion, but have become the biggest crime wave in human, history, aided and abetted by all levels of Canadian governments on the advice of their miseducated and paid off economists.

It is also true that it is the ordinary wage earner who pays the taxes. I'd bet that a worker earning $88,000 per year pays more personal taxes than Pattison. I've worked with the VIPs of business for 22 years in Vancouver and have seen how they could get around, even 25 - 30 years ago, to have their homes, cars, dinners etc. etc. accounted as tax deductible business expenses. Since then the neoclassical market theory took over, letting them get away with murder, glorifying the biggest thieves and giving them carte blanche to write off even the toilet papers in their multiple bathrooms.
Ed Deak, Big Lake.

I take it that most of the above writers love taxes. They think that by paying high taxes they will be protected from the ravages of nature. Give your head a shake. Your taxes don't go to a military or police that will bail you out of a disaster. They go to useless ventures like a national daycare program, medical system monopoly, education monopoly, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge public sector union wages, bilingualism, political payoff's, gun control, HRDC, sponsorship programs in quebec,foundations that we have no scrutiny of, fixed high prices for chickens, eggs, milk, cheese, bread, porno movies sponsored by Govt. of Canada, global warming studies, women studies, gay marriage , male children at the age of fourteen being able to be sodomized, I could go on and on and on and on.
Take your taxes and shove them up your ..... I am not being suckered into this crap.

Scylla, the $88,000 cited was how much tax they paid, not total income. To be paying an overall average 44% income tax rate, you'd have to be earning well into the six-digits (which is probably why the Sun presented it that way).

Our income tax rates are progressive, so at current rates, you'd only pay 45% combined fed/prov tax on any extra income received over and above your first $100,000 or so (so when you average it out, your total tax on $100,000 actually works out to be a fair bit less than 45%).

No matter whether you earn $30,000 or $3 million a year, we all pay the same percentage of tax on that first $30,000. Then we all pay a bit more on any extra income that falls into the next bracket, etc. It's a conveniently common misperception that the wealthy pay more than us -- they don't pay any more than everyone else on their first $40,000 or their first $80,000. And the highest tax rate, which currently kicks in at about $110,000, is only slightly higher than the rate for lower tax brackets. After that, even if you earn $1.2 million, you don't pay any more tax, percentage wise, than if you earn $120,000.

And Ron,... sigh!. .. it's been clearly shown over and over that a flat consumption tax for everyone means that the poor end up paying a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes. (I think I learned that in Economics 101 back in the seventies...) I realize you probably think that's reasonable, but I'm afraid it wouldn't go over well with the masses, dear.

A fair tax system based on eliminating income tax and replacing it with 22% tax on ALL purchases allows a person to be thrifty and keep moe of their paycheque. Rich people would pay more tax because they spend more.
Imagine a person trying to raise a family and give them a good education. That person could get a second job and save the entire paycheque for the university education. A drus dealer or any other criminal would be taxed 22% on their spending. Now, we get nothing from these criminals.
Let's not forget that the minimum earnings before being taxed has gone way up because of the pressure put on the Liberals by consrvatives. We conservatives care more than we are given credit for.

C.I.R.E.
Seat sale on now! Fly with us and compare. When you choose to rid yourself of pointless annoyance you receive immediate benefits. Rewards that go beyond financial....peace of mind. Come fly with us!
Coalition to Ignore Ron Erwin

Please pay taxes so that the old, unsound, unsafe school I work in can be rebuilt rather than having the current building come crashing down on my head in an earth quake.

remember those old radio ads in vancouver with that catchy jingle:
"dick erwin, what a grate, grate guuuuuyyyyyy"

Ruby, we are paying taxes, lot's of taxes. There is no more capacity to raise taxes fron peoples wages unless you create opportunties for the economy to grow.

Erwin is once again in perfect alignment with his co-religionists .

We don't need no more steenkin' taxes because *he* don't want none of his money goin' to people he don't give a rat's a** about.

A man named Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, I won't say who he was so that maybe Erwin takes the opportunity to learn about google, that he doesn't mind taxes because they are the the price we pay for civilization.

I think that's about right.

Ron, in order to grasp the concepts under discussion and debate them meaningfully, you must first be able to distinguish between simple numbers and proportional numbers (i.e. paying "more" tax vs. paying a greater proportion of one's income in tax).

Your suggestion places a disproportionate share of taxation on those who can least afford it. Don't confuse being poor with being simple-minded. Push it all you want, but the masses won't buy it.

As for "capacity" to pay more taxes, of course there is capacity to pay more, as people do in many other countries. It's a matter of choices and priorities, and as a society we can always choose to pay more or less taxes.

And of course our taxes could always be spent more wisely. But even if we were to outlaw lunch entirely in Ottawa, it won't save enough to seismically upgrade all our schools, which as Ruby notes, will collapse and kills tens of thousands of children and stafff if the Big One happens to strike in school hours. Again, this again comes down to priorities (and some pretty sick national priorities at that, given that we've knowingly tolerated this risk for decades, despite being fully aware of what's at stake.)

Now if everyone had to actually pay what they owed in taxes instead of cheating the taxman every year, now that would sovle a lot of problems! Yes, that's been one of the key arguments for introducing consumption taxes, but punishing the poor for those who get rich on tax evasion is hardly the most reasonable answer!

And are we paying relatively more in taxes or getting any less value for our tax dollars than our parents did, given the added benefits we demand today from our governments? Much of the debate around taxes and tax cuts is based on emotional gut reactions (taxes bad, tax cuts good) rather than on rational analysis.

It's exactly what most of us do with our personal finances: wasting money on impulse purchases or frivolous baubbles and then groaning when it's time to pay the credit card bills. It's illogical as can be, but it seems to be instinctive to hope that we can get something for nothing -- something the Carl Roves of this world understand very well when they're designing their political messaging.

We do pay taxes and I know all about Google. Come up with something that you didn't read in your union monthly newsletter. Your talking points are too predictable. I give a rat's ass about people, that's why I am conservative. Your type only cares about themselves and their union buddies.

Ron, are you happy and willing to pay unlimited and untaxed profits to the oil companies and the rest of the gouging rats who raise our living costs every day and steal money from our pockets, without returning any benefits ?

Every time we go shopping the prices are up, wages and payments to suppliers down. How much do you pay for your meat ? I just took 7 animals to the sales yesterday and will put it on this forum next week, when I get my cheque, how many pennies the big corporations in control of food supplies have paid for me, while taking their profits out of the country.
Can you tell me a single logical reason, why they should be able to get away with gross theft from the public ? Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Oooooh....good one Erwin. Union newsletter...union buddies...ooooh. Deeeep thaaaawt.

I'm done with you. You're not worth it.

A single reason, because they have to make profits so they can stay in business so we have somewhere to work.

C.I.R.E.
Plenty of seats left!

Exactly the reply I expected, Ron, which shows that you, and generally to so called
"conservative" crowd, have no more clue about what's happening than the calves I shipped yesterday about their own fate. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Club, I'm aboard.

News Flash to Ron Erwin: Gordon Campbell has just announced a conservative chocolate ration increase.

Irony of ironies.

I don't have the article at hand, but recall reading that a tribe/sect/clan of Iraqis whose natural habitat was Iraq's wetlands, have just achieved a 40 per cent increase in their living area.

They want their habitat to stay what it is - wetlands.

I believe the Saddam Hussein government had tried to absorb them into the general populace.

skeptikool, would that be the so-called Marsh Arabs of the south?

So Ron Erwin, it's profits at any price, eh?
When you become a drag on the economy I am going to bid to use you as hole filler.

Your destiny is assured Ron. I'll send you down to help patch one of those dang dykes.

Everyone: Unless it really energizes you to get in these endless, meaningless, never-changing ideological name-calling spats with the intelligence-challenged Ron Erwin (like that's his real name), can we please just pass over his posts?
It's not that hard, no matter what your political or humanistic viewpoint, and the cranky old neocon who pulled himself up by his bootstraps will eventually--and it will take a while, but it will happen if enough of you take my humbly offered advice--move on.
The only gratification he gets is through the knee-jerk responses he elicits. Maybe he is a shut-in, and I shouldn't be so excluding, but the guy is a rabid anti-working-person who doesn't realize that every working benefit he enjoyed during his life came about as a result of the blood--yes, blood--and sweat shed by unionized workers in the past century.
Life is too short to give jerks the satisfaction of thinking they are in any way successful in their propaganda efforts.
Show him your back and move on. God, I'm sick of seeing people play his game.
Sorry, this is the second time I vented this way. But I'm convinced it will work. He didn't respond to my previous post on the same subject.
Stamp out this stinkweed.
Good night, and sorry for the length.

Good idea, cookie. Ron is shelved forever as far I'm concerned. Ed Deak.

allan,

Yes, I do believe you are correct - the Marsh Arabs.

They should be supported in their chosen lifestyle, as should other maverick, hold-out groups against tho world's increasingly homogeneous societies.

cookie' what is a 'working person' ?

The proof is in the proof. So that is proof that C.I.R.E. works! Here's what people are saying about C.I.R.E.
CC: "I used to try and debate with Ron until I realized he was mentally uncapable of understanding even the concept of debating, let alone the actual issues. Now that I've joined C.I.R.E. I find there is more time for real people in my life."

There you have it, another satisfied member!

Hurrah for C.I.R.E!

Be done with it.

I am sure he will reappear and we will have to create a new coolaition, but then so be it.

C.I.R.E will work!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Count me in too - but then he did prompt Ursus' "idiotologues".

Joining C.I.R.E. has been the best thing I`ve done.

1 whole day C.I.R.E. works. Let's declare a feast day!

People, you just cant shut idiots like that
down with a club, anless it is carved out of
maple wood.
Ed.

As usual, I see everybody is busy pushing their standard political views, with the actual topic distorted however necessary to support them.

Well just for the heck of it, let me inject a few facts:

TAXES

The most socialist nations in the world, including all of Scandinavia and more of Europe every year, have dramatically lower corporate tax rates than Canada (almost as low as the US).

They have learned that taxing the 'businesses' who create employment is counter productive and does far more negative than positive.

Instead their consumption and personal taxes are much higher, but the 'rich' pay a lesser percentage than in many other countries. Yet the social systems of many of these countries are far ahead of Canada. Go figure.

KEEP ALL TROOPS AT HOME?

The contention that no country should EVER send their military anywhere in the world because a distaster 'might' occur at home is ridulous. This is nothing but rhetoric used by those opposed to the Iraq war. But if we were to apply the same rationale to Canada and other nations, then we would have to forget about ever providing peace-keeping or other interantional duties because our military resources are so pathetically limited that we would need every one of them if a disaster hit us.

In contrast, both Mississippi and Lousiana still have over 60% of their national guard troops, and the surrounding states can quickly offer many tens of thousands more. These manpower resources dwarf anything Canada could muster were we ever hit with a natural disaster the scale of Katrina. And in fact there has proven to be no real 'shortage' of troops. The problems have been primarily logistical.

FUNDING CUTS ARE RESPONSIBLE?

With the exception of the diminishment of the wetlands over many decades, New Orleans was no better prepared for a Category 5 hurricane 40-years or 20-year or 10 years ago than they were today. Yet even today the system would have prevented the total destruction had the floodwalls been properly designed.

It was expected that the storm surge would partially flood the city by 'overflowing' the barriers, but the 'collapse' of the floodwalls was not necessary - IF they had been better designed. This is not to say that it was not seen as a 'possibility', only that it was in no way seen as inevitable either.

Let us also be clear that, regardless of the validity of criticism of the cuts by Congress of the funding for Louisiana, nothing done in Lousiana over the last 5 or 6 years would have prevented this failure. Every senior engineer who works on the levees has confirmed this. Some of the areas that breached were considered in perfect condition and they were not scheduled for 'improvement'.

According to the experts who work on Louisiana's levees, the missing funding may have helped prevent this disaster 10-years or 20-years from now, but it would have done absolutely nothing for this one.

THE HUMAN DISASTER WAS PREVENTABLE?

While there is pleny of 'blame' that can be spread around, the fact is that there is nothing all that 'unusual' about what happened to New Orleans. In fact, New Orleans surpassed the expectations of disaster experts who model and act out these kinds of events like a war-game.

There is no doubt that many things could have been done better and faster, but in truth this can be said in the aftermath of most disasters. And while an investigation will indentify many failures, I do not feel this is the primary lesson in this tragedy.

The fact is that any city in New Orleans' position would have had a similar catastrophe - perhaps a little less, but still major. Anyone that thinks a Canadian city wouldn't suffer similar chaos and human loss is just deluding themselves. Seek out the planning scenarios for a major earthquake in the lower mainland to get a taste for what might happen.

Yes, New Orleans has a relatively large population of poor Americans - larger than the average in both American and Canada. And certainly this contributed to the number of people 'caught' inside the flooded city. BUT, it is fantasy to think any major city would be totally evacuated in 48-hours because of 'possible flooding' or any similar warning. To my knowledge it has never happened in any western country. The truth is that such situations will always have dire human consequences, whether the city's poor inhabitants are black, white or any other color.

I shudder to think of the aftermath if Canada is ever hit with a disaster similar to New Orleans. We simply do not have the resources to cope with something of this scale. Certainly we have some good disaster planning and well-trained response teams, but these would be a drop in the ocean compared to what would be required.

It is easy to see why everyone is looking for someone to 'blame' for New Orleans. It is hard to accept that such things can happen in a western nation, especially America the mightly. But the truth is that it can. And despite the fact that some things were perhaps avoidable, the remainder would have still shocked us.

So beyond all the criticism, the sobering fact remains that when Mother Nature hits you with a blow that comes only once every few centuries, you are going to get hurt - badly.

PS: I apologize if some of my comments above seem off topic. I was also just reading the other Katrina-related threads, so some thoughts are related to posts on those, and not here.

However it is the same crew in all these threads, so I'm sure everyone is familiar with the topics covered.

Thanks.

FEDERAL SPENDING ON CORPORATE WELFARE IN CANADA

1987-88 1,559.7 mil

2004-05 6,055.1 mil

Care to guess what it will be in another decade?

This article treats the issue of taxation as an dichotomous choice. We all want a lovely safe functional healthy country and community in which to live. We debate how much tax is good and how much is not. Sometimes we elect people who get it wrong- and that could be in either direction.

No one here would suggest we have a tax rate of say 90% of income or capital. Likewise, we'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks there should be no taxation. Thus, where we draw the line is the debate. Oversimplying it, and getting into camps, does no service to the isue at hand. And it would be nice if there was a way for the whole voting population to learn more about sociology, political science, and economics, to enable them to make more informed, educated choices about what polices to write about and vote for.

Kevin Dalman, no one is disputing that Katrina was a heavyweight. I think the issue at hand (and please excuse us if we refer often to the devestation), is the apparent chaos within the federal agencies and at the governments highest levels in responding to the hurricane.

I'd called the response criminal.

As for Canada, you are correct that we are not prepared to handle a disaster of this magnitude in most cases.
But you can be damned sure that if upwards of a million Canadians were in the nightmare facing those in and of New Orleans, deputy prime minister Ann MacLellan would not be caught mindlessly shopping for shoes and prime minister Paul Martin wouldn't be hamming it up before the media at a birthday cake cutting for an old crony.

If either did they would be vilified by Canadians and rightfully, yet Bush, Rice, Brown and fellow Republicans are now busy conspiring to blame others for their own failures.

Bush, like the wind-up rabbit, just blathers on connecting the odd phrase, but seldom enough of the sentence to be coherant.

It amazes me that American journalists can keep a straight face when asking him questions.
It also amazes me that the public isn't raising hell. There would literally be riots in some parts of the world if politicians there treated their citizens so poorly.

Where the hell is John Wayne when they really need to get the job done?

WRT Keith's post, the potential situation with the levees was well-known and reported. I seriously doubt Canadian local politicians would allow such a situation to get out of hand here.

Fema's inadaquacy was the result of drastic underfunding, its displacement by Homeland Security, and the total failure of that agency to coordinate its efforts with Fema before or after Katrina, hence the condfusion.

I don't know how a similar situation could arise here.

WRT to Allan's post. Press scrums are carefully choreographed. Reporters who don't ask the right questions don't get a chance to ask any at the next scrum.

Before someone calls me stupid - and rightfully so - I will quickly withdraw my observations re Keith's post. I've just read Mair's "Disaster Looms", which makes perfect sense to me.

No, I really don't think I'm stupid. Hey ! Can somebody be smart and credulous? I think I gotta find out.

scylla, your right about the scrums, but that doesn't stop a journalist who is determined to ask a question from doing so.

For a politician, ignoring a question doesn't make it go away if the question has legs and is left hanging in the air waves.

It's too bad the press corp allowed themselves to evolve into such polite ladies and gentlemen. Tamed might be more fitting.

Sometimes journalists have a responsibility to rake muck regardless of the flack from those made uncomfortable.

scylla, of course that would be you're right.

deep forbidden lake, very firmly indeed.

http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2005-09-13.html

Wealthy residents of New Orleans were devising ways to rebuild the city with a minimum of poor people

Barbara Bush visited the Astrodome and said that, given that the evacuees were "underprivileged anyway," things were "working out very well" for them

Representative Richard Baker gave the hurricane credit for finally cleaning up public housing in New Orleans

President George W. Bush signed an executive order to allow federal contractors working in the wake of Katrina to pay their workers less than the prevailing wage.

It was revealed that evacuees from the hurricane had been flown to Charleston, West Virginia, where no one expected them, instead of Charleston, South Carolina, where accommodations and doctors were waiting.

Doctors in New Orleans admitted that they had euthanized critically ill patients rather than leaving them to suffer. "Those who had no chance of making it," said an emergency official, "were given a lot of morphine and lain down in a dark place to die."

Up to 3.7 million gallons of crude oil leaked into the lower Mississippi River.

redrivergirl:

It's people who think that TRYING is good enough,and not doing. I get a real kick out of MPs, MLAs, etc. who say they put in 80 hours weeks, blah, blah, blah, but don't say WHAT they've been doing, and whether it actually accomplished anything. Then they give themselves a raise, because they are exhausted, which means they must have done SOMETHING to warrant an increase.

skeptikool:

Competition can only exist when the purchaser can tell a supplier to get stuffed and go somewhere else for a better deal.

Allan, if the journalist is ignored in the scrum, where the attention of the nation is focussed, and Fox et al are also unwilling to cover the issue, how does it "get legs"?

Thanks for that Rick But surely Dubya would have had the Supreme Court intervene if he'd known about this?

Oh yes,I forgot - they must have been black.

scylla, timing is the key in asking questions. You don't go up and button hole someone hoping to embarrass them because they'll either ignore you or tell you to bugger off.

However, in a public press conference or scrum, a well laid question in front of a curious crowd can create its own legs, if an adequate response isn't forthcoming.

Asking people how they feel about Katrina's impact or what efforts will the president take to ensure this doesn't happen again, is often as tough as they get in the US media.

Frankly, I wouldn't anticipate Fox would cover anything that might put Bush in a bad light at least until it could line up enough talking headed neo-cons to deny, deny and deny.

Perhaps it's an exercise in futility in war and crisis torn America today, but let's get real here.

If a Canadian comedy group can get close enough to ask really silly questions of GW Bush at a public conference and get a serious, but even dumber reply from the big guy, why can't an enterprising Americn journalist craft a question as devestating to the domestic audience?