Stupid Liberals. Don't you know that punishing people for expressing your opinion is just going to make you look worse than you already do?

Not like the other leader punishing Simpson for having an opinion..... That is why it is called politics.

90 % of the revenue is committed, to social programs already in place, the other 10% of the revenue is used any way they want too, to fulfill their personal or party interests. It will not be for personal financial gain, but all politicians have agendas to fulfill.

What's happening in BC.
Have they gone nuts?
Who is going to govern this province?????
Both parties are destroying themselves from within.

Campbell and Hansen are lame ducks. Bennet for premier.

All politicians, in humble opinion, are idiots out of touch with the voters and are only in it for self gain.

Acrider54
I don't agree. Been to a couple of council meetings? Some School board meetings?

I have and I think most start out with great intentions, and some then get an inflated sense of self worth because people start kissing their arses. They then want to become the king arse.

Then, agreed, they are out of touch with voters. But it didn't start out that way. Lots of beer league hockey players are just in it for the love of the game. I think that it's the same with politics. Some reach the nhl. Some never wanted to.
But most dreamed. Even if they didn't work that hard.

They may start out with the best of intentions. And no doubt many do. But how can anyone change anything meaningfully when you have to have 'permission' from those who control 'finance' to do anything? And that ain't US!

The first question to be asked, and resolved before ANYTHING can ever be done, by ANYONE elected to public office, is just "who" OWNS the financial 'credit' used by the community at large?

Is it a communal possession, an accurate, numerical reflection of REAL 'credit' (the rate at which goods and services of all manner can be produced and delivered as, when, and where required)? Something that we have allowed to be *administered* by the Banking system?

Or, is it a *possession* of the Banking system itself? Do Banks actually OWN the credit of the Community, for THEM to administer in a manner THEY think benefits the Community, but regardless, MUST always be used in a way that THEY think will benefit THEMSELVES *FIRST*?

Until that question is resolved, it really doesn't matter who we put in office on the strength of whatever promises they make to us. They'll get in, and we'll be treated to the same old story, "We know we promised to do this or that, and we fully intend to, but THERE'S JUST NO 'MONEY'...."

Even though the men, and materials, the skills, and the knowledge all exist, and the public need or desire to do what needs doing IS present, nothing can be done because "...there's just no money." Ah such a power those who control the issue of mere 'figures' of accounting with "$ signs" on them have over us.


Imagine where we'd be if, after listening to that excuse for ten long, desperate, Depression years in the 1930's, the Minister of Finance had risen in the House of Commons in 1939, the day after Hitler decided to take whatever he wanted of Europe and the rest of world, and said, "Yes, he's an evil man, we should go and help stop him, but we just can't. There's just no money."

For we're broke ~ or at least that's what we'd been told for the previous ten years. But he didn't do that, did he? Where did what had been absent for ten long years suddenly reappear from the minute War was declared?

Or, when that horrific ice-storm toppled all those transimission towers and brought down hydro lines all over Quebec and Ontario, back when Mulroney was PM, and the size of the National Debt was on eveyone's mind. Where we all we're told we'd soon be out of 'money', and bankrupt as a nation. Preston Manning made his political debut singing that song, as the Reform Party came on stage.

What if Mulroney's Minister of Finance had said, "Well, sorry folks, we know your cold and in the dark, and your farms and industries and stores can't operate, and we'd sure like to help, but we just can't, there's just no 'money'"?

Why does it take 'disasters' to illustrate the obvious? That it ISN'T 'money' that REALLY determines anything. It's in having the actual ability to DO what needs to be done. The 'figures' are then made to fit the FACTS ~ not as we've allowed to happen, where we continually are forced into trying to do the exact opposite.