Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Liberals push more stimulus


Recommended Posts

Some of the experts are saying that the recovery would be assisted by an easing of the heavy stance on inflation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inves...article1222938/

And yet the so called experts have been wrong time and time again. Just like your predictions. The liberals seem intent on flogging this dead horse, face it you missed your chance, if you leader had any brass he would have went over this last december or even in june, but well all typical liberal all bluster, no action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And yet the so called experts have been wrong time and time again. Just like your predictions. The liberals seem intent on flogging this dead horse, face it you missed your chance, if you leader had any brass he would have went over this last december or even in june, but well all typical liberal all bluster, no action.

Your support of Harper and how they spend and the excuses you make about it really defies what real conservatives talk about.

It is possible to stimulate the economy and not spend like drunken sailors on polling and government ads on TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your support of Harper and how they spend and the excuses you make about it really defies what real conservatives talk about.

It is possible to stimulate the economy and not spend like drunken sailors on polling and government ads on TV.

I've made no excuses nor have I even brought Harper into the arguement are you capable of having any discoarse without bringing Harper into it?

I suspect not.

As for spending like drunken sailors who was it who pisses away the EI fund Liberals who wanted 30 billion spent on stimulus with no plan? And who was it that was willing form a coalition with the dippers right after an election before parliment even had to sit? Who has got nothing on this issue and a leader who doesn't even really want to be Canadan. I think I and most Canadians know the asnwer to this.

I'll save you your response but harper........but harper........but harper......simulate..... but Harper snore!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've made no excuses nor have I even brought Harper into the arguement are you capable of having any discoarse without bringing Harper into it?

I suspect not.

As for spending like drunken sailors who was it who pisses away the EI fund Liberals who wanted 30 billion spent on stimulus with no plan? And who was it that was willing form a coalition with the dippers right after an election before parliment even had to sit? Who has got nothing on this issue and a leader who doesn't even really want to be Canadan. I think I and most Canadians know the asnwer to this.

I'll save you your response but harper........but harper........but harper......simulate..... but Harper snore!

What a load of garbage. Harper utilized the EI fund to an even greater extent:

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/criminal-com...uge-ei-surplus/

After accusing Liberals of using Employment Insurance fund as a ‘partisan piggy bank’, Harper Conservatives are now doing the same thing.

National Union of Public and General Employees

March 9, 2007

Ottawa - A criminal complaint has been filed against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative cabinet for misusing the now-staggering $51-billion surplus in Canada’s national Employment Insurance (EI) fund.

The surplus, which the Conservatives howled that the Liberals were abusing when they were in office, has mushroomed by $7 billion since 2004 and continues to grow at a spectacular rate - fed by ongoing worker contributions and interest gains.

Yet the Tories are behaving the same as the Liberals behaved, putting the surplus into general revenue where it can be used for anything and not specifically for the benefit of unemployed workers as the law requires.

The RCMP has confirmed that the complaint was lodged March 7 by a lawyer representing the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU).

Larry Kowalchuk said on behalf of the union in Regina that he took the action in response to long-standing concerns that surplus EI funds are being diverted to uses other than providing unemployment benefits.

Denounced by Auditor General

Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, denounced the former Liberal government repeatedly for running EI surpluses beyond what was needed to meet payments to the unemployed, even during the most difficult economic times. Federal officials say the outside limit for this purpose would be a maximum surplus of about $15 billion.

Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

It is widely expected that Harper, who is currently leading the Liberals in opinion polls, will find a way to precipitate Canada’s third federal election in three years sometime this spring.

“There have been a lot of media talk shows about what the government should be doing with the $51-billion surplus,” Kowalchuk told the Regina Leader-Post.

“I was listening to that and going: ‘Well you can’t do anything about it, it’s a trust. It belongs to the workers and government can’t spend it on health care or anything else. If they do it is a breach of trust.’”

Criminal Code Section 336

Kowalchuk said Section 336 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for “every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”

He said the union is not making any specific allegations about particular federal programs or initiatives that may be benefitting from EI money.

Instead, the union is asking the RCMP to investigate the general handling of the fund in relation to Criminal Code restrictions. If the $51 billion is not in a trust account, to be used solely for providing unemployment benefits, the union wants to know where it is and what it was used for, Kowalchuk said.

NUPGE intervention

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has been calling for years for Ottawa to use the fund as intended to benefit workers who are in between jobs.

In 2001, when the surplus stood at $36 billion, NUPGE president James Clancy wrote to former prime minister Jean Chretien urging him to make major changes in the operation of the fund.

Specifically, he called on the government to pay EI recipients a minimum of 66% of average earnings and to restore the maximum benefit period to 50 weeks. He also proposed better integration of federal and provincial training programs to help EI recipients get back into the labour force and called for abolition of provisions penalizing short-term and seasonal workers.

Recipients are now required to work 420 to 700 hours, depending on local unemployment rates, to qualify for benefits. It has been estimated that 17% of workers who pay into the program never qualify because of the limited hours are they are able to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Harpers has been the captain of his own ship:

http://www.taxes.ca/blog/archives/tax_spending/index.php

FEDERAL SPENDING BALLOONING TO UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS

Conservative government to taxpayers: We’ve given up trying to control spending

OTTAWA: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) reacted today to the announcement that the federal government’s spending is ballooning to unsustainable levels. The finance department reported today in their June Fiscal Monitor that Ottawa’s expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent in June, and program spending swelled by an astounding 8.4 per cent in the first three months of the fiscal year. This increase is two-and-a-half times the 2008 budget’s spending estimate, which called for a 3.4 per cent boost to spending.

“Many Canadians were encouraged by the Conservative's apparent new restraint shown in their third budget that limited spending growth to 3.4 per cent this fiscal year. Well, so much for that. In the first three months, spending is instead up two-and-a-half times what these so-called fiscally responsible Conservatives in Ottawa budgeted it to be," said CTF federal director John Williamson.
“The Conservatives continue to claim they will still hit 3.4 per cent in spending growth for the year, but they’ve proven throughout their term in office that they can’t stop themselves from spending.”

The Conservative government’s first budget called for Ottawa’s expenditures to grow by 5.4 per cent in fiscal 2006/07. At the end of that year government receipts had jumped by 7.5 per cent. The 2007 budget plan announced an additional 5.6 per cent spending hike. The real amount in 2007/08 was a 6.9 per cent increase.

Canadians were initially assured a Conservative government would be more disciplined. On November 23, 2006, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty scolded the previous Liberal government for spending tax dollars recklessly, telling Canadians, “The government is committed to keeping the growth of program expenses below the growth of the economy over the medium term.” In Parliament he repeated, “...our new economic plan proposes to keep the growth rate of program spending on average below the rate of growth in the economy.”

And why is this important? The minister provided the answer when he said, “To the extent spending growth is kept below the growth in the economy, this will contribute to further reductions in public debt and in taxes given the commitment to dedicate interest savings to tax reductions.”

Williamson concluded, “The message is clear. Tax and debt reductions are conditional on spending restraint.
The Conservatives have gone on a spending binge that hamstrings their ability to lower personal income taxes and reduce debt.”

And:

JIM PRENTICE, CANADA’S PRESUMPTIVE FINANCE MINISTER?

It is no secret in Ottawa that Industry Minister Jim Prentice wants to be Canada’s finance minister. Before the last Cabinet shuffle there was a quiet but steady effort to publicly highlight Mr. Prentice’s managerial talents and disparage Jim Flaherty’s reprimanding of high-taxed Ontario to change policies or risk becoming a have-not province. If Minister Prentice had his way he’d be running finance and Mr. Flaherty would be punted to a second-tier ministry, like industry. It didn’t matter that many mainstream economists agreed with Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Prentice was offering himself as a kindler, gentler Conservative.

Last week, the industry minister took another run at Mr. Flaherty by wading into budget territory. He told reporters the federal government has not determined how to allocate proceeds from the recent auction of wireless licences that resulted in an unexpected $4.25-billion windfall. Mr. Prentice said the cash might go to tax cuts, debt repayment or even spending programs. If Mr. Prentice is determined to audition for the finance minister’s job he might want to first reflect on the state of Ottawa’s finances. Because there should be no confusion in Conservative ranks about what to do with the revenue.

The finance department reported last Friday that Ottawa posted a deficit of $517-million in the first two months of the 2008 fiscal year. This news is worrisome even after a decade of Ottawa lowballing its surplus projections. It was no surprise that tax revenues dropped by 4.1% since the
Conservatives cut the GST another point and lowered the tax rate on businesses. If Ottawa’s financial position is worsening it is the result of poor management and over-spending, not modest tax relief. The 2008 budget claimed Ottawa would limit spending growth to 3.4% this year. Yet, expenditures in April and May grew by 7%. If this continues, Ottawa will be on track to overshoot its budget target by an astounding 100%.

Do Mr. Prentice and his colleagues believe the federal government should increase spending further this year? And how important is reducing the federal government’s monster debt? Since 1997, the debt has been cut by $106-billion. That’s a good start. But each year $34-billion is still spent on interest charges to service Ottawa’s outstanding $457-billlion liability. That amounts to $93-million each day. There is clearly more work to do.

It is folly to suggest a one-time revenue gain – such as the $4.25-billion generated by the wireless auction – be used to increase spending. Whatever new program might be created will live long after the cash raised from the auction is spent. As Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Whenever a government sells an asset – in this case wireless spectrum rights – the additional income should be used to reduce the country’s debt liability. Ottawa has the option of allocating the auction revenue at once or spreading it over a decade. The latter move would boost revenue by $425-million a year, however leaving this money on the table increases the likelihood that some of it will be spent instead of going against the debt.

Applying $4.25-billion to the debt will reduce interest payments by approximately $225-million every year. Under the Conservative government’s new tax-back guarantee law, all debt-interest savings are used to reduce personal income taxes. This is another good reason why the auction revenue should be used to retire the debt now. Debt relief today will result in lower taxes tomorrow.

Minister Prentice deserves tomatoes from taxpayers. He opened a discussion on increased spending where none is necessary and offered more evidence the federal government doesn’t tax to collect the revenue it needs but that politicians always find ways to spend whatever money is collected. Taxpayers can expect spending to spike unless the real Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, is ready to overrule his Cabinet colleague, reduce debt and keep a lid on spending. If he does not, it won’t matter much to taxpayers which Jim is the finance minister after the next shuffle.

This is not the fault of the coalition or the Liberals or even the recession. Harper was on a reckless spending binge and was steering us into the red long before any of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a load of garbage. Harper utilized the EI fund to an even greater extent:

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/criminal-com...uge-ei-surplus/

After accusing Liberals of using Employment Insurance fund as a ‘partisan piggy bank’, Harper Conservatives are now doing the same thing.

National Union of Public and General Employees

March 9, 2007

Ottawa - A criminal complaint has been filed against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative cabinet for misusing the now-staggering $51-billion surplus in Canada’s national Employment Insurance (EI) fund.

The surplus, which the Conservatives howled that the Liberals were abusing when they were in office, has mushroomed by $7 billion since 2004 and continues to grow at a spectacular rate - fed by ongoing worker contributions and interest gains.

Yet the Tories are behaving the same as the Liberals behaved, putting the surplus into general revenue where it can be used for anything and not specifically for the benefit of unemployed workers as the law requires.

The RCMP has confirmed that the complaint was lodged March 7 by a lawyer representing the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU).

Larry Kowalchuk said on behalf of the union in Regina that he took the action in response to long-standing concerns that surplus EI funds are being diverted to uses other than providing unemployment benefits.

Denounced by Auditor General

Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, denounced the former Liberal government repeatedly for running EI surpluses beyond what was needed to meet payments to the unemployed, even during the most difficult economic times. Federal officials say the outside limit for this purpose would be a maximum surplus of about $15 billion.

Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

It is widely expected that Harper, who is currently leading the Liberals in opinion polls, will find a way to precipitate Canada’s third federal election in three years sometime this spring.

“There have been a lot of media talk shows about what the government should be doing with the $51-billion surplus,” Kowalchuk told the Regina Leader-Post.

“I was listening to that and going: ‘Well you can’t do anything about it, it’s a trust. It belongs to the workers and government can’t spend it on health care or anything else. If they do it is a breach of trust.’”

Criminal Code Section 336

Kowalchuk said Section 336 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for “every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”

He said the union is not making any specific allegations about particular federal programs or initiatives that may be benefitting from EI money.

Instead, the union is asking the RCMP to investigate the general handling of the fund in relation to Criminal Code restrictions. If the $51 billion is not in a trust account, to be used solely for providing unemployment benefits, the union wants to know where it is and what it was used for, Kowalchuk said.

NUPGE intervention

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has been calling for years for Ottawa to use the fund as intended to benefit workers who are in between jobs.

In 2001, when the surplus stood at $36 billion, NUPGE president James Clancy wrote to former prime minister Jean Chretien urging him to make major changes in the operation of the fund.

Specifically, he called on the government to pay EI recipients a minimum of 66% of average earnings and to restore the maximum benefit period to 50 weeks. He also proposed better integration of federal and provincial training programs to help EI recipients get back into the labour force and called for abolition of provisions penalizing short-term and seasonal workers.

Recipients are now required to work 420 to 700 hours, depending on local unemployment rates, to qualify for benefits. It has been estimated that 17% of workers who pay into the program never qualify because of the limited hours are they are able to work.

When the conservatives came to office that money was already gone. your artical says as much. Thoughnisn't funny that in all the abuse by Chretien and the liberals a charge was never levelled against them while they were in office....hmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites
When the conservatives came to office that money was already gone. your artical says as much. Thoughnisn't funny that in all the abuse by Chretien and the liberals a charge was never levelled against them while they were in office....hmmmm

read it again:

the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

Oh and the charges were levied against them and the courts said using the EI for general revenue was legal (its tax deductible after all) and that the Libs only broke the law by changing EI premiums without informing parliament although it should be noted they lowered it in each case and the law was there to prevent increases without proper approval.

Still, the use of the EI surplus makes harper a giant hypocrite in light of his crying over the Libs use of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the experts are saying that the recovery would be assisted by an easing of the heavy stance on inflation.

Of course. Deflation is just as harmful as inflation, so as long as we're in deflation, inflationary policies would be beneficial for the economy. What i'm saying though is that as soon as we go back into inflation and interest rates, no matter how low the rates, we need to then switch to an anti-inflation and anti-high-interest-rate policy, in anticipation of higher inflation and interest rates to come if we don't act swiftly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
read it again:

the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

Oh and the charges were levied against them and the courts said using the EI for general revenue was legal (its tax deductible after all) and that the Libs only broke the law by changing EI premiums without informing parliament although it should be noted they lowered it in each case and the law was there to prevent increases without proper approval.

Still, the use of the EI surplus makes harper a giant hypocrite in light of his crying over the Libs use of it.

Why don't you read it again it clear states that the conservatives spent 7 billion, yet the accumulated EI suplus is suppose to be 51 billion where did that go? The answer spent by former liber governments. Do you not get that this is an unfunded liablity in general revenue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not the fault of the coalition or the Liberals or even the recession. Harper was on a reckless spending binge and was steering us into the red long before any of that.

And yet the liberals, NDP and Bloc cry for more!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you read it again it clear states that the conservatives spent 7 billion, yet the accumulated EI suplus is suppose to be 51 billion where did that go? The answer spent by former liber governments. Do you not get that this is an unfunded liablity in general revenue?

It said the surplus had ballooned by 7 billion and now stood at 51 billion and it clearly stated Harper was in control of a larger surplus and using it in a manner they decried in the Liberals.

Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

You were decrying the use of the EI surplus at all when you thought it was just the Liberals (most cons do) but now that its been laid bare that Harper did the same thing you try and mitigate it by comparing amounts (and failing).

Where is your condemnation of Harper? Even if he did use less then the Libs he did use it despite his opposition to it.

Now address the fact that Harper showed himself to have no budgetary restraint at all in his government. I'd like a conservative to stand up and recognize that Harper was laying down the groundwork to deficits long before the recession. All the recession did was deepen his damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It said the surplus had ballooned by 7 billion and now stood at 51 billion and it clearly stated Harper was in control of a larger surplus and using it in a manner they decried in the Liberals.

Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.

You were decrying the use of the EI surplus at all when you thought it was just the Liberals (most cons do) but now that its been laid bare that Harper did the same thing you try and mitigate it by comparing amounts (and failing).

Where is your condemnation of Harper? Even if he did use less then the Libs he did use it despite his opposition to it.

Now address the fact that Harper showed himself to have no budgetary restraint at all in his government. I'd like a conservative to stand up and recognize that Harper was laying down the groundwork to deficits long before the recession. All the recession did was deepen his damage.

To me I go with the side that abuses the least and to my calculation the conservatives abuse of 13% beats the liberals abuse of 87% of the funds, so the lesser of the evils is..... As for budgetary restraint the Liberals and the NDP were ready and willing to spend 30 billion with no plan right off the block, then as supporters of unions most likely sold the bank to give to the auto companies and unions. So I 'll take Harper over any of the alternatives any day.

Btw i didn't know dobbin was posting under a new name.

Edited by Alta4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites
To me I go with the side that abuses the least and to my calculation the conservatives abuse of 13% beats the liberals abuse of 87% of the funds, so the lesser of the evils is..... As for budgetary restraint the Liberals and the NDP were ready and willing to spend 30 billion with no plan right off the block, then as supporters of unions most likely sold the bank to give to the auto companies and unions. So I 'll take Harper over any of the alternatives any day.

Btw i didn't know dobbin was posting under a new name.

The old forum ploy of accusing a new member of being an old member. :rolleyes:

As for abusing the funds you keep thinking that somehow Harper didn't use it to a greater degree. I'm guessing this dobbin guy bested you often as well.

As for the Liberals and NDP ready and willing to spend 30 billion without a plan, well thats just con lies again. Both those parties released fully costed platforms for the last election while Harper released nothing instead attacking the other platforms as deficit magnets.

The truth was only Harper was the one headed into the red and the current one year record 54 billion deficit proves that, quite a bit of that going to the ceo autochief chums of the conservatives.

Myself I trust the party with a proven economic track record of surplus after surplus and sensible government. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The old forum ploy of accusing a new member of being an old member. :rolleyes:

As for abusing the funds you keep thinking that somehow Harper didn't use it to a greater degree. I'm guessing this dobbin guy bested you often as well.

As for the Liberals and NDP ready and willing to spend 30 billion without a plan, well thats just con lies again. Both those parties released fully costed platforms for the last election while Harper released nothing instead attacking the other platforms as deficit magnets.

The truth was only Harper was the one headed into the red and the current one year record 54 billion deficit proves that, quite a bit of that going to the ceo autochief chums of the conservatives.

Myself I trust the party with a proven economic track record of surplus after surplus and sensible government. :lol:

I wasn't accusing you of being Dobbin just that the orginal comments weren't directed at you. Dobbin can hold his own, he has no need for multiple user ids.

They did not realse anything about how they would spend the money together, all that was ever seen on the coalitions stimulus plan could have been written on one page of loose leaf. As for the stimlud money so far spent by the government is just over 7 billion, and since the country is now commng out of the recession at higher projected growth i hope they axe the stimulus as it is now as it was then unneeded.

Edited by Alta4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper may be a big C Conservative, but he's certainly not a small C conservative. If anything, he's a small l liberal. He's liberally insulting and vicious.

Now what we need are independent small c candidates to run in elections like Arthur did. We need more independents like Arthus to replace the CPC. In fact, I'd be a strong supporter of a movement of independent small c conservative candidates without a party, just forming a a co-alition with whoever is in the House instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't accusing you of being Dobbin just that the orginal comments weren't directed at you. Dobbin can hold his own, he has no need for multiple user ids.

They did not realse anything about how they would spend the money together, all that was ever seen on the coalitions stimulus plan could have been written on one page of loose leaf. As for the stimlud money so far spent by the government is just over 7 billion, and since the country is now commng out of the recession at higher projected growth i hope they axe the stimulus as it is now as it was then unneeded.

Yet you quoted me.

As for the coalition not having a plan well thats just nonsense. Harper obviously didn't and if the stimulus spending was at the demand of the coalition as you say then obviously they did have a plan.

You cons are so confused right now you don't know where to go or what to stay. The truth is that Harper betrayed every shred of fiscal conservatism and did everything you spent 13 years decrying the Liberals were doing (when in fact they were doing the opposite). You just can't admit it.

The evidence is right there concerning Harpers failings. Hell the web site I posted was as ruthless on the Liberals for their short comings as they are on Harper (and these posts were long before the 54 billion madness) so you can't claim liberal bias.

So far we have Harperites crowing about how much his government did and was able to push through because Dion let him until election time (when he broke his own election law) then it was "dysfunctional parliament prevented him from doing anything"

During the election the only party to not release an actual platform was the CPC and you claim he was the only guy with a plan. The recession/deficit took everybody by surprise, everybody but the economists who predicted it including unbiased Harper PBO appointee Kevin Page:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/INTER...0619/story.html

In fact he shows exactly why we are in the red:

Cutting Spending

Only three federal finance ministers since 1983 were able to chop spending. They are:

Ralph Goodale, Liberal, 2005-06: $1.15 billion less than prior year

Paul Martin, Liberal, 1996-97: $9.52 billion less than prior year

Paul Martin, Liberal, 1995-96: $2.4 billion less than prior year

Michael Wilson, Progressive Conservative, 1985-86: $805 million less than prior year

Harper government spending record

2006-07: +$13 billion (+6.9 per cent)

2007-08: +$11.2 billion (+5.6 per cent)

*2008-09: +6.8 billion (+3.3 per cent)

*2009-10: +34.9 billion (+14.5 per cent)

Note the last 2 have since been revised upward by a lot.

Now you claim that the coalition had no spending plan whatsoever at the same time you hold them responsible for Harpers spending plan.

I'm sure that if the situation were reversed you'd be OK with a minority Liberal government blaming everyone else for their budget woes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've made no excuses nor have I even brought Harper into the arguement are you capable of having any discoarse without bringing Harper into it?

I suspect not.

You are aware that the Harper is the PM, right?

As for spending like drunken sailors who was it who pisses away the EI fund Liberals who wanted 30 billion spent on stimulus with no plan? And who was it that was willing form a coalition with the dippers right after an election before parliment even had to sit? Who has got nothing on this issue and a leader who doesn't even really want to be Canadan. I think I and most Canadians know the asnwer to this.

The Tories had their own coalition plans with the NDP and Bloc which they try to deny but the paper trail betrays them.

There was not insistence on a $30 billion stimulus. That was debunked by John McCallum one day after the Tories started shouting about it.

The Tories have been drawing large numbers out of EI for their own purposes. Don't act high and mighty about it. The difference is the Liberals ended the deficit while the Tories started spending and have produced a deficit.

I'll save you your response but harper........but harper........but harper......simulate..... but Harper snore!

You just finished a but the Liberals argument.

Harper is PM now. He owns the deficit and misspending the led to it.

Other provinces have been able to stimulate their economy without going into deficit.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada's deficit is growing and part of the reasons is the lowering of corporate taxes and the lowering of GST. Anyone can see, Ottawa is spending more than its bringing in and until the unemployment levels fall, that isn't going to happen. Ottawa is raising EI benefits very soon to bring in more money for the fund and the premiums may be doubled, so don't be surprised. L like to know how long will Harper use the excuse of the global recession for the stupid things they do?? http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/671761

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt we'd been in as large a deficit if the Liberals had remained in power.

I think there'd be a larger deficit.

I also have to wonder at the affects or our multibillion dollar stimulus package, the ones your party threatened to bring down the government over if it wasn't introduced. The recession is apparently on its way out, yet almost none of the money has yet been spent.

That tends to raise the question, does it not; why did we need this gigantic multibillion dollar stimulus package at all? And why did the opposition demand it?

Not to mention, why in hell is it demanding another one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there'd be a larger deficit.

Considering the Liberals managed to run no deficits for many years and cut spending and taxes at the same time, it is hard to imagine they could do worse than the present Tories.

I also have to wonder at the affects or our multibillion dollar stimulus package, the ones your party threatened to bring down the government over if it wasn't introduced. The recession is apparently on its way out, yet almost none of the money has yet been spent.

The government itself has said that the majority of money is spent or being spent now so this idea that nearly none of it has been spent in a mystry. Where did you get that information?

In June we were in deflation for the first time in 15 years. Without government spending, it would have dipped even more dramatically.

That tends to raise the question, does it not; why did we need this gigantic multibillion dollar stimulus package at all? And why did the opposition demand it?

Not to mention, why in hell is it demanding another one?

Flaherty himself said that employement was going to be stuck at 9 or 10% in the worst hit areas, manufacturing was going to continue to suffer in part to world demand and high Canadian dollar.

If the Tories wish to make some cuts, they can reduce their polling and government ads. Put money into infrastructure where people get back to work fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They also wanted tax measures to avoid the red ink.

Is the phrase "tax measures" the new code word for raising taxes? Raising taxes during a recession is about the worst thing one can do. And the reason there's a deficit, isn't because Canadian's aren't paying enough in taxes. :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the Hill Times and from what I have heard, the platform and policies are being derived from convention and from the committee that was going to the grass roots.

That report was sent in at the end of June to party headquarters and my understanding was that it was going to take some time in July to work through the details, not the least which is when and how to unveil the various policies.

Even Jim Travers of the Star - usually a shill for the Liberal Party - doesn't have good things to say about the status of the Liberal "platform".....and from my vantage point, it's all about a lack of leadership - stemming mostly from a lack of Ignatieff's political experience and knowledge of policy:

It's rare for any opposition party to be entirely prepared for an election. Even so, Liberals are unusually, and dangerously, distanced from the starting blocks. Ignatieff is still introducing himself to a skeptical electorate, a policy platform promised for spring remains a summer work in progress and there is a yawning vacancy in the leader's office where there should be a tough, seasoned and confidence-inspiring strategist.

LInk: http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/671778

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Jim Travers of the Star - usually a shill for the Liberal Party - doesn't have good things to say about the status of the Liberal "platform".....and from my vantage point, it's all about a lack of leadership - stemming mostly from a lack of Ignatieff's political experience and knowledge of policy:

Well, since he hasn't seen the platform, it is hard to guess what his issues are with it.

Ignatieff didn't want to do what Dion did which was not have anything solidly laid out on a variety of issues or relying heavily on one policy out in the open while the other parties kept theirs hidden and attacked the Liberal one.

As Jane Taber has reported, Ignatieff took time in July to go over what was prepared.

It seems for all the media that was complaining about an election in the summer, they all seem to want a summer campaign to cover.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Jim Travers of the Star - usually a shill for the Liberal Party

Yawn. He's one of the most respected journalists in the country. He has more than one award to prove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...