Harper the Disgrace

[ReeferMadness 31]

Harper and the Conservatives have been responsible for so many negative, divisive and disgraceful actions that it's hard to keep track of all of them. So, I thought it would be helpful to have a thread to catalogue them.

Here is an opening list:

- Ran huge deficits caused by ill-advised and ineffective tax cuts

- Politicized non-partisan institutions by using or squabbling with the incombents; including the GG, Elections Canada, the PBO, and the SCC

- Dramatically increased the centralization of power in the PMO

- Interfered in the internal workings of the Senate

- Appointed the most partisan and corrupt senators

- Gutted environmental rules and laws

- Used the CRA to attack environmental groups and charities that disagreed with his policies

- Gagged scientists to prevent information that would not support his pro-oil agenda from reaching the public

- Defunded pure scientific research in favour of applied science that would help his industry friends

- Destroyed scientific documents with no assurance that they were digitized first

- After being elected on a platform of accountability, did everything possible to evade accountability

- Was found in contempt of parliament

- Systematically interfered in the ability of Parliament to perform its duties by withholding information, proroguing parliament and writing omnibus bills so massive they couldn't properly be debated

- Undermined democracy by deliberately disenfranchising groups of voters that are not inclined to vote for him and by changing media rules to better allow for negative campaiging

- Damaged our international reputation through one-sided support of Israel and against the Palesinians

- Damaged our international reputation and climate change efforts by withdrawing from Kyoto.

This list isn't even close to being complete. There is a website called shd.ca

Note: if you want to debate the actions of Chretien, Wynne, Pierre Trudeau, or anyone else, you're welcome to open a different thread.

[angrypenguin 20]

I had to stop reading once you talked about deficits.All party leaders wanted to spend big in 2008 to get us out of the recession. Tell me any other party who would have cut the deficit this quickly.

[ToadBrother 0]

I had to stop reading once you talked about deficits.All party leaders wanted to spend big in 2008 to get us out of the recession. Tell me any other party who would have cut the deficit this quickly.

What about the deficits prior to 2009?

[angrypenguin 20]

What about the deficits prior to 2009?

Do you know for sure it wasn't spent on infrastructure? Regardless, the federal budget is 290 billion $.

[ToadBrother 0]

Do you know for sure it wasn't spent on infrastructure? Regardless, the federal budget is 290 billion $.

So generating deficits to spend on infrastructure is good?

Edited October 3, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Shady 1,826]

I stopped reading after the deficits part as well. If the very first thing is going to be wrong, than the rest of it will be too. The global recession was the principle cause of the deficits. Only Harper Haters deny reality.

[ToadBrother 0]

I stopped reading after the deficits part as well. If the very first thing is going to be wrong, than the rest of it will be too. The global recession was the principle cause of the deficits. Only Harper Haters deny reality.

There was a global recession prior to the 2009 budget?

[Accountability Now 42]

There was a global recession prior to the 2009 budget?

The financial crisis started in 2007 and peaked in 2009 which is why many call it the 2009 crisis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_200708

[ReeferMadness 31]

I stopped reading after the deficits part as well. If the very first thing is going to be wrong, than the rest of it will be too. The global recession was the principle cause of the deficits. Only Harper Haters deny reality.

I don't blame you for not reading it. It's a pretty depressing record and maybe once Harper is gone, we should all figure out exactly how a guy like this managed to manipulate the system to electing him.

We wouldn't want it to happen again.

[Hydraboss 89]

Harper and the Conservatives have been responsible for so many negative, divisive and disgraceful actions that it's hard to keep track of all of them.

So, just to be clear, you're NOT voting for them?

[ReeferMadness 31]

So, just to be clear, you're NOT voting for them?

Well, I keep an open mind. Someone recently said in reference to the Conservatives race-baiting politics, that the ends justify the means. So, if someone points to what ends justify racist, environment-destroying, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-Muslim, anti-democratic policies and politics, I'd have to consider it.

[ReeferMadness 31]

I had to stop reading once you talked about deficits.All party leaders wanted to spend big in 2008 to get us out of the recession. Tell me any other party who would have cut the deficit this quickly.

They created the structural deficit and made the debt much worse through ill-advised tax cuts. In particular, the corporate tax cuts resulted only in loading corporations with cash they don't know what to do with.

Most of the deficit value was just self-inflicted wounds.

[Shady 1,826]

There was a global recession prior to the 2009 budget?

Yes. The economic downturn started in late 2007. It's one of the reasons Obama was elected president in the fall of 2008.

[Shady 1,826]

I don't blame you for not reading it. It's a pretty depressing record and maybe once Harper is gone, we should all figure out exactly how a guy like this managed to manipulate the system to electing him.

We wouldn't want it to happen again.

It's factually incorrect and nonsensical partisan talking points.

[cybercoma 29]

Yes. The economic downturn started in late 2007. It's one of the reasons Obama was elected president in the fall of 2008.

Oh that's hilarious. Now you recognize that the economy started going south in late 2007 with the major crisis hitting in October 2008. Of course, Harper, the great economist, couldn't see it.

"This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10, 2008)

"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)

"The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)

But hey, throw your vote behind the guy with absolutely no foresight. Scratch that. He didn't need foresight. He was just blind to what was in front of his face. That's even worse.

Edited October 3, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc 24]

They created the structural deficit and made the debt much worse through ill-advised tax cuts. In particular, the corporate tax cuts resulted only in loading corporations with cash they don't know what to do with.

Most of the deficit value was just self-inflicted wounds.

If there were a structural deficit we'd still be in deficit.

[TimG 18]

There was a global recession prior to the 2009 budget?

The Lehman shock hit Sept 2008 - government revenues would started dropping immediately even if there was no technical recession. By 2009 no government could not make up for the lost revenues without cutting programs so it makes sense that the 2009 budget was a deficit. The main difference between Harper and the opposition is the opposition wanted to immediately start running massive deficits instead of waiting to see how things played out.

People who think the fact that he ran a deficit and brought it back to surplus is some how a sign of poor management are ignorant of history. There are many things which Harper can be legitimately criticized for - poor fiscal management is not one of them.

[ToadBrother 0]

The Lehman shock hit Sept 2008 - government revenues would started dropping immediately even if there was no technical recession. By 2009 no government could not make up for the lost revenues without cutting programs so it makes sense that the 2009 budget was a deficit. The main difference between Harper and the opposition is the opposition wanted to immediately start running massive deficits instead of waiting to see how things played out.

People who think the fact that he ran a deficit and brought it back to surplus is some how a sign of poor management are ignorant of history. There are many things which Harper can be legitimately criticized for - poor fiscal management is not one of them.

I'd say the GST cut to 5% is an excellent example of an incredibly bad decision.

[Rue 1,183]

Reefer why do you refer to yourself as "we"? A lot of people do on this forum. If you have an opinion speak for yourself. You are not plural. Thank you. Don't presume to speak for me. I support Harper and find the politics of Trudeau with his b.s. middle class references to be decisive-this rich against poor crap escaping your vision is interesting. So is the same b.s. tune played by Mulcair. You are selective in what you seee and here because of your political biases. Writing as we is a tad presumptious.

[angrypenguin 20]

Oh that's hilarious. Now you recognize that the economy started going south in late 2007 with the major crisis hitting in October 2008. Of course, Harper, the great economist, couldn't see it.

"This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10, 2008)

"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)

"The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)

But hey, throw your vote behind the guy with absolutely no foresight. Scratch that. He didn't need foresight. He was just blind to what was in front of his face. That's even worse.

Very few economists even saw it coming.

[Moonlight Graham 525]

So generating deficits to spend on infrastructure is good?

When you're in a strong recession, it's very normal economic policy to run a defect to spend on domestic measures to stimulate the economy. Google "Keynesian economics". The Liberals would have done very similar, and many other OECD governments did it.

[cybercoma 29]

Very few economists even saw it coming.

People saw it coming. It was collapsing for a year before the bottom fell out.

These economists were predicting it as early as 2004-05

http://intheblack.com/articles/2015/07/07/6-economists-who-predicted-the-global-financial-crisis-and-why-we-should-listen-to-them-from-now-on

[angrypenguin 20]

When you're in a strong recession, it's very normal economic policy to run a defect to spend on domestic measures to stimulate the economy. Google "Keynesian economics". The Liberals would have done very similar, and many other OECD governments did it.

Exactly. And I cannot think any other government could cut the deficit that quickly. Spending money is easy, getting out of that hole is not. Now is not the time to be plunging us back down into a deficit.

[angrypenguin 20]

People saw it coming. It was collapsing for a year before the bottom fell out.

These economists were predicting it as early as 2004-05

http://intheblack.com/articles/2015/07/07/6-economists-who-predicted-the-global-financial-crisis-and-why-we-should-listen-to-them-from-now-on

I said "very few". It was not globally accepted that that would have panned out.

[ToadBrother 0]

Exactly. And I cannot think any other government could cut the deficit that quickly. Spending money is easy, getting out of that hole is not. Now is not the time to be plunging us back down into a deficit.

I think that would depend on what you meant by "plunging into deficit". As Andrew Coyne pointed out a couple of weeks ago, a small deficit isn't going to hurt in any significant way.

This is the problem with black-and-white rules like "NO DEFICIT". They certainly make great slogans, but as public policy they are at best worthless, or in some cases much worse than worthless.

Not that I actually think Trudeau's three year deficit plan is the least bit sensible, mainly because not even he is going to spend enough money to make that much of a difference. But then again, a lot of the Tories' tax cuts, like the GST cut early on, were equally idiotic moves. I have become, in my years as a political observer, very used to governments doing incredibly stupid things because they know it gets votes.