# Flaherty should be fired, along with the Conservatives



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

From March 31st, 2009... not even two months ago:

*Flaherty vows there will be no deficit*



> There will be no deficit on his watch, even on a temporary basis, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday.
> 
> In responding to the worsening global financial crisis that has slowed economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, “we'll do what we have to do, so long as we remain economically prudent. *We're sure not going to run a deficit* *... We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt.”*
> 
> ...


Wow... amazing what can happen in a mere 6 weeks... 

Now... a 50 Billion dollar deficit. 

Pull the trigger on an election soon please.


----------



## ChilBear (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree. Time to change to prevent the Conservatives from running up the deficit that the Liberals took a decade to reduce. Harper is toast IMO.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

First, they removed the word "Progressive" from the title Progressive Conservative. Now they're not even Conservative anymore. This reminds me of Animal Farm more and more all the time. Next thing, the pigs will have figured out how to stand on two legs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bet he wishes he listened to the economists who said don't cut the GST - that $20 billion over two years would have helped the optics.

I'm just wondering why gov is not cutting their generous perqs and salaries.....


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

YouTube - Harper's Conservatives Runaway Deficit

YouTube - The government got it so wrong

Maybe the above explains why Feds sell historic silver Historic pieces, including wedding gifts to British royalty, have been sold from Rideau Hall


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

You guys are all the same... if the liberals were in power - we would still be in the same boat..
He is only listening to the visitor from the States, which told him to spend his way out.. Now that he has - the same liberals are crying fowl ...

Every one should take a step back, relax... 



ChilBear said:


> ...the deficit that the Liberals took a decade to reduce..


actually any one in power at that time would of paid off the deficit even the FLQ, I mean BLOC party... it was during the greatest economic boom the world has seen...

I say we should have another election, give Stephen Harper the majority he needs to quail all these minority parities..

if the LIberals were in power would have a 60 billion deficit, 50 for the economy and take the pages from Chrietian days.. 10 for the friends of the liberals... at least we know Harper has not done that.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The Conservatives put forth their conservative plans in November. Remember that? Coalition, constitutiional crisis, threats of non-confidence.

The gun was put to their heads, and the order was SPEND NOW!!!! Even yesterday, Liberals were still standing up in the house and demanding substantially more spending. Now you have evidence that you got what you asked for, and you're going to turn around and blame Flaherty for doing it? That's rich.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

See, this is what I don't get when non-conservatives are calling for their rivals' heads' on a platter. For weeks, when it was obvious that the economy was going south, they were strident in their calls "when will the PM do something about the economy?" Over and over ad nauseum; just might have been an election issue, I believe. Now, unser leader et al are spending in the best liberal vein and are being pilloried for it. What did the opp expect? Job creation without spending a dime? A magical fix for the world's economic ailment? No, the cons are only doing what they believe the populace wants.

Disclaimer: I am not a conservative; my prejudices are ecumenical.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> The Conservatives put forth their conservative plans in November. Remember that? Coalition, constitutiional crisis, threats of non-confidence.
> 
> The gun was put to their heads, and the order was SPEND NOW!!!! Even yesterday, Liberals were still standing up in the house and demanding substantially more spending. Now you have evidence that you got what you asked for, and you're going to turn around and blame Flaherty for doing it? That's rich.


Smartest man in the thread right now, bsenka. Nobody else gets that the Libs and the NDP are dictating what goes into every budget. :clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> Smartest man in the thread right now, bsenka. Nobody else gets that the Libs and the NDP are dictating what goes into every budget. :clap:


Yeah, I'm waiting for Iggy and Jack to fire themselves. Like that would ever happen.:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember Iggy pondering whether the Conservatives had committed enough spending to the "stimulus package" and just barely giving it a pass as an inadequate amount. Harper and company saved us from a Dion/Layton deficit and an Iggy deficit that would have been far worse. 

Time to give Harper a majority, I agree.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm actually going to resist the temptation to lay the blame for this on the Conservatives alone.

But I will say flatly that this Flaherty guy is totally incompetent and should be replaced. He DOESN'T KNOW six weeks ago that the deficit will be huge???? Are you serious???

That level of bureaucratic bungling wouldn't even be tolerated in the BUSH administration. Seriously -- they spent like drunken sailors, and lied about their sums, but they at least knew from one month to the next that they were spending more than they were taking in!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> That level of bureaucratic bungling wouldn't even be tolerated in the BUSH administration.


Agreed. It took the Obama administration to accept malfeasance on a truly massive scale.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

chas_m said:


> But I will say flatly that this Flaherty guy is totally incompetent and should be replaced. He DOESN'T KNOW six weeks ago that the deficit will be huge???? Are you serious???


Doesn't know, isn't allowed to say, isn't allowed access to any information but the words Harper writes for him moments before he has to say them ... whatever the case may be, it does not look good on him. 

While I don't agree with spending one's way out of the recession the way the other parties are suggesting, I don't think ignoring and denying it is the way to go either. If you want to attack the problem with a fiscally conservative solution, then do so. But, we've heard even as far back as last fall's pre-election that Canada's financial situation was A-OK, not to worry, only to find out after the fact that it wasn't quite that way.

I understand that in times like this, maybe the financial picture changes a lot in just a few weeks, but it seems that Flaherty and Harper both have made emphatic statements about our financial picture, only to be proven "wrong" shortly thereafter. Especially if you're not inclined to be a Harper/Flaherty fan in the first place, you could have a really difficult time seeing this as something other than lying or incompetence. Chas_m's reaction is quite natural, and I think a lot of people are feeling that way right now.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

The issue isn't so much that there is a deficit, the issue is this bumbling idiot who mere weeks ago was denying barely any problems at all and suddenly, this *MASSIVE* recalculation of our deficit. 

Still, the actual money for economic stimulus is barely flowing from the Conservatives. I guess they are too busy spending and working on their attack ads from their "stay in power at all costs" pre-election war room. 

This will be the nail in the coffin for the Conservatives. 

There is an really big uproar in Kitchener - Waterloo over the attack ads with letters to the editor flooding in as well as many editorial pieces. Like this letter to the editor today in The Record:



> *Attack ads are childish*
> 
> May 28, 2009
> LOUISE LEFEBVRE
> ...


The Conservatives have zero chance, and I mean nilch, nada, of forming a majority government anytime in the near future, and a very slim chance of staying in power next election. 

The average electorate probably won't be dazzled by a photo-op of Harper standing beside a 5% GST sticker at a cash register, which did contribute to the most massive deficit in our countries history. (Which they said didn't exist several weeks ago)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, if Louis Lefebvre is weighing in...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Well, if Louis Lefebvre is weighing in...


Feel free to discredit a single Kitchener - Waterloo voter, but there are many, many more similar letters to the editor, and editorials being published. Part of the reason Conservative have their fragile minority, is because they *just* squeaked in some key Southern Ontario ridings in the area. Many pollsters use this area as a bell-weather for an election, and that does not bode well for the Conservatives.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax: I's just pointing out that I can find other letters to the editor to counter that one. It's only the final poll, at election time, that counts.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

bsenka said:


> The Conservatives put forth their conservative plans in November. Remember that? Coalition, constitutiional crisis, threats of non-confidence.


While this is true, even back then the Cons were denying that we were in any financial difficulties. So, yes they had "conservative plans to govern" but not "conservative plans to deal with the impending financial crisis." That's the sticky point with me.

These kinds of discussions are so difficult to have because most people participating have already taken an attack or defend stance and just dig in their heels. I would really like to hear, because I'm sincerely curious, a Conservative supporter give their perspective on specifically the "we won't have a deficit / I won't let that happen" turn around. I think we know how non-Conservatives feel about it. 

I'd love to hear a conservative not dismiss a viewpoint simply because it came from a Liberal, or avoid the issue by saying how much worse off the deficit would be if the Liberals/NDP had their way. I'm really curious as to how people in support of Flaherty's party are reacting to what seems like either willful deception or incompetence. Because of course, if a left-winger had done the same thing, you know the right would be attacking him or her.

I mean, are you thinking, "Hey Bozo, great for our PR," but reconciling it in your own mind that at least conservative polices are (to you) the lesser evil, so those are just the lumps you gotta take? Do you distrust any politician, so you're less concerned by the words they say and will reserve judgment for their actions and how they guide Canada? 

It doesn't make us any less of a party/politician supporter to be objective and concede when our guy has done something wrong or stupid. We don't have to judge the strength of our own character by the strength which with we defend a particular party. Is there not one conservative who is reacting badly, in any small way, to this? 

Seriously, tell us how you're reconciling this whole Flaherty thing while being a Conservative. Lord knows a lot of us who support other parties need that skill, too!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> ehMax: I's just pointing out that I can find other letters to the editor to counter that one. It's only the final poll, at election time, that counts.


So true... I've been trying to decide which post I will reply to when the Conservatives are voted out of power next election, and I think this might be the one. 

PS... When you see many, many, more letters to the editor in your local paper speaking out against the attack ads than those in support, you start to get a sense of the overall opinion in the area. 

For example, I'm all for the new rapid transit system city counsel is proposing for Kitchener - Waterloo - Cambridge, but with the majority of the letters to the editor being against it, it doesn't take a genius to get the overall public opinion of the project and the spending.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> When you see many, many, more letters to the editor in your local paper speaking out against the attack ads than those in support, you start to get a sense of the overall opinion in the area.


People are far less likely to write to the editor to say that they have no problems with attack ads. There may be a flurry of letters responding to those who criticize them, but for those who are OK with the idea, it's a non-issue. Depending on the political slant of the newspaper, the number of letters for and against will be reflected.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> I'm actually going to resist the temptation to lay the blame for this on the Conservatives alone.


It would be good if you did, because you would be dead wrong. What we don't see is the fact that much of this economic mess has been caused by the disappearance of upwards of 20 Trillion dollars of money supply in the world. This has caused a large number of currency rushes all around the world. In order to prevent a run on the banks (and some real economic calamity), the Bank of Canada has fronted tons of cash from it's reserves and from the government books. The world economy simply became overheated for too long, something that Warren Buffet observed not long ago when he determined that to sustain the pace of economic growth we saw in the 20th century, the Dow-Jones would have to top 200,000 points by 2100, a market fifteen times the size of the NYSE when it peaked out. There simply is not enough content in the world to sustain that pace, which by the way, is only 5.8% per annum, which isn't enough to even service average debt loads from the 19th century.

This is a far bigger specter than the Minister, or the party in power, or Economic Salvation that is promulgated by Layton. No policy put forth by a penny-ante country like ours can "fix" the problem. Even if we dedicated every penny of our GNP towards "fighting the crisis", it wouldn't make much of a dent on the $20 Trillion that has vapourized. All we can expect is a government to coordinate efforts with the entire economic community, and really, our situation is far better than that elsewhere. Our banks haven't folded - not even one bank had had even a momentary loss of cash.

No other nation can say the same. Banks like Washington Mutual have collapsed in the US, a bank that had more assets than anything in Canada , and they weren't even the biggest or anything. The French banks were partly nationalized because of massive fraud and giant losses on derivatives. The Germans bailed out "the world's dumbest bank" after they had loaned Lehmann Brothers billion on the day they filed for bankruptcy. The UK dumped billions of pounds into propping up various banks that were broadsided by bank collapses in Iceland. The Japanese government bailed out a number of banks that were on the brink of collapse after a massive currency run on the Yen that devalued the export markets.

This is not a little "made in Canada" fiasco in 91-92, where we bore the brunt of stuff that happened in the US but made worse by bad policy here. Nor it is 80-81 where the economy burned out because of excessive inflation and interest rates. Nor is it 72-73 where a spike of oil prices caused the collapse of Bretton Woods. This is the real deal, a genuine economic depression which will result in a massive reorgismento of "the system", so really, the best place for Canada is to remain as we are, in the eye of the hurricane, and ride things out.

Saying things like adding GST will provide Economic Salvation is entirely silly. The only possible tax that can restore "the system" is a tax that can instantly raise $20 Trillion, to restore the money supply. Not even Obama, in his wildest dreams, could find that much cash.

It's time to prepare for a massive adjustment in our expectations and lifestyles because, unless we can find some way of ensuring that the Dow-Jones can keep rising until it tops 200,000 points by 2100; nothing will be the same as what we experienced throughout the 20th Century.

As for government spending - the only way to curb it is to stop saddling the government with every petty demand, like asking for massive amounts of cash so that parents can abdicate the responsibilities for raising their kids, or asking the government to spend and fix various "problems" when really, the people have to become more responsible for their own lives and become more self-sufficient in the long term.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> ehMax: I's just pointing out that I can find other letters to the editor to counter that one. It's only the final poll, at election time, that counts.


We also do not know how many contrary opinions are being sent in, since most Editors in this country are firmly in the pockets of the Liberal establishment and never support the Conservatives, no matter what.

The attack ads raises some real questions, as many people have expressed their distain at them, despite the fact that wer are supposed to be a democracy with freedom of speech and the right to expression.

I for one think they absolutely fine, anyone can advertise whatever so long as it doesn't peddle racial or religious hatred, or discrimination, etc... And really, instead of blubbering and whining, the Fiberals should get their own commercials out, showing Harper saying this or promising that and knocking him for not following through. It's a free country, they can get their own ads - there's no death squad on patrol ready to liquidate them as there are in most other countries.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> The Conservatives put forth their conservative plans in November. Remember that? Coalition, constitutiional crisis, threats of non-confidence.
> 
> The gun was put to their heads, and the order was SPEND NOW!!!! Even yesterday, Liberals were still standing up in the house and demanding substantially more spending. Now you have evidence that you got what you asked for, and you're going to turn around and blame Flaherty for doing it? That's rich.


I doubt the liberals would have been STUPID enough to cut the gst, and we wouldn't have had such a runaway deficit!

Every economist in the land said it was a dumb move, and here's why...

Oh. BTW. Before you continue ranting on about how it's the liberal's fault...

CTV.ca | Flaherty says deficit spending 'right thing to do'

The "right thing to do"

Oh, here comes the typical conservative fix...

It's bargoon days in government assets!...
CTV.ca | Ottawa to sell stake in nuclear agency

You actually CAN make this stuff up.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Still, the actual money for economic stimulus is barely flowing from the Conservatives. I guess they are too busy spending and working on their attack ads from their "stay in power at all costs" pre-election war room.


You need to understand that the delay in the money flowing is not at the Federal level, these moneys need the cooperation at the Provincial and municipal levels as well and it is at these levels of intergovernmental dealings that the delays occur. Most Canadian's do not understand how these things work and the Liberal's use this ignorance to blame the Government for delays because it is politically expedient to do so whether it is true or not.

Unfortunately many of the people who post here only get their information from the media. Do a little home work and find how things actually work and speak to people who work for or in Government and you will find out very quickly that all is not as the media portrays it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good news on selling the nuclear business! Things are looking up!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> You need to understand that the delay in the money flowing is not at the Federal level, these moneys need the cooperation at the Provincial and municipal levels as well and it is at these levels of intergovernmental dealings that the delays occur. Most Canadian's do not understand how these things work and the Liberal's use this ignorance to blame the Government for delays because it is politically expedient to do so whether it is true or not.
> 
> Unfortunately many of the people who post here only get their information from the media. Do a little home work and find how things actually work and speak to people who work for or in Government and you will find out very quickly that all is not as the media portrays it.


Excellent post screature. That's tellin' it like it really is! :clap:

Now, if the naysayers can only get their minds around the fact that all budget items have had to been approved by the Liberals BEFORE they could be enacted. Like I said, nobody seems to get that Jack and Iggy are the ones demanding the spending.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ah the old if you allowed the budget to go through, you are responsible for all the ineptness too.

Nonsense.

I didn't see iggy nor jack demanding idiotic vote buying useless gst cuts either...

Someone will have to pay for this, and it's gonna be you and me sinc...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Where's the Ontario Liberal beat up, throw the bums out office thread? Or is it the Feds fault that they're a bunch of idiots and are racking up a huge deficit, and spending money hand over fist? It's probably the Feds fault that the rest of the industrial world is in the same boat with running deficits too.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> We also do not know how many contrary opinions are being sent in, since most Editors in this country are firmly in the pockets of the Liberal establishment and never support the Conservatives, no matter what.
> 
> The attack ads raises some real questions, as many people have expressed their distain at them, despite the fact that wer are supposed to be a democracy with freedom of speech and the right to expression.
> 
> I for one think they absolutely fine, anyone can advertise whatever so long as it doesn't peddle racial or religious hatred, or discrimination, etc... And really, instead of blubbering and whining, the Fiberals should get their own commercials out, showing Harper saying this or promising that and knocking him for not following through. It's a free country, they can get their own ads - there's no death squad on patrol ready to liquidate them as there are in most other countries.


I'd prefer the Liberals take the high road and debate policy (or lack there of) than try to enter in the world of WWE smack-talk attack ads that appeal to the lowest common denominator out there. 

As for the editors on The Kitchener Record being in the pockets of the Liberals.  On many issues, such as public rapid transit, they publish many more letters from the right who are against rapid transit and bike friendly roads.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Excellent post screature. That's tellin' it like it really is! :clap:
> 
> Now, if the naysayers can only get their minds around the fact that all budget items have had to been approved by the Liberals BEFORE they could be enacted. Like I said, nobody seems to get that Jack and Iggy are the ones demanding the spending.


Too funny. :lmao:

For one, and you KNOW this is true, if it was the Liberal government who 6 weeks ago was saying all was rosy, there'd be no huge deficit, no problem.... and then BOOM, sorry, we have a 50 Billion Dollar deficit, the Conservative supporters would be whipping themselves into a frothing frenzy. I can only imagine and everyone knows its true. 

Second, approving budget does not equal disclosing the balance book. 

If I went to my boss and said, here is my budget... this budget will not cause a deficit, and then 5 weeks later said... er sorry, this budget has put us $50,000 in debt, I'd be fired. 

Third, get off this high horse BS that you have to work in the government or be some sort of secret insider to see what's going on. 

The hypocrisy of conservative supporters is so laughable. No mistake or blunder is the fault of anything to do with the conservative government, but feel free to run million dollar ad campaigns attacking a guy because he hasn't lived in Canada his whole life, and get all chest thumping about being a "pure" Canadian. 

Oh, the excuses and chest thumping when the conservatives are voted out of power next election.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i disagree.

The opposition bItches and moans to fix the economy so the powers that be put in the measures, make their calculations, the recession takes a further tanking, more people are laid off and relying on EI thus putting additional strain on the economy and suddenly, it's the conservatives fault??!?!

I call BS in a big way.

All this is....and I repeat ALL THIS IS....

is typical politics. 

ie. one party taking advantage of a situation to blame the guys in power. tptptptp

And btw, I'm don't bleed Liberal, PC or NDP. I've never believed in cheering for the same political teams b/c the morons themselves hop back and forth.

I sometimes wonder if a dicatorship would be better than having these losers in power.

As you can tell, I'm VERY jaded about politicians. I think they're all crooks (re: mulroney) who are simply egotistical in nature. They're out for themselves and like being in the paper.

And Ehmax is right, had this been the Liberals who announced the budget, folks would be screaming for their heads as well. Doesn't matter who's in power b/c one thing will always remain consistent:

we'll always be bent over the table with our hands tied taking it....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Between the time they made these calculations and now, there shouldn't be any surprise whatsoever at how bad the economy is and has become. 

They dropped the ball, nothing less, nothing more. 

It should be expected from a party that declared no recession existed while the world was in freefall. The same party declaring Canada was exempt from this recession, as if somehow we operate in a vacuum. The same party whose leader is an economist.

There simply is no excuse.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now they want to sell AECL just when the nuclear industry is spinning up.........fancy that - shades of 407..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Too funny. :lmao:
> 
> For one, and you KNOW this is true, if it was the Liberal government who 6 weeks ago was saying all was rosy, there'd be no huge deficit, no problem.... and then BOOM, sorry, we have a 50 Billion Dollar deficit, the Conservative supporters would be whipping themselves into a frothing frenzy. I can only imagine and everyone knows its true.
> 
> ...


This secret insider nonsense was just the icing on the cake that is the conservative supporter hypocrisy.

The list of lies starting with the conservatives raising taxes in their first budget on the working poor while cutting it for the rich, should have been the omen for what was to come.

I think in time, we will begin to see this this government, as likely -the- most inept bunch of fumbling fools in Canadian history. The story has just only begun...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Too funny. :lmao:
> 
> For one, and you KNOW this is true, if it was the Liberal government who 6 weeks ago was saying all was rosy, there'd be no huge deficit, no problem.... and then BOOM, sorry, we have a 50 Billion Dollar deficit, the Conservative supporters would be whipping themselves into a frothing frenzy. I can only imagine and everyone knows its true.


Of course that is politics. 



ehMax said:


> Second, approving budget does not equal disclosing the balance book.
> 
> If I went to my boss and said, here is my budget... this budget will not cause a deficit, and then 5 weeks later said... er sorry, this budget has put us $50,000 in debt, I'd be fired.


:lmao::lmao::lmao: If you think the Liberals didn't know that the Conservatives would have to run a deficit to stay in office, i.e. survive a non-confidence vote, you are dreaming in technicolour. They simply wanted to make sure that the Conservatives would "wear" the deficit. 



ehMax said:


> Third, get off this high horse BS that you have to work in the government or be some sort of secret insider to see what's going on.


Nice to see that the Mayor isn't above colourful language.  No high horse, just a fact. Unless you have experience working inside an organization you really have no idea what the day to day operational realities are.



ehMax said:


> The hypocrisy of conservative supporters is so laughable. No mistake or blunder is the fault of anything to do with the conservative government,


If you really think that Flaherty's statements were an error or blunder again you are dreaming in technicolor. It is euphemistically called "crisis management", communications only tell half the picture until the whole truth has to be known, the Liberals would have done the same. 



ehMax said:


> but feel free to run million dollar ad campaigns attacking a guy because he hasn't lived in Canada his whole life, and get all chest thumping about being a "pure" Canadian.


This money is not public money the Conservative Party is free to spend the money as they please. Do I agree with the tactics? No. Nor do many Conservative MPs, the fact of the matter is that elected MPs have no say in how the Party spends its money or the message they disseminate. I personally know of several Conservative MPs who have told the Party executives that they are not happy with the ads. Unfortunately to say so publicly is to suffer the consequences, such is the reality of a "Whipped" system.




ehMax said:


> Oh, the excuses and chest thumping when the conservatives are voted out of power next election.


The only excuses are those that would be made by any ruling party in a crisis scenario, it is all about biding ones time until such time as to, hopefully, fight another day. 

Will the Conservatives be defeated at the next general election? Most likely. However, I can almost guarantee you that it will be another minority government. At the moment Canada is politically fractured and until such time as any of the parties have a truly charismatic leader we are in for a series of minority Governments. Personally I don't think this is a bad thing except for the delays and game playing that goes on in Committees.

If in fact Iggy gains a Minority Government Harper will be gone and that will in my estimation be a good thing for the Conservative Party. They need to clean house and get rid of the extreme top down relentlessly partisan leadership that they now have. Quite frankly both of the major political parties in this country need to clear out the partisan deadwood and make room for a new breed that is willing to work across Party lines for the good of the country.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> ehMax: I's just pointing out that I can find other letters to the editor to counter that one. It's only the final poll, at election time, that counts.


Exactly. And your beloved Conservatives failed to get a majority both times. Why not accept that maybe they're just not that good?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Quite frankly both of the major political parties in this country need to clear out the partisan deadwood and make room for a new breed that is willing to work across Party lines for the good of the country.


Without a doubt this is what Canada needs the most. Enough of our time, money and resources have been wasted playing USELESS partisan politics.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ehMax said:


> The issue isn't so much that there is a deficit, the issue is this bumbling idiot who mere weeks ago was denying barely any problems at all and suddenly, this *MASSIVE* recalculation of our deficit.


This is a PROJECTED deficit for the whole fiscal year that we are barely two months into. It's what it will take to continue to spend the way the Liberals keep insisting that they do, not what is already spent.



ehMax said:


> Still, the actual money for economic stimulus is barely flowing from the Conservatives. I guess they are too busy spending and working on their attack ads from their "stay in power at all costs" pre-election war room.


The stimulus is flowing, and projects being approved, at the fastest rate they ever have. Literally no one has ever done so much so fast. The PARTY are producing the ads, the GOVERNMENT is hard at work.



> The Conservatives have zero chance, and I mean nilch, nada, of forming a majority government anytime in the near future, and a very slim chance of staying in power next election.


The Liberals have zero chance, and I mean nilch, nada, of forming a government of any kind any time soon, if ever. The Liberals will go through at least two more leaders, and Harper will retire before they have a chance, and that's if they even exist anymore by that time. We have the best government this country has had in at least 40 years, and the best in the world right now.



> The average electorate probably won't be dazzled by a photo-op of Harper standing beside a 5% GST sticker at a cash register, which did contribute to the most massive deficit in our countries history. (Which they said didn't exist several weeks ago)


Thankfully most people who vote are smarter than most Liberal supporters. That GST cut is a big reason why we are in so much BETTER of a position than other counties, because we had a built-in stimulus in the economy before it even hit us. And despite what the Liberal media tries to tell you, the deficit is not even close to being the biggest in history. 

I know what you mean though, Flaherty should just do what the Liberals did to balance the budget: steal $54 billion from EI.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. And your beloved Conservatives failed to get a majority both times. Why not accept that maybe they're just not that good?


No party is "that good" and none have the guts to get the books in order. I prefer to see the Conservatives with a majority (though they are not my beloved) but I have no hopes for it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry ehMax, but your knowledge falls just a tad shy on the situation.

Time will tell the tale and your version will not be the accepted truth of the reality.

Nice try though.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sorry ehMax, but your knowledge falls just a tad shy on the situation.
> 
> Time will tell the tale and your version will not be the accepted truth of the reality.
> 
> Nice try though.


More like the truth falls on deaf ears. Flaherty is a failed Finance Minister and a huge liability to the Conservative party. To blind conservative cheerleaders who don't see that... hey, I'll take the freeway ride to the Conservative out of power. I don't suppose even Harper will be that dumb to keep him on in the coming weeks...

You haven't heard my whole tale... I think Flaherty will go down as the worst Finance Ministers in Canadian history. 

April 3rd, 2009, Jim Flaherty, and I quote, "Relatively speaking, this is a mild economic recession, these are relatively mild challenges for us." 

Sticking head in sand and pretending there isn't a huge economic crisis, saying there is no huge deficit, then dropping a deficit atomic bomb weeks later. We'll see how that works out in the history books. :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No party is "that good" and none have the guts to get the books in order. I prefer to see the Conservatives with a majority (though they are not my beloved) but I have no hopes for it.


Hmmm. On that point we can agree.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

ehMax said:


> PS... When you see many, many, more letters to the editor in your local paper speaking out against the attack ads than those in support, you start to get a sense of the overall opinion in the area.
> 
> For example, I'm all for the new rapid transit system city counsel is proposing for Kitchener - Waterloo - Cambridge, but with the majority of the letters to the editor being against it, it doesn't take a genius to get the overall public opinion of the project and the spending.


I wanted to comment on this particular point because I have plenty of actual, real-world experience on this. I have been an editorial-page director, aka the Guy Who Picks Which Letters Run for a variety of publications, from tiny to citywide.

The very first thing I ever learned about that job was that YOUR opinion doesn't enter into it. The letters page should reflect as accurately as possible the RATIO of readers writing in with their opinions yea or nay. After that, you're looking for the most articulate arguments on either side. That usually cuts you way down to just a handful of letters to run. 

I would expect any professional publication in Canada to abide by those same conventions. IOW, if you see that 75% of the letters to the editor in a given newspaper are opposed to Idea X, you should feel confident that 75% of the actual letters the paper got were in fact opposed to Idea X. How that stacks up as a scientific poll is another point, but in my experience people who feel strongly on both sides of an issue tend to want to weigh in, so I naturally feel that LttE's are a good general indication of the public's sentiment.

Any easy way to tell a BAD newspaper is to notice if the vast majority of the letters they run are ALWAYS in agreement with the editorial board (coughMURDOCHcough).


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Now, if the naysayers can only get their minds around the fact that all budget items have had to been approved by the Liberals BEFORE they could be enacted. Like I said, nobody seems to get that Jack and Iggy are the ones demanding the spending.


This idea is dishonest at best. The opposing parties approve (or deny) the ENTIRE budget, not line-item; they put in suggestions and they have their causes which (they feel) need to be represented in there, but the authors of this budget (and the ones who endorse and present it) are the governing party, currently the Conservatives. Nice try, SINC, but you can't blame the Liberals for bad budgets when they are out of power and (were at the time) low in the polls. The conservatives had them by the short hairs at budget-writing time, and this baby is ALL THEIRS.

(and the reverse will be true the next time the Liberals write their own budget from a similar position of power)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Cons in trouble on this....if Harper digs in he digs his own burial plot politically...he can't on one hand claim do what it takes on deficit and leave EI as it is.
Simply incomprehensible..

B.C. Premier demands single standard for EI - The Globe and Mail

Ontario voters are going to react very negatively to the AECL initiative, many recall the 407 debacle.
Harper is in trouble in Ontario on many fronts .....and there are 12 new ridings to consider.

If Harper enegineers a summer election thinking people won't care he should recall one David Peterson and what the Ontario electorate did to his sunny over confident political ploy.

Quebec is a write off.

Now BC is in play.

Ontario can swing very hard left in a heartbeat and the conditions are set for that. Harper plays with fire big time if he tries to play bully boy on EI.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

No matter how much I despise the man, Flaherty really is just a puppet. Harper holds those strings tightly and Flaherty jerks about to their movements. Although I believe the contemptuous sneers to be all his own...

A good point was made on the news regarding the issue of resignation. The Liberals secured Flaherty's job simply by demanding his resignation. Harper has proven throughout his spotty career that the last thing he would do would be to bend to the will of the opposing Liberals. Call it governing by spite if you will. Who really would want that job now anyway?

Despite the howls of protest we can be rest assured that this is the fatal blow to the Harper regime. They are the architects of _their own_ attack ads starring their gross mismanagement during this economic crisis and Flaherty's snarling grimace. Of course the opposition demanded they spend, but one would expect that with that spending came some accountability and knowledge. This Government is flying blind and we will pay dearly for it for years to come.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> This idea is dishonest at best. The opposing parties approve (or deny) the ENTIRE budget, not line-item; they put in suggestions and they have their causes which (they feel) need to be represented in there, but the authors of this budget (and the ones who endorse and present it) are the governing party, currently the Conservatives. Nice try, SINC, but you can't blame the Liberals for bad budgets when they are out of power and (were at the time) low in the polls. The conservatives had them by the short hairs at budget-writing time, and this baby is ALL THEIRS.
> 
> (and the reverse will be true the next time the Liberals write their own budget from a similar position of power)


Thanks for the try at education in Canadian politics chas_m, but your butt is suckin' slough water. The Liberals demanded and got the right to have input to all budgeting. Period. Full stop.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Now they want to sell AECL just when the nuclear industry is spinning up.........fancy that - shades of 407..


That is a good thing, since AECL has long been a black hole that swallows cash like no other white elephant can. You just have to look at the track record - they are only capable of building a reactor if it will take five years longer than planned, with a 3 to 4 times cost overrun.

The nuclear industry isn't "spinning up", it's just politicians making a bunch of noise while doing nothing, especially when they said they would abolish coal generating power plants and have no replacement. Even if they do, in two or three decades, come up with some scheme, it will be NIMBY'd into submission.

A privatized AECL would end up hiring actual salespeople, rather than Liberal party glad handlers - and they'd hussle or be out of business. People thought our railways would collapse once the government divested - but the opposite happened...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Thanks for the try at education in Canadian politics chas_m, but your butt is suckin' slough water. The Liberals demanded and got the right to have input to all budgeting. Period. Full stop.


Yep. Iggy demanding special "budget review" powers and all. Some people should read the papers once in a while.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> That is a good thing, since AECL has long been a black hole that swallows cash like no other white elephant can. You just have to look at the track record - they are only capable of building a reactor if it will take five years longer than planned, with a 3 to 4 times cost overrun.


AECL is barely capable of making a sale to Ontario any more. The costs of the reactors are so heavily subsidized by the taxpayer it's embarrassing--then to seal any sales deals, Canada has to provide some of the most insane financing deals ever devised.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yep. Iggy demanding special "budget review" powers and all. Some people should read the papers once in a while.


That isn't the issue. The issue is their gross mismanagement and accountability. If they were so far off with the estimate, what else are they screwing up royally? Where is all that money going? Do they even know? Yikes!

If there was ever a reason to trust the Harper Conservatives there isn't any more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Where is all that money going?


Most if it is going to all of the porkulus spending demanded by the official opposition. I imagine more may be going to EI if they have their way.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Good news on selling the nuclear business! Things are looking up!


However, the future is not in the cards for AECL - they will just not be able to compete. Building a reactor on time and on budget defies AECL - tack on at least five years and 4 times more cash, and plan on lots of down time for repairs and maintenance. Best to sell that dinosaur off and let it die in peace. As for the fabulous export market - AECL's clients include India (that used it to make nuclear bombs), Romania (because no one else was dumb enough to deal with Ceaucescu, not even the Soviets), and a number of other penny-ante kleoptocracies that no one else would deal with...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I'd prefer the Liberals take the high road and debate policy (or lack there of) than try to enter in the world of WWE smack-talk attack ads that appeal to the lowest common denominator out there.
> 
> As for the editors on The Kitchener Record being in the pockets of the Liberals.  On many issues, such as public rapid transit, they publish many more letters from the right who are against rapid transit and bike friendly roads.


It's hard for the Liberals to debate policies, since they have rarely if ever followed any of the policies they promulgated. They have a nasty track record. It is the same people that now say "oh, the Tories shouldn't have reduced the GST because we now have a deficit" - even though their policy was to entirely eliminate the GST, and when they abandoned that the day after the election, we ended up with the Copps byelection (because she was stupid and thought the Liberals should actually do what they said they would).

if the GST hadn't been rolled back, our economy would have been hit even harder, since the retail sector would have had a really sucky Christmas for the past few years. GST is a real drain, and when it was imposed, it plunged Canada into recession (that was compounded by bad policies on Bob Rae's part that clobbered the engine of the economy). The same thing happened in New Zealand, which was plunged into a decade long economic crisis and never recovered.

My point is that we have free speech, and if the Conservatives want to point out self evident truths about their oppositioners, then so be it, so long as they are footing the bill. If the Liberals don't like the message, then they can either counter with showing some of the self evident truths about Harper's regime - like they can call out Gary Lunn because his beloved reactor that he rescued in his quest to provide nuclear salvation, has karked big time.

I think any Liberal plan that uses "the high road" on "issues" is doomed to eternal failure - since the Liberal track record is all about a continual series of train wrecks and lies unleashed over decades. It makes no sense for the Liberals to set themselves up to be reminded of such fiascos as AdScam, the Referendum, GST, loosing trade disputes with the US, the Crow, NEP, the CONstitution, unequal rights imposed upon citizens in order to rob votes from the separatists, John Turner, etc...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> You haven't heard my whole tale... I think Flaherty will go down as the worst Finance Ministers in Canadian history.
> 
> April 3rd, 2009, Jim Flaherty, and I quote, "Relatively speaking, this is a mild economic recession, these are relatively mild challenges for us."


I doubt Flaherty will rank among the "worst" - there is lots of competition for the bottom spots. So much competition that Michael Wilson, the main architect of the 91-92 Recession, doesn't even rank at the bottom. I think any of the clods that were involved in bad economic and financial thinking in the 70's would certainly be in the running, people like John Turner, who was pathetic, but there are tons of others who thought 20% interest and 20% inflation was a good thing.

As for this recession, he still is right, Canadians have been relatively insulated from the full monty that is going on elsewhere. We have not had one bank failure, we have not had one investment house on Bay Street go under, and even though we have major amounts of job losses, it's nothing when compared to the wholesale slaughter of jobs in the US. So we have a $50 Billion deficit, which is not a good thing, but Obama has spent a Trillion on various bail outs, and that spending is no where near finished, and that is over and above the Trillion or so that the US already owes on a yearly basis...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Ontario voters are going to react very negatively to the AECL initiative, many recall the 407 debacle.


I don't think so - I think Ontario voters would like to have affordable electricity.The continual fiascoes at Darlington, Bruce and Pickering, plants that shoved Ontario Hydro into bankruptcy. Voters are reminded of this fact every time they open a hydro bill and see that they are being rogered by having to pay off the costs of the bankruptcy. AECL designed and built that crud, and shoved one of the worlds most obscenely profitable utilities into bankruptcy. I don't think Ontarians would want yet another AECL plant featuring massive cost overruns, massive time delays, and innumerable shutdowns because of faulty and broken parts.

People complain about the 407, it is the most expensive highway in the world, but people still use it to go to and from work, so I don't see how it is a "debacle". Perhaps weird and scandalous, but not a debacle.



> If Harper enegineers a summer election thinking people won't care he should recall one David Peterson and what the Ontario electorate did to his sunny over confident political ploy.


You are comparing apples to carrots. Harper is not "engineering" a summer election, he is all about keeping his government in power to the max, which should be about two years. He faces no coordinated opposition, just a sliding conglomeration of ventures that never pan out numerically. Harper also knows that the gun is loaded and cocked, and whoever pulls the pin that brings us into an Election will be sullied, and then fragged by an enraged Electorate that wants a Minority. People just don't seem to understand that politically, the nation has tired of majorities that ram rod whatever through, and have a preference for a minority that simply can not do it. People like the fact that half the proposed legislation is simply killed off in Parliament, because most of that legislation is nothing more than acts of class warfare or discrimination.

Peterson, on the other hand, was smug and stupid, and lead a government that was notable for outrageous amounts of malfeasance, glad handling, poor decision making, and a lack of any popularity. The only thing that pushed him into power in the first place was the Tories put Frank Miller in, who has the personality of a cereal box, and that power was further cemented by the distain the electorate had for Larry Grossman. Peterson was so weak as a leader (especially after he sniveled and attempted to give Quebec our Senate seats, and pledged to sign the nasty Accord that would have entrenched race hatred and Jim Crow into the Consitution), that he was easily picked off by Bob Rae.

So your comparison holds absolutely no water what so ever.

The deficit and EI are fake issues, people outside of the CBC simply don't care. What people do care about is forking over billions of dollars to corporate failures like GM and Chrysler without having any say or control of the situation. The average Joe is pretty sure that any money that is handed over will simply be frittered away in outrageous executive bonuses, just like we saw at Air Canada a few years back, when that dude scored $50 Million for bankrupting that company.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Most if it is going to all of the porkulus spending demanded by the official opposition. I imagine more may be going to EI if they have their way.


Mr. Flaherty does not seem to agree with your description MF:



> The Conservative government is being responsive to the needs of Canadians with respect to unemployment and preserving jobs in the auto sector, Flaherty said.
> 
> "These are expensive — billions of dollars — and that's why we have an additional deficit. But it's the right thing to do."


It is probably politically wise to try to have it both ways, I can't remember the last time I saw a politician lose out when betting on the short memory of the voting public.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> I doubt Flaherty will rank among the "worst" - there is lots of competition for the bottom spots. So much competition that Michael Wilson, the main architect of the 91-92 Recession, doesn't even rank at the bottom. I think any of the clods that were involved in bad economic and financial thinking in the 70's would certainly be in the running, people like John Turner, who was pathetic, but there are tons of others who thought 20% interest and 20% inflation was a good thing.


EP: Turner escaped just before Trudeau instituted wage and price controls in the crazy notion that this would stem inflation caused by high energy costs. I'd give the prize to Finance Minister Donald Macdonald for actually going through with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> Mr. Flaherty does not seem to agree with your description MF:


I imagine not, My description differs from his, in that mine is accurate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> More like the truth falls on deaf ears. Flaherty is a failed Finance Minister and a huge liability to the Conservative party. To blind conservative cheerleaders who don't see that... hey, I'll take the freeway ride to the Conservative out of power. I don't suppose even Harper will be that dumb to keep him on in the coming weeks...
> 
> You haven't heard my whole tale... I think Flaherty will go down as the worst Finance Ministers in Canadian history.
> 
> ...


Again, it is euphemistically called "crisis management" in the communications world. 

The reality of a situation is downplayed to avoid panic and overreaction. Only when the full extent of the crisis need be known is the information disseminated. Controlling the release and messaging of the bad news by releasing it on an absolute need to know basis, tempers the reaction and potential overreaction (which can precipitously make a crisis worse than it otherwise would be) that occurs. This is actually prudent strategy in the case of a crisis that is evolving over time (as opposed to a sudden and fast spreading crisis where time is of the essence).

To think that Flaherty was not aware of how the recession was going to unfold is naive (albeit that is what both the Conservatives and Liberals, although for completely different strategic purposes, would have you believe). The Liberals knew how things were going to shake out and if the shoe were on the other foot they would have employed the same communications tactics to manage the crisis. 

The call for Flaherty's resignation is all part of the unfolding strategy of the Liberals. First force the Government (if they wish to stay in power) to wear the deficit (which they knew to be inevitable) and then call for the Finance Minister's head when the inevitable occurs.

Respectfully Mr. Mayor, everyone is entitled to their opinion based on what they read (and therein lies the beginning of the problem) but in this particular case, you are out of your depth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature: Agreed. It's all painfully obvious to everyone in Parliament how much money is being spent and where it's going--it would be impossible to keep it a secret.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

screature said:


> To think that Flaherty was not aware of how the recession was going to unfold is naive (albeit that is what both the Conservatives and Liberals, although for completely different strategic purposes, would have you believe). The Liberals knew this and if the shoe were on the other foot they would have employed the same communications tactics to manage the crisis.
> 
> The call for Flaherty's resignation is all part of the unfolding strategy of the Liberals. First force the Government (if they wish to stay in power) to wear the deficit (which they knew to be inevitable) and then call for the Finance Minister's head when thet inevitable occurs.


So, if this has been knowingly choreographed, then what's the end game? If this has played out as it appears everyone believed it would or should, then what has been the plan for Flaherty all along? Is it that no one (among the politicians, both sides, that is) really expects a resignation because they all know how this game works and what their role in the drama is? Is it all about making a fuss in public, but no heads will really roll, nor does the opposition really expect any to roll? 

Or, would Flaherty have known for a while that this was coming and he would have to fall on his sword and resign or be fired? By canning the Finance Minister, do both parties get to remove a little of the blame from themselves? (Cons can say "the guy who did this is gone, so we've proved that we did something about the problem, the problem being this guy who screwed up" and opposition can put the blame for the budget squarely on the Cons, even though they had a hand in its creation and used the threat of a coalition as veto power.)

I know I have a lot to learn about deciphering what's really going on from the message that's put out there, and I appreciate those who take their time to share with those of us who are still naive about politics.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sarah11918 said:


> So, if this has been knowingly choreographed, then what's the end game? If this has played out as it appears everyone believed it would or should, then what has been the plan for Flaherty all along? Is it that no one (among the politicians, both sides, that is) really expects a resignation because they all know how this game works and what their role in the drama is? Is it all about making a fuss in public, but no heads will really roll, nor does the opposition really expect any to roll?


Yes this is the scenario. Albeit if some real dirt (wrong doing etc.) were to stick to Flaherty the Liberals would smell the blood and a feeding frenzy would ensue and as a means of damage control Flaherty would resign (much better to resign than be fired).

But the likelihood of any such thing happen I would say is close to zero. This is all pre-election posturing and trying to get as many sound bites as possible on the part of both Parties. 

The Liberals don't have the budget for attack ads so they will use the media and Question Period to try and discredit the Conservatives as much as possible going forward. Whether there is any real substance to their claims or calls for Flaherty's head really doesn't matter that much, it is getting in the News, on the radio, in the papers and magazines that is important.

One has to remember or know that QP is theatre, a very high stakes game at times but it is highly scripted, with a soupçon of ad libing thrown in to keep things spicy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The righteous anger involved is about as meaningful as watching two lawyers go at it in court--then affably having lunch together later.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EP: Turner escaped just before Trudeau instituted wage and price controls in the crazy notion that this would stem inflation caused by high energy costs. I'd give the prize to Finance Minister Donald Macdonald for actually going through with it.


I think any list of the worst would feature any number or configuration of Trudeau's people, and not only Turner or Macdonald, but such forgettables as Chretien, MacEachren, and LaLonde. Those were heady days for malfeasance when it came to the Ministers of Finance. I think the only worst move would be if Ignatieff became PM and made some lamer like Ralph Goodale finance minister.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature: Agreed. It's all painfully obvious to everyone in Parliament how much money is being spent and where it's going--it would be impossible to keep it a secret.


I don't think so - Parliament allowed Chretien to waste billions of dollars on his advertising scam and payola schemes, until he was called out by an olympic biathalon chick that had a gig at VIA Rail.

For the most part, Parliamentarians are adequately happy if they are given directions to free lunch, free steak dinner, and have some access to the pork barrel, or a promise to be given some gravy job where pay is high and work load is low - like in the Senate, or maybe in that big Electronic Health Record project here in Ontario where they are netting $300 per hour to watch public affairs shows on TV, and a special $140,000 bonus if they watch some Steve Paikin on TVO...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^

EP: They knew that money was being spent--jut not where and how.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I doubt it, most of them don't even bother showing up for Parliament because they claim to be "in committee meetings", which is code for hanging around down at the pubs around the Bytown Market, providing their own personalized economic bailouts for John Labatt, John Molson, Hiram Walker and Seagrams.

By the looks of it, even when these things become plastered all over the CBC, they still don't bother to even stand up and denounce the waste and the scum that caused it, so long as the pubs remain opened for business, and there is some free surf'n'turf to be had.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> I doubt it, most of them don't even bother showing up for Parliament because they claim to be "in committee meetings", which is code for hanging around down at the pubs around the Bytown Market, providing their own personalized economic bailouts for John Labatt, John Molson, Hiram Walker and Seagrams.


You really have no idea what you are talking about with this EP. Try not to talk about things of which you know nothing, really you are just embarrassing yourself. You can't even get the name of the Market right, it is the ByWard, not Bytown Market.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Again, it is euphemistically called "crisis management" in the communications world.
> 
> The reality of a situation is downplayed to avoid panic and overreaction. Only when the full extent of the crisis need be known is the information disseminated. Controlling the release and messaging of the bad news by releasing it on an absolute need to know basis, tempers the reaction and potential overreaction (which can precipitously make a crisis worse than it otherwise would be) that occurs. This is actually prudent strategy in the case of a crisis that is evolving over time (as opposed to a sudden and fast spreading crisis where time is of the essence).
> 
> ...


Agreed entirely. After 40+ years of media watch myself, screature hits the nail on the head from my experience in every aspect of his post.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Harper and Flaherty are horrible public fiscal managers. They, like most conservatives, are terrible managers of public funds. They like almost all conservatives do not understand there is a difference between running a business and running a government. “A government of the people and for the people.”

It’s just like the Cons of Nova Scotia all over again.

The Rodney MacDonald Conservative Government refused to bring in a budget. The last Government in Canada to do so this year. In the past they (the Cons) introduced and passed legislation to have the off shore Oil (gas) money from Ottawa pay down the Provincial debt. Then when this year's budget finally came down they refused to use off shore Oil money to pay down the debt and used that money to declared they had a balanced budget. That idea earned them a trip to the polls, where they are in a solid third place.

Let’s all hope that’s where Harper, Flaherty and Co. soon find themselves, of course it didn’t happen sooner because Iggy (another conservative) propped them up. It all comes down to Liberal /Tory same old story.

Of course sadly the “ managed story” will “fool some of the people all of the time.” Some people actually believe there is a difference between Liberals and Conservative. Some people don’t believe in God or in the fairies at the bottom of the garden but they have faith that there is a difference between Conservatives and Liberals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

My. With all the talk of 'you know nothing", and you have to be an insider to have a valid opinion, guess we all just should cry uncle and say, you're just so right!

Oh and it's a conservative supporter to boot. Why is it I find in general some conservative supporters mimic the egotistical arogance of their party so well?

I suppose it likely works on their fav demographic, "Dougie".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> My. With all the talk of 'you know nothing", and you have to be an insider to have a valid opinion, guess we all just should cry uncle and say, you're just so right!
> 
> Oh and it's a conservative supporter to boot. Why is it I find in general some conservative supporters mimic the egotistical arogance of their party so well?


Ahhh...the sweet music of the Common Man!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ahhh...the sweet music of the Common Man!


Well they (Dougie) were certainly easy to take advantage of for Harper.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> My. With all the talk of 'you know nothing", and you have to be an insider to have a valid opinion, guess we all just should cry uncle and say, you're just so right!
> 
> Oh and it's a conservative supporter to boot. Why is it I find in general some conservative supporters mimic the egotistical arogance of their party so well?
> 
> I suppose it likely works on their fav demographic, "Dougie".


You are presumptuous, I support no political party (although I was a card carrying member of the NDP when I was in university).

I have worked on Parliament hill since 1997 in various capacities (with a break inbetween from 2002 - 2007 working in marketing communications for an international hi-tech company).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> You are presumptuous, I support no political party (although I was a card carrying member of the NDP when I was in university).
> 
> I have worked on Parliament hill since 1997 in various capacities (with a break inbetween from 2002 - 2007 working in marketing communications for an international hi-tech company).


Oh. I'm presumptuous now. Post very clear opinions in a forum, and when someone takes it at face value, tell them you have completely different opinions personally than the ones you posted. 

It seems to get better than telling us we really don't have a valid opinion because we aren't privy to 'inside information'.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about with this EP. Try not to talk about things of which you know nothing, really you are just embarrassing yourself. You can't even get the name of the Market right, it is the ByWard, not Bytown Market.


It doesn't matter what the name of the market is - except if one is in Ottawa, but the point stands that the vast majority of our legislators are out fooling around, rather than being in Parliament doing the work that needs to be done. All one has to do is tune into CPAC on any given day and see how many of them just don't bother showing up.

If the "Real work" is done in committee, then it is time to abolish Parliament and just vote for Committees.

As for getting the job done - the Government still hasn't decided on whether Canada is going metric or not - I rest my case, as Parliamentarians have managed to consume thousands of hectolitres of booze in between the time they were talking about maybe going metric and the current situation. We can say the same for pretty much every other issue, like their lack of achievements when it comes to curbing energy consumption (which predates the Metric question by some years), or of Senate reform (which was first tabled in 1869 when some of MacDonald's drinking buddies couldn't get into the pubs because of the vast number of Senators that were fixtures), or of settling land claims with the First Nations (which predates Lord Durham's report). With that track record, I'm surprised that they managed to finish the Intercolonial and the Trans Canada Highway, urrr, they're still working on that one.

By the time some Government comes up with a scheme to pull us out of this Recession, we will have had three or four more Recessions - which entirely holds water because we are still suffering from the 1980-81 Recession...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Oh. I'm presumptuous now. Post very clear opinions in a forum, and when someone takes it at face value, tell them you have completely different opinions personally than the ones you posted.
> 
> It seems to get better than telling us we really don't have a valid opinion because we aren't privy to 'inside information'.


Yes presumptuous. Because you presume that I am a Conservative supporter. And why? Because from first hand experience I can point out the flaws in the reasoning of certain posters who speak as though the information that they receive through the media is the gospel truth. 

In fact if you were to review my posts you would see that I never once expressed support for the Conservatives (in fact the opposite, I expressed opposition to their attack ads) but simply shed light on why they were using the communications strategies that they are and that if in power the Liberals would be doing the same. You *presumed* that this translated into being a Conservative supporter. 

Communications is my profession and as such I am able to dissect and comprehend the strategies in play. To refute that Flaherty's comments were evidence of his incompetence is not to say that I support him or his Party, merely that I understand the tactics being employed and that they are not indicative of incompetence or blundering, but of crisis management. 

These methods are employed widely in communications and yes to fully understand them you need to have worked within the profession. This is not to say that the layman can't have an opinion, but it far less likely for a layman to fully comprehend the intricacies of the strategies and tactics being used if the only information that is used to formulate that opinion is derived from what is reported in the media. 

Do you expect someone to offer a truly valid and insightful opinion on the state of microbiology research if all that they know about microbiology comes from listening to Quirks and Quarks. Hardly.

My opinions do not bely support for the Conservative Party but rather an understanding of the methods, strategies and tactics of communications.

If the situation were to be reversed and the Liberals were in power and people were expressing their opinions based solely on what they are reading in the media, I would be expressing the same commentary. In which case in your eyes, I would be a Liberal supporter.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It doesn't matter what the name of the market is - except if one is in Ottawa, but the point stands that the vast majority of our legislators are out fooling around, rather than being in Parliament doing the work that needs to be done. All one has to do is tune into CPAC on any given day and see how many of them just don't bother showing up.
> 
> If the "Real work" is done in committee, then it is time to abolish Parliament and just vote for Committees.
> 
> ...


Again EP your commentary belies your bias and (forgive me for the lack of a more diplomatic term) ignorance.

You couldn't be more wrong with your statement, " ...but the point stands that the vast majority of our legislators are out fooling around, rather than being in Parliament doing the work that needs to be done. All one has to do is tune into CPAC on any given day and see how many of them just don't bother showing up."

There is a thing called quorum where a minimum number of Members must be in the House at any given point in time for the proceedings to be valid. In order to ensure this happens MPs from all parties have a Duty Day where they must be in the House at all times. Now due to the multitudinous demands that are placed on MPs on a daily basis occasionally quorum is not met (because even MPs who are "on duty" leave the House to meet with lobbyists, attend special caucuses, conduct interviews, go to Committees that have had last minute scheduling changes etc., etc.) and the proceedings of the House cease, the House bells ring and MPs are called to the House until quorum is once again met. This happens rarely and when it does it is for a matter of minutes because in most instances the absent MPs are merely in their respective Lobbies (which are anti-rooms just adjacent to the House) conducting business that cannot be conducted within the House.

The proceedings in the House vary from Routine Proceedings, to Question Period, to Debates, Votes and on and on. The majority of the time in the House is spent in Debate (which includes time alloted for questions and answers). Typically only MPs who have an understanding of the issues involved with a given piece of legislation will speak (often MPs sitting in the relevant Committees). However, when the legislation has particularly wide spread implications numerous MPs will speak and additionally when other Parliamentary tactics such as filibustering are being used.

That when you tune into CPAC you do not see a House full of MPs is actually the norm, because the majority of MPs are otherwise engaged in the business of being an MP, *NOT* because they are out boozing it up somewhere. 

As for the examples that you cite of cases where Parliament has yet to definitively "finalize" certain issues, that is the nature of Democracy. It is messy and many things aren't resolved overnight. A majority consensus must be attained and that isn't always easy, in fact quite the opposite. All the more difficult in minority Parliaments.

Your notion that the the majority of MPs are drunken ne'er-do-wells is quite frankly laughable and reveals that you have no first hand experience or understanding of the functioning of Parliament or the political system in general.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Yes presumptuous. Because you presume that I am a Conservative supporter. And why? Because from first hand experience I can point out the flaws in the reasoning of certain posters who speak as though the information that they receive through the media is the gospel truth.
> 
> In fact if you were to review my posts you would see that I never once expressed support for the Conservatives (in fact the opposite, I expressed opposition to their attack ads) but simply shed light on why they were using the communications strategies that they are and that if in power the Liberals would be doing the same. You *presumed* that this translated into being a Conservative supporter.
> 
> ...


Nonsense.

The posts I have read has consistently shown support, or offered justifications in support of the conservatives, and a clear disdain for the liberals. You are just as bad as captain waffle macfury, who will defend the conservatives to the bitter end, only to declare his libertarian allegiances should it suit him.



> "My opinions do not bely support for the Conservative Party but rather an understanding of the methods, strategies and tactics of communications."


If communications is your bag, man that is really poor...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The posts I have read has consistently shown support, or offered justifications in support of the conservatives, and a clear disdain for the liberals. You are just as bad as captain waffle macfury, who will defend the conservatives to the bitter end, only to declare his libertarian allegiances should it suit him.
> 
> ...


Again this is not surprising that you would think that considering your interpretations of the posts that I made here, your biases and predilections precede and taint your interpretation of what is being said.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Again this is not surprising that you would think that considering your interpretations of the posts that I made here, your biases and predilections precede and taint your interpretation of what is being said.


The fact that you are in communications makes this exchange a little more amusing. Sort of.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Face it groove, you're outclassed here.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Face it groove, you're outclassed here.


What, by someone I've never met before that plays the same kind of games you do?


Excuse me while I chuckle while a communications expert whines I misunderstood him because of my 'biases'.
:lmao:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> This idea is dishonest at best. The opposing parties approve (or deny) the ENTIRE budget, not line-item; they put in suggestions and they have their causes which (they feel) need to be represented in there, but the authors of this budget (and the ones who endorse and present it) are the governing party, currently the Conservatives. Nice try, SINC, but you can't blame the Liberals for bad budgets when they are out of power and (were at the time) low in the polls. The conservatives had them by the short hairs at budget-writing time, and this baby is ALL THEIRS.


This is a gross misunderstanding of our parliamentary system. The opposition most certainly DOES go through the budget line by line and demands wholesale changes in exchange for their support. Hell, they go through the speech from the throne line by line and demand changes to that!

We have the current financial situation for one reason, and one reason only; the Liberals demanded it. They demanded it in November, they demanded it in January, and they've been demanding MORE of it in the house every day since then. For them to criticize it now when they got what they freaking asked for is hypocrisy of the highest order.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bsenka said:


> This is a gross misunderstanding of our parliamentary system. The opposition most certainly DOES go through the budget line by line and demands wholesale changes in exchange for their support.


Willful misinterpretation.

First off, the shoe is on the other foot when the Liberals are in power, is it not?

Secondly, I refer to the opportunity to vote on the budget. They DO NOT get to vote on the budget line-by-line, it's an up-or-down affair. It's shocking that you don't seem to know this about your own government! 



> We have the current financial situation for one reason, and one reason only; the Liberals demanded it.


So what you're telling me is that the Conservatives are both incompetent AND impotent, as they have NO power and NO influence over ANY PART of the current economic situation?

Coming from a Conservative as true-blue as you, how can I believe otherwise? :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> Willful misinterpretation.
> 
> First off, the shoe is on the other foot when the Liberals are in power, is it not?
> 
> ...


Ah yes, words of wisdom from an American with more experience in Canadian politics they we have. Right.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

bsenka said:


> We have the current financial situation for one reason, and one reason only; the Liberals demanded it. They demanded it in November, they demanded it in January, and they've been demanding MORE of it in the house every day since then. For them to criticize it now when they got what they freaking asked for is hypocrisy of the highest order.


Did they also demand that Jim Flaherty deny that there would be a recession, deny that there would be a deficit, and under estimate/ misrepresent the amount of the deficit?

Why would the Conservatives allow the other parties to dictate the terms of the budget? Harper has challenged the other parties on numerous occasions to force an election. If the Conservatives had any principles they would make decisions that they felt were in the best interest of Canadians and if defeated bring their platform to the people at election time.

In the Finance Minister's case, the issue is credibility - The Globe and Mail


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> If the Conservatives had any principles they would make decisions that they felt were in the best interest of Canadians and if defeated bring their platform to the people at election time.


That's just what they did last election when they won their second consecutive minority government.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Sorry, Chas_M, you are fully out of your league here. I must say it's hilarious reading the displaced American try to tell the Canadian Poli Sci major how our system works. 



chas_m said:


> First off, the shoe is on the other foot when the Liberals are in power, is it not?


In a minority parliament, the opposition party holding the balance of power is the one holding the gun. 



> Secondly, I refer to the opportunity to vote on the budget. They DO NOT get to vote on the budget line-by-line, it's an up-or-down affair. It's shocking that you don't seem to know this about your own government!


Yes they do. The final vote only comes after several rounds of readings and negotiations. They most definitely go through it line by line. Ask Joe Clark what happens when you try to circumvent that process and try to pass a budget without letting the opposition revise it for you. Ask Harper and Flaherty what happens when you try to just give an UPDATE without the opposition's full prior consent.




> So what you're telling me is that the Conservatives are both incompetent AND impotent, as they have NO power and NO influence over ANY PART of the current economic situation?


They are the best government this country has had in at least 40 years, and are doing remarkably well considering the constant bag of crap the united opposition are giving them, and that they are the longest serving minority government in our history. Thankfully, there are a lot of things that a minority government can do without having to get approval.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman said:


> Why would the Conservatives allow the other parties to dictate the terms of the budget? Harper has challenged the other parties on numerous occasions to force an election. If the Conservatives had any principles they would make decisions that they felt were in the best interest of Canadians and if defeated bring their platform to the people at election time.]


Have you been in a coma? We just HAD an election (we had SEVERAL elections in rapid fire), and the opposition tried to pull the coalition stunt. He didn't "allow" anything, on a budget matter, you must have the confidence of the house.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> We have the current financial situation for one reason, and one reason only; the Liberals demanded it. They demanded it in November, they demanded it in January, and they've been demanding MORE of it in the house every day since then. For them to criticize it now when they got what they freaking asked for is hypocrisy of the highest order.


To absolve the Conservatives of responsibility regarding this goes beyond partisanship into blind worship. Whether the pressure be the Liberals, the public or the world they would have spent and gone into a deficit. The real issue is their bumbling ineptitude when it comes to not only forecasting, but the management of this whole mess.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's just what they did last election when they won their second consecutive minority government.


SINC, do you honestly believe Harper has the best interest of (the majority of) Canadians at heart? Honestly?

I think the _kindest_ thing I can say about Harper is that he has the best interest of Stephen Harper at heart.

If he didn't get his majority then, he most certainly won't get it now. To think so is denial at it's highest order.

He has failed and I for one am thankful.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's just what they did last election when they won their second consecutive minority government.


Except according to many who post here they are capitulating to the Liberals on budgetary items. This presents itself as being more concerned with keeping power than staying true to their convictions.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman said:


> Except according to many who post here they are capitulating to the Liberals on budgetary items. This presents itself as being more concerned with keeping power than staying true to their convictions.


They'd still be in power, no matter how many elections we have. It's rinse and repeat, another CPC minority, nothing solved. Better to try to make it work, warts and all. Politics is about compromise, especially in a minority. Nobody has to like it. Conservatives who are being forced to DO it sure as heck are not happy about it, but that's just how it is. If you want to stick to the formula to your own detriment, go work at KFC.

Tthat's what politics is, you go for the top, you try stay at the top, so you can at least get some of your projects done. Sometimes you have to eat **** to do it. There's a lot more going on that just this budget, and Harper has done more with his minority and a gun to his head over spending than the Liberals did with a majority.

I'm still not convinced that the deficit projection is going to come though in full either. I think there's some gamesmanship going to get the opposition to back off, I think Flaherty has just been throwing out bigger and bigger numbers until he finally came up with one that will shut the Liberals up about him not spending enough. Keep in mind, the REAL deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year is only $2.2 Billion. That $50 Billion is the PROJECTED deficit over the next year, not what we are in the hole right now. Also keep in mind that the Liberals also ran budget deficits in March for 10 of the 13 years they were in power, ranging as high as $9.5 Billion. For one month.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC, do you honestly believe Harper has the best interest of (the majority of) Canadians at heart? Honestly?
> 
> I think the _kindest_ thing I can say about Harper is that he has the best interest of Stephen Harper at heart.
> 
> ...


Sadly your mind is so focused on hating Harper that you cannot, or will not, see the good that has been done since he came to power two elections ago. And that's your loss, not mine. Canadians will choose him again over Iggy in the next election. Watch it happen.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's just what they did last election when they won their second consecutive minority government.


no they didn't. The conservatives have consistently either pressed for things while in opposition or done them in office that were not good for Canada. They wanted our sound banking system compromised, screamed and hollers when the liberals refused to regulate. They cut the gst which did -nothing- but help make the deficit larger, oh, remember one of their first order of business was to raise lower income taxes from 15 to 15.5. Remember that? 

It was the liberals who did things that put us in at least the shape that might be able to withstand the ineptness of this government.

The opposition demanded spending yes, but they have not demanded the absolute fumbling of policies of the conservatives, that has worsened the situation, which is something it seems the conservative supporters simply can't fathom.

Now we'll have to go through years of cuts and restraint because -this- conservative government (who was supposed to be sooo much better...)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Those fumbling policies are spending fumbles dictated by the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Sorry, Chas_M, you are fully out of your league here. I must say it's hilarious reading the displaced American try to tell the Canadian Poli Sci major how our system works..


Outclassed, 'out of your league', you know nothing without inside information, etc etc.

Come on you liberals, don't you get it? Only conservatives know anything...
:baby:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Those fumbling policies are spending fumbles dictated by the Liberals and NDP.


oh come on SINC. The liberals made them cut the gst? The liberals made their tax policies? The liberals made them not properly forcast and be ready for the downturn?

Track record shows who was the ones who actually accomplished putting the country into good financial shape. And who was the one who spent it all...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sadly your mind is so focused on hating Harper that you cannot, or will not, see the good that has been done since he came to power two elections ago. And that's your loss, not mine. Canadians will choose him again over Iggy in the next election. Watch it happen.


Some westerners may choose him SINC but not anyone else. And happily, that will whisk him away to the history book.

For the record, 'good' is subjective.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't really see the good he has done no. I see a PM who promised an accountable government, -fail-. He promised an end to patronage, -faaaaaail-. He promised to cut taxes, great, now we'll end up paying for the 50 billion a year deficit anyway... fail. He promised to continue the good financial management of the previous liberal governments, paying down the debt and balanced budgets, well FAIL...

I don't see anything of any real significant greatness Harper has done. I see him as a lame duck, so will many come election day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature: I suspect as well, that the really bad news of a $50 billion dollar projected deficit, of the kind advocated by the Liberals may not come to fruition. They'll likely announce that we're in much better shape come election time--something that appears to be in the cards if the braying of those two hyenas, Layton and Ignatieff, is any indication.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature: I suspect as well, that the really bad news of a $50 billion dollar projected deficit, of the kind advocated by the Liberals may not come to fruition. They'll likely announce that we're in much better shape come election time--something that appears to be in the cards if the braying of those two hyenas, Layton and Ignatieff, is any indication.


We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, the $50 billion deficit is still fiction as it is simply a forecast for next year. But then again, Liberals will swallow anything, hook, line and sinker and portray it like it is real right now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, really, what you're saying SINC, is that Flaherty has no credibility and his prediction should be dismissed.

Is this kinda like when they said we would have had a recession by now if we're going to have one? We should just take everything they say with a grain of salt?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Outclassed, 'out of your league', you know nothing without inside information, etc etc.
> 
> Come on you liberals, don't you get it? Only conservatives know anything...
> :baby:


Some Liberals may know something, but so far the ones in this thread don't have any idea what they are talking about, about nearly everything with regards to Canadian Politics. Lots and lots of complete and utter bs, and precious little reality.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Bsenka, your anger is showing. Watch your language, this is a family board.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Conservative: The Future has been sold

Liberal: It's just too much work to regain power again...Screw em.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Bsenka, your anger is showing. Watch your language, this is a family board.


mrjimmy and I don't agree on many things, but on this we do agree. bsenka if you feel compelled to use colourful language, we use "short hand" such as BS or s**t here.

Well at least those of who like to keep it civil do.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Some Liberals may know something, but so far the ones in this thread don't have any idea what they are talking about, about nearly everything with regards to Canadian Politics. Lots and lots of complete and utter bull****, and precious little reality.


add angry swearing now to the list.

Honestly, we have very different opinions, and we may jab, disagree, etc., but this is unnecessary. It's not that important, a handful of people, who have likely never met, arguing in cyberspace. Take it for what it is.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, the $50 billion deficit is still fiction as it is simply a forecast for next year. But then again, Liberals will swallow anything, hook, line and sinker and portray it like it is real right now.


Trudeau sold the future, But Martin and Chretien managed to get us back on track,
Would it take another Liberal government to get us back on track again?

I really would rather not get into debt again to begin with,
Just a shame to have to go through another decade of hell because of it.

If the Liberals were smart, They'd just let the Cons drown in their own mud.

Then next time they ask Joe Clark to come and help them rebuild...
He'll just say...**** off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> It's not that important, a handful of people, who have likely never met, arguing in cyberspace.


Agreed. It's largely sport and amusement. No governments will fall over what goes down here.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Agreed. It's largely sport and amusement. No governments will fall over what goes down here.


We've been doing it since the mid 90's on the newsgroups in alt.politics,
We're just more open nowadays, Heh...Heck...We're Googlized now.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Bsenka, your anger is showing. Watch your language, this is a family board.


Thanks for that, I assumed that it would be filtered, and didn't even check. I've fixed it.

--Not angry at all, more amused actually,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Liberals have been talking about the dangers of the ballooning the deficit since day one as Iggie knows that it's the stupid "lower taxes" mantra that has made it worse.
It's not the deficit it's how to recover from it......and it's not by selling AECL nor my pissing off your constituents as Harper is now doing big time......



> *Wall adds voice to call for EI reform*
> 
> Saskatchewan Premier joins Alberta and B.C. in call for expansion of program, says it's a matter of fairness for Western Canada


Wall adds voice to call for EI reform - The Globe and Mail

Harper and Flaherty have consistently demonstrated their poor grasp of the situation - from their will be no recession nonsense pre- election, to we will have no deficit.....they have a poor grasp and are hamstrung by their ideology. We need a pragmatist in office focused on finance NOT on vote getting.

Martin was a realist - so is Iggie....there WILL be more taxes and we WILL be able to afford them but there WILL be cuts.

Managing all of those factors got Martin voted in as head of the G8 Finance group, Flaherty is now a two time loser in the management division and Harper has been nothing but an embarrassment worldwide.

Time for change.....even the west knows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh gosh, MacDoc has still got a yellow ribbon tied around the ol' oak tree for Martin! 

We need no new taxes and all cuts.

Amd if EI become s"fair" then let's also end all of those idiotic arrangements where someone can work for 90 days in a fish processing plant and collect EI for 9 months.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The Liberals have been talking about the dangers of the ballooning the deficit since day one as Iggie knows that it's the stupid "lower taxes" mantra that has made it worse.


I see. So that's why Iggy is dictating all the increased spending in the last budget under threat of dissolving parliament then is it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I see. So that's why Iggy is dictating all the increased spending in the last budget under threat of dissolving parliament then is it?


Why is it conservative supporters just can't fathom this...

"knows that it's the stupid "lower taxes" mantra that has made it worse."

It's really simple. 

Flaherty is totally down with the spending. He's on record for saying so. He just isn't so down with having to... -pay- for it. Just like the last conservative government.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Jim Flaherty's top 10 mismanagement moments*



> "*I'm comfortable with our projections. I'm staying with our budget projection. We're on track.*"
> - Jim Flaherty on the budget deficit, April 22, 2009
> 
> 1. Broken promise on income trusts. By imposing a punitive 31.5 per cent tax on income trusts, the Conservative government raided the hard-earned savings of Canadian seniors.
> ...


Liberal Party of Canada Just the Facts: Jim Flaherty's top 10 mismanagement moments


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
None of that looks like mismanagement - just choices. Chopping arts grants or research grants is the perogative of the Government. Mismanagement, by definition, means bad management, like the Liberals throwing billions of dollars on their AdScam project, or endless White Elephants like Pearson Airport, while doing everything they can to clobber all other airports.

Infrastructure grants have been curtailed because of the bureaucracy and NIMBYism involved in the Environmental Review process. In this area, many bridges that need replacement and are eligible for cost sharing grants have been mired in years of red tape and endless law suits.

The things I do think the Conservatives have utterly failed at are things like: raffling off bandwidth to cell phone providers that are reheats of the current dunkopfs, clobbering the broadcasting industry by insisting they scrap all of their equipment to go "digital" because ofAmerican stupidity, allowing our nation to fall so much further behind when it comes to providing real high speed Internet, of not properly investigating acts of government corruption like the antics of misappropriated money at CRNL - none of those things are Flaherty's balliwick...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> None of that looks like mismanagement - just choices.


:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> so, really, what you're saying SINC, is that Flaherty has no credibility and his prediction should be dismissed.
> 
> Is this kinda like when they said we would have had a recession by now if we're going to have one? We should just take everything they say with a grain of salt?


Nope, just don't blame the Conservatives for policies imposed by Iggy and crew under direct threat of dissolving the house. Simple as that gt.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nope, just don't blame the Conservatives for policies imposed by Iggy and crew under direct threat of dissolving the house. Simple as that gt.


Harper challenged everyone to cause a non confidence vote on a regular basis when Dion was around. Dissolving the house should not be an excuse now for a party with principles, unless all they care about is holding onto power.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope, just don't blame the Conservatives for policies imposed by Iggy and crew under direct threat of dissolving the house. Simple as that gt.


Iggy imposed nothing. It's tiring to hear conservatives whine over and over it's the liberals fault.

It's time conservatives stood on their own two feet and took responsibility as the government of Canada without hiding behind the liberals skirts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ... the liberals skirts.


I have always thought of the Liberals as wearing skirts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have always thought of the Liberals as wearing skirts.


that's rather disturbing macfury I can't really say thanks for sharing that.

TMI.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> that's rather disturbing macfury I can't really say thanks for sharing that.
> 
> TMI.


Not that there's anything wrong with wearing skirts, of course...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I don't think it really matters, he said diplomatically, whether you think Harper is pulling the strings, or Iggy is pulling the strings (snort) or if Flaherty is simply incompetent. When you are the minister of a department, and the department performs badly, you gotta go.

Flaherty's gotta go, and perhaps more with him, but it's quite clear that under the present government, the economy has been mismanaged. Blame whoever you want "behind the scenes," the people who's heads should roll are the public face of it, and that happens to be the party in power.

This also applies equally when the opposite party is in power, btw.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> I don't think it really matters, he said diplomatically, whether you think Harper is pulling the strings, or Iggy is pulling the strings (snort) or if Flaherty is simply incompetent. When you are the minister of a department, and the department performs badly, you gotta go.
> 
> Flaherty's gotta go, and perhaps more with him, but it's quite clear that under the present government, the economy has been mismanaged. Blame whoever you want "behind the scenes," the people who's heads should roll are the public face of it, and that happens to be the party in power.
> 
> This also applies equally when the opposite party is in power, btw.


Ah yes, more comments from the inexperienced American point of view. :yawn:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I have always thought of the Liberals as wearing skirts.


Hmmm. Quite an interesting fantasy life you have there, Macfury.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, more comments from the inexperienced American point of view. :yawn:


Much more thoughtful than this comment...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> Flaherty's gotta go, and perhaps more with him, but it's quite clear that under the present government, the economy has been mismanaged. Blame whoever you want "behind the scenes," the people who's heads should roll are the public face of it, and that happens to be the party in power.


We have the best managed economy in the world. It's far from perfect, but it's the best this country has seen in at least 40 years.

Considering what he's done with what he was given, Flaherty deserves an award, not to be fired.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Much more thoughtful than this comment...


At least my original comment was made from an experienced position. As for yours, well . . .


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, more comments from the inexperienced American point of view. :yawn:


I'm actually English.

Not the first mistake you've made in this thread.

As for my post, let's break it down to the point where even an Albertan can understand it, one sentence at a time.

What -- specifically -- do you object to in the sentence " When you are the minister of a department, and the department performs badly, you gotta go"?

We'll work on further sentences later. Baby steps.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> We have the best managed economy in the world. It's far from perfect, but it's the best this country has seen in at least 40 years.
> 
> Considering what he's done with what he was given, Flaherty deserves an award, not to be fired.


except that flaherty didn't do squat to put us in such a good position. Paul Martin did. 

No offense, but that's pretty basic...

What did flaherty do specifically, to balance the books, bring down the debt, and keep the banks regulated?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> I'm actually English.
> 
> Not the first mistake you've made in this thread.
> 
> ...


Speaking of mistakes, read this post again, (slowly this time) so you understand Canadian politics a bit better.



screature said:


> Again, it is euphemistically called "crisis management" in the communications world.
> 
> The reality of a situation is downplayed to avoid panic and overreaction. Only when the full extent of the crisis need be known is the information disseminated. Controlling the release and messaging of the bad news by releasing it on an absolute need to know basis, tempers the reaction and potential overreaction (which can precipitously make a crisis worse than it otherwise would be) that occurs. This is actually prudent strategy in the case of a crisis that is evolving over time (as opposed to a sudden and fast spreading crisis where time is of the essence).
> 
> ...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ah yes,

You see chas_m, the smoke and mirror world of crisis management is a strategy only employed by Parliamentarians. No 'outsider' could ever understand it's nuanced complexity. Your opinions are worthless here!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

an' all that Flaherty pretending to not know there was a recession, an' not doing anything about it?

Just those communications experts 'screwing' with your head.

Funny bunch them.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I don't think he "didn't know" - just that no one understood how far this would spread, especially when much of that which initiated this crisis has already been written off. This also happened during the "Great Depression". It wasn't just that there was a stock market failure, but a continual series of crisis that kept plunging the economy back under. From massive crop failures (the Dust Bowl), various massive runs on banks and bankruptcies, and fits and starts for industry - to the inability to provide any stability because of an adherence to fixed exchange rates and the reluctance of the government to become involved in the economy.

However, we have been provided a great deal of relief by the mechanisms that were put into place: the creation of the Federal Reserve System in the US following the 1970 Panic; the creation of central banks like the Bank of Canada following the Bank Runs in 1932; the implementation of Bretton Woods after the Second World War, and it's subsequent collapse in 1973 because of the Energy Crisis; etc.

We also have an exhaustive list of social safety nets that did not exist in the Great Depression: unemployment insurance, publically funded medical care, government sponsored education and job retraining, etc.

So pinning all of this on a Minister of Finance is pure bunk, since he issued no policy that gave us this situation or that made the situation worse. In fact, we are much better off than say, China - where a few months ago, they laid off over 30 Million workers - pretty much the population of Canada. Our situation is not great, but most people outside of the ailing automotive industry, still have their jobs. And the collapse of the automotive industry wasn't created by the government, but rather, by corporate executives that engaged in the largest gangster operation ever, that robbed their own companies of their future. This is something that is self evident, as GM didn't collapse yesterday, or last year - but has been dying a slow death over the course of two decades. That is in the numbers, as GM has constantly lost market share and profitability during a fifteen year period, as they were overhauled by their competition. Flaherty didn't cause that, but then, the Liberals didn't either. It is simply market forces, and when the largest corporation on the block falls apart, things are bound to happen.

Looking at the numbers, GM had about 350,000 employees at the peak. There are seven jobs at outside companies, as suppliers and such for each job inside. There is a further 15 jobs for each job inside, from retailers to house builders etc. So the total impact of the collapse of GM amounts to over 7.7 Million jobs worldwide. This is no small peanuts, it's not like some variety store down the street went under...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Ah yes,
> 
> You see chas_m, the smoke and mirror world of crisis management is a strategy only employed by Parliamentarians. No 'outsider' could ever understand it's nuanced complexity. Your opinions are worthless here!





groovetube said:


> an' all that Flaherty pretending to not know there was a recession, an' not doing anything about it?
> 
> Just those communications experts 'screwing' with your head.
> 
> Funny bunch them.


I didn't know you guys were Merkins! :lmao:

Poor SINC ... MF ... EP ... bsenka ... when the Libs are in power, everything bad is the Libs' fault ... and when they're not in power ... it's the Libs' fault too!! This must be tremendously frustrating for them, I mean ... here's this party they like (the Cons) that are always right, brimming with smart, decisive, strong leaders ... and they're in power, and yet somehow those damn awful Libs and their lefty friends just keep ruining things that would otherwise be perfect! How can there be so many of "them" when they're so obviously wrong???

If only this country had one-party (Cons) rule forever ... and concentration camps for unrepentent Libs ... oh look, a unicorn ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Speaking of mistakes, read this post again, (slowly this time) so you understand Canadian politics a bit better.


So in other words, you don't have any objection to that sentence.

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

Now let's try this one: "This applies equally when the opposite is true." (since you probably don't remember that far back, this refers to the party in power getting/taking the blame when problems happen, and getting/taking credit when successes happen).

What's your problem with that?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> when the Libs are in power, everything bad is the Libs' fault ... and when they're not in power ... it's the Libs' fault too!!


So, what's your point? There are a fair number of Liberals in politics in various jurisdictions in this country, all of them working for those policies that will lead to the decline of our nation. Any good ideas the Liberals end up with are traditionally stolen from either the Conservatives or the NDP, and in the old days, the Social Credit...



> If only this country had one-party (Cons) rule forever ... and concentration camps for unrepentent Libs ... oh look, a unicorn ...


That would truly be horrible - because the Conservatives would soon delight in the whimsy of being effete and degenerate panty wastes, and end up being Liberals. Not that the Conservatives now are that far removed from being Liberal.

If we had a real conservative party, you know, that would rid the streets of criminal filth, would end corruption and graft, would keep their noses out of things best operated by the fre market, and would curb or end enough government waste that we wouldn't have to pay infinite taxes - I'd vote for them.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Now let's try this one: "This applies equally when the opposite is true." (since you probably don't remember that far back, this refers to the party in power getting/taking the blame when problems happen, and getting/taking credit when successes happen).
> 
> What's your problem with that?


I think the only problem is that you just haven't been in Canada long enough to see a Conservative government in power - but then no one alive could attain that since it was prior to 1896.

Lving in BC, you were not witness to the forty plus years of the Big Blue Machine in Ontario - that gave this province forty of the most profitable years of solid government, only to be ruined by subsequent Liberal and NDP administrations that turned this province into a third world state that now accepts transfer payments from Newfoundland to stay afloat.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Liberal Government in Ottawa, so long as they were not allowed to pass laws, pass regulations, add bloat to government departments, cancel carved in stone military contracts, or appoint anyone to any posting ever...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: Poor Chazz is just confused, and clearly has no idea what any of us have said for or against the various political parties--that would require actually reading the posts before shooting off at the mouth.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

psssst Chas: this is between us, no one can hear us, but uh, macfury likes liberals in skirts apparently. Says he often thinks about it. Caution.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ....macfury likes liberals in skirts apparently. Says he often thinks about it. Caution.


I'll have to admit that I'm puzzled on this one. What's the joke?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you've forgotten your little impromptu outburst already?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No I haven't. What do you find funny about it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> So in other words, you don't have any objection to that sentence.


Never ever assume anything about me chas-m, you'd be wrong. 



chas_m said:


> What's your problem with that?


No problem with that. Just with an inexperienced newcomer who doesn't know crap from putty pretending to have insight on an ongoing Conservative/Liberal issue that predates his birth.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, where is the cry for Dwight Duncan's resignation because of his hastily arranged fiscal update Monday? 



> Ontario was already bracing for a record deficit of $14.1-billion for this year – a figure Premier Dalton McGuinty stood by as recently as last Wednesday, the day the provincial budget was passed.


There seem to be some parallels here...

Jes' askin'...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> If we had a real conservative party, you know, that would rid the streets of criminal filth, would end corruption and graft, would keep their noses out of things best operated by the fre market, and would curb or end enough government waste that we wouldn't have to pay infinite taxes - I'd vote for them.


That's funny. We _had_ a real "conservative" party—they were called REFORM. Then they transmogrified into the Alliance, and then the Conservative-Reform-Alliance-Party (CRAP for short) when they realized they couldn't win an election as long as the "right" continued to be divided. But please, by all means, do come up with a more right wing solution than what we have now. I would be very happy to see the right divided again.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I'll have to admit that I'm puzzled on this one. What's the joke?


You said you always imagined liberals as wearing skirts. Comes under the "too much information" category, but hey—whatever blows your skirt up. :lmao:


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> You said you always imagined liberals as wearing skirts. Comes under the "too much information" category, but hey—whatever blows your skirt up. :lmao:


IT'S NAE A SKIRT!!!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Your failure to actually be able to point to anything in my post that you can actually dispute belies the fragile weakness of your position, thus ceding the dispute.

Moving on, I don't make assumptions, I work from facts.

FACT: you couldn't point to ANYTHING in my post that you SPECIFICALLY disagreed with, yet you attempted to insult me (and got it wrong in the process).

CONCLUSION: You sometimes spout BS you can't back up.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> except that flaherty didn't do squat to put us in such a good position. Paul Martin did.
> 
> No offense, but that's pretty basic...


It's also categorically false. Martin was a terrible fiscal manager. One of the worst ever. Not paying your bills, and stealing tens of billions of dollars is not anything that even remotely resembles fiscal management.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> It's also categorically false. Martin was a terrible fiscal manager. One of the worst ever. Not paying your bills, and stealing tens of billions of dollars is not anything that even remotely resembles fiscal management.


Categorically false? What part of balance the budget and pay down the debt did you not figure out?

There are many conservatives who have praised Paul Martin's fiscal management. If he was in a conservative government, you all would have a bloody shrine of the man. His only crime was having been a liberal. That, and having been one of the worst PMs in recent memory.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> That's funny. We _had_ a real "conservative" party—they were called REFORM. Then they transmogrified into the Alliance, and then the Conservative-Reform-Alliance-Party (CRAP for short) when they realized they couldn't win an election as long as the "right" continued to be divided. But please, by all means, do come up with a more right wing solution than what we have now. I would be very happy to see the right divided again.


I am not talking about right wing - but conservative - where decisions are made with a view to providing social justice, equal rights, free enterprise, and a government that is right sized to function but doesn't get involved in those things they need not be involved in. The Reform crowd were all liberal wannabes with policies that were not much different than the tripe that was dished out by the Liberals. If they had been elected, it would have been pork barrel as usual - which is the situation that continues even with the party in power disgracing the word conservative, when the only difference between them and the Liberal crowd is that they booze up at different conventicles.

When I say conservative, I mean hard core, like MacDonald was, not these effete pretenders...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> It's also categorically false. Martin was a terrible fiscal manager. One of the worst ever. Not paying your bills, and stealing tens of billions of dollars is not anything that even remotely resembles fiscal management.


You do have to be called out on that, since Martin was obviously a better fiscal manager than any of the turkeys Trudeau had put into that position in the 70's. Even on Martin's worst possible day, he was way better than Donald MacDonald and the rest of the wage control crowd, and never singlehandedly held the economy of this country under water, attempting to drown it entirely, like Marc Lalonde.

Not to say that Martin was "smart" because he was entirely weak. Considering that he was raking in anywhere from 15% to 20% of all transactions through the GST/HST, he should have had massive surpluses for years, with massive debt reduction - and he was also too weak to call out Chretien's little mafia expenses that cost taxpayers billions of dollars to support the glad handling and influence peddling industries.

I don't see any point in getting rid of Flaherty - though his agreement to raping Ontario with HST shows that he hates Ontario, hates the taxpayer, and that it was a good thing that he didn't win as leader of the PC's in Ontario because they would have floundered even worse than they did under the demagogue and hate monger John Tory. At least Tory's bigotry wouldn't have cost Ontario billions of dollars in HST and the job losses that are to be expected from it's implementation.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah, the holy, shining, ever so elusive, "conservative". The "real" conservative. So precious, oh... my preeeecious. More beautiful, than the human mind can imagine!!!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> EP: Poor Chazz is just confused, and clearly has no idea what any of us have said for or against the various political parties--that would require actually reading the posts before shooting off at the mouth.


That's what it is all about. He suffers from the same thing that voters suffer from - they didn't have to suffer through the Trudeau era, where everything was about anger, and bringing in laws that attack and victimize regular citizens, and remove rights and freedoms from most people in order to purchase pocket votes from hate mongers. But then again, maybe he thinks it is entirely fine that Chretien can punch protesters in the face or pepper spray protesters because the protesters called him out on his own hypocrisy. Government without shame.

He also follows the same fallacy that most voters have - that there is some kind of ideological differences between the various parties, when really, it's all the same glad handling, influence peddling, making the dumbest possible mistakes, sweeping major scandals under the carpet, etc. - just with a different set of characters that partake of the passion play.

What goes on in Ottawa is nothing more than a sham - nothing gets done because no one wants to admit to the trough and barrel. They all feed us the same fear mongering. Like the CBC, as if scrapping it would ever happen, because if they scrapped it... Not even that, if they just held the administrators of the CBC to the mandate of being a national broadcaster, rather than a free luncheon club where the fat cats at the top score millions of dollars because they choose to fire a hundred people a week for their cheap filthy thrills - that would be something.

All of our governments engage in the same clueless behaviour, cutting off the body of whatever while maintaining the head in opulence and largess, waiting to graft that onto some other wild beast of a wastefilled and corrupt Crown Corporation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> You said you always imagined liberals as wearing skirts. Comes under the "too much information" category, but hey—whatever blows your skirt up. :lmao:


I see. So in your estimation, the Liberal Party is composed entirely of men--therefore it's funny to imagine them wearing skirts?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

uh... we didn't estimate... anything.

lol.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what in god's name are you talking about? If we were going to have a recession, we would have had one by now!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> what in god's name are you talking about? If we were going to have a recession, we would have had one by now!


We did, in 80-81', when the Liberals were working hard to ruin the economy...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I see. So in your estimation, the Liberal Party is composed entirely of men--therefore it's funny to imagine them wearing skirts?


I more thought of them as a pack of cross dressers, at least after work, with the dudes that look like ladies, the ladies that look like dudes, and an assortment of them that look like shaved farm animals. Dion's last election campaign completely makes sense if one thinks of him in a ballerina skirt, doing fairy dancing while taking bong hits...

Has anyone ever thought of writing Harper about his leather vest? Is it real leather, or some vegetable based substitute? From the looks of him, I'd say vegetable based substitute leather...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> We did, in 80-81', when the Liberals were working hard to ruin the economy...


have another one...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

With all the trash talking around here, I guess y'all missed the latest good news from a couple of TD Bank economists. They predict the deficit to reach 172 Billion. Beauty! I think I'll head for the hills now. LOL.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

kps said:


> With all the trash talking around here, I guess y'all missed the latest good news from a couple of TD Bank economists. They predict the deficit to reach 172 Billion. Beauty! I think I'll head for the hills now. LOL.


Do you have a link? Thanks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tories digging a $172-billion hole: TD - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh yeah I saw that. But the conservoheads here will just say it's all a socialist plot. Or it's Trudeau's fault, or something. Anything...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Do you have a link? Thanks.


No linkie, heard it on the airwaves driving home tonight. It'll probably be in all the papers tomorrow.

EDIT: Thanks MacDoc!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kps said:


> With all the trash talking around here, I guess y'all missed the latest good news from a couple of TD Bank economists. They predict the deficit to reach 172 Billion. Beauty! I think I'll head for the hills now. LOL.


But we will own wads of penny stocks in GM and Chrysler, which will look pretty as wallpaper in the Commons...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

With a large enough government cash infusion, Bre-X could be turned into a viable company as well...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well given Gm is no more a viable company than Bre-X, sure.

It isn't as if GM ever made any actual products of value that people bought.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> With a large enough government cash infusion, Bre-X could be turned into a viable company as well...


I think Bre-X should go to human rights, because they have the right to be bailed out just as much as the dudes as GM. I bet Bre-X would win as well, knowing the human rights commissions...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> It isn't as if GM ever made any actual products of value that people bought.


GM did, and made excellent products for the money for half a century or more. Once the 70's ended, it was all downhill for GM, though they had such a lead, it took twenty more years for everyone else to catch up.

Same with Canada, it's all been downhill since they voted Trudeau in...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's all Trudeau's fault. No PM, not one of them, even though nearly 30 years has passed, has been capable of undoing the sheer atrocities brought about that man, his lasting legacy will haunt us for decades, and we will shoulder the burden of his misdeeds, for centuries to come.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
So true...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^^
It's rare that I agree with groovetube, but I suspect I could have said it only slightly better myself.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^^^
:clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

One could say that it is the legacy of idealism over pragmatism. That being said it must be remembered that Robert Stanfield also supported Official Bilingualism. 

So given the options at the time, would Canada be in any less a predicament than it is now or has been since Trudeau?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I also forgot to mention that occasionally the ghost of Trudeau rises, and then flies into a sitting PM, in particular, conservative PMs, who truly are good conservatives, and really want to be good, honest god fearing conservatives, and makes them do bad socialist things.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So true. Trudeau stands in as THE GREAT SATAN for our many fine conswervative friends.

Guess everyone needs a boogeyman.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah Cons get the fear factor going young.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> So given the options at the time, would Canada be in any less a predicament than it is now or has been since Trudeau?


Yes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

of course we won't discuss how Mulroney's spending made Trudeau look like a "real" conservative.
<snicker>


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> One could say that it is the legacy of idealism over pragmatism. That being said it must be remembered that Robert Stanfield also supported Official Bilingualism.


Stanfield dropped the football on that one...



> So given the options at the time, would Canada be in any less a predicament than it is now or has been since Trudeau?


We could have taken a less violent path, and instead of ersatz policies that were only ever in place to self-aggrandize and to purchase votes, we could have had real social justice and true rights. Not to mention the economic mess caused by all forms of vote purchasing welfraud and other poorly conceived and even more poorly executed programs that entirely bloated the debt.

It may have been less of a predicament if the same bitter pill hadn't been force fed to us by Chretien, who engaged in pretty much the same policies of directed hatred and of providing shelter for Jim Crow discrimination.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so it was the ghost of trudeau that rose up and forced harper to buy votes with the brainless gst cut. I knew it...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groove, if you actually read all of the posts in these threads, you'd realize that many of your comments make no sense in the context of the full thread of the discussion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> groove, if you actually read all of the posts in these threads, you'd realize that many of your comments make no sense in the context of the full thread of the discussion.


now that is just a fantastic revelation. You must be a "real" conservative.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> so it was the ghost of trudeau that rose up and forced harper to buy votes with the brainless gst cut. I knew it...


No, however all of the waste instituted by Trudeau, and the giant deficits that resulted from that waste, was the reason that Mulroney imposed GST. This significantly damaged the economy, as 7% of the economic strength of this country was hijacked in order to fund ever increasing government involvement in the life of the country.

Cutting GST by 2% simply freed up 2% of the economy, and the increased amount of wealth has worked to save Canada from the worst of the effects the recession. For instance, if we had full GST, we wouldn't be talking about just the collapse of manufacturing, but we'd also be talking about the collapse of the retail sector. If you think that a 1% change means little - think again, because when the Rae regime jacked up PST by 1% - which was supposed to pay for an "improved health care system", it ended up plunging thousands of businesses into bankruptcy, and the province futher into a lengthy and deep recession.

More of the point is that Governments have to get back to the basics - that of being Government, rather than being a font of business and a dispensary for special interests, unbridled welfraud, pointless retraining programs, and "services". We would be better off if they stuck to legislating and regulating, because with examples like AECL and other Crown Corporations, it just proves that the Government just can't run a business.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> No, however all of the waste instituted by Trudeau, and the giant deficits that resulted from that waste, was the reason that Mulroney imposed GST. This significantly damaged the economy, as 7% of the economic strength of this country was hijacked in order to fund ever increasing government involvement in the life of the country.
> 
> Cutting GST by 2% simply freed up 2% of the economy, and the increased amount of wealth has worked to save Canada from the worst of the effects the recession. For instance, if we had full GST, we wouldn't be talking about just the collapse of manufacturing, but we'd also be talking about the collapse of the retail sector. If you think that a 1% change means little - think again, because when the Rae regime jacked up PST by 1% - which was supposed to pay for an "improved health care system", it ended up plunging thousands of businesses into bankruptcy, and the province futher into a lengthy and deep recession.
> 
> More of the point is that Governments have to get back to the basics - that of being Government, rather than being a font of business and a dispensary for special interests, unbridled welfraud, pointless retraining programs, and "services". We would be better off if they stuck to legislating and regulating, because with examples like AECL and other Crown Corporations, it just proves that the Government just can't run a business.


It couldn't be his mind numbing spending racking up record debts (like, Harper...) noooo...

No it's always someone else's fault. For 3 years I've listened to mewling conservatives whining it's always the liberals fault, I don't see them taking leadership on anything, but spending themselves into a frenzy. And they already started that long before a liberal made noises about wanting stimulus spending.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> More of the point is that Governments have to get back to the basics - that of being Government, rather than being a font of business and a dispensary for special interests, unbridled welfraud, pointless retraining programs, and "services". We would be better off if they stuck to legislating and regulating, because with examples like AECL and other Crown Corporations, it just proves that the Government just can't run a business.



Agreed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Hey Yeah, and we all know well private and corporate entities takes care of things now don't we!

Whata party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EP: I think that one of the problems with Canadians is that they want everybody to "take care of things" for them. You can't merely operate a business--you also have to get touchy feely with the masses. This is why they give _carte blanche_ to government entities to rob them blind.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The private sector is infinitely better equipped for delivering malfeasance and epic screw-ups. We should leave it to the pros. I mean, sometimes they excel at such endeavours so much, they even drive themselves into bankruptcy - talk about your dedication.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah people tend to get whiney when companies make massive profits, pay people minimum wage, and fight against paying anything that forces them to possibly support the community. 

People really should be happy with 10 bucks an hour, no health insurance, and a dirt road.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A dirt road?!! We had to live in a lake.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> yeah people tend to get whiney when companies make massive profits, pay people minimum wage, and fight against paying anything that forces them to possibly support the community.
> 
> People really should be happy with 10 bucks an hour, no health insurance, and a dirt road.


Jack Layton's got at least one vote next election.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> People really should be happy with 10 bucks an hour, no health insurance, and a dirt road.


You ingrate! You aren't happy with that? If you need medical help, hand over your first born or your house... don't have those... well... geee... tough! See you in the next life! 
A dirt road is better than no road, so shaddup!

No I'm not likely to vote for Jack Layton next time round... 

*note** Just in case someone takes me too seriously my post is meant to be quite "tongue in cheek", but I sometimes DO wonder what thoughts go through TPTB's heads when they think about these things...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jack Layton's got at least one vote next election.


YOU"RE voting for Jack Layton?

Whoa.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> A dirt road?!! We had to live in a lake.


You had a lake! We had to live, all 26 of us, in a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpaulin.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> You had a lake! We had to live, all 26 of us, in a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpaulin.


We got evicted from our hole in the ground ... there were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

chas_m said:


> We got evicted from our hole in the ground ... there were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.


Luxury!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Luxury!


I bet the Liberals would find a way of taxing the shoebox, in order to fund some white elephant in one of their ridings - a luxury shoebox tax, but they'd phase it in in thirty easy increments...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper's gov is going to be historic but not in the way he thinks....



> *Tories call in Mounties over mint's missing millions*
> 
> CHRISTOPHER PIKE FOR THE TORONTO STAR
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Tories call in Mounties over mint's missing millions

••••••



> *Baird to Miller: `I'm sorry'*
> 
> Transportation minister apologizes to mayor for profanity used in reaction to request for streetcar funding
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | GTA | Baird to Miller: `I'm sorry'

••••••



> *Uproar in the Commons over Raitt's remarks
> Raitt should resign: Opposition*
> 
> An unapologetic Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending his embattled natural resources minister and dismisses the storm of criticism over Lisa Raitt as "cheap politics." The opposition parties attacked the Conservatives in the Commons with demands for Raitt's resignation over her description of the shortage of isotopes used in cancer tests as a "sexy" issue.
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Uproar in the Commons over Raitt's remarks

indeed.....

Ed Broadbent must be getting ready to emigrate.....can hardly blame him......Preston Manning not far behind....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Ed Broadbent must be getting ready to emigrate....


Does he need a hand with his luggage?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Does he need a hand with his luggage?


I'll donate the ride to the airport...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I guess Corrigan forgot what Trudeau actually said. Pretty sad when the whole joke goes down that way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

To my memory, Trudeau was accused of mouthing f--- off. He then coined the 'fuddle duddle'. 

Was there another story here?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Harper's gov is going to be historic but not in the way he thinks....
> 
> 
> TheStar.com | Canada | Tories call in Mounties over mint's missing millions


This is the Government's fault how?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> This is the Government's fault how?


Well, uh, MacDoc found it in the _Star_, and uh...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

In this day and age, everything is the Government's fault, especially if The Star says so...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> In this day and age, everything is the Government's fault, especially if The Star says so...


Nope...Just "the triplets"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> To my memory, Trudeau was accused of mouthing f--- off. He then coined the 'fuddle duddle'.
> 
> Was there another story here?


It wasn't that he was accused of mouthing - he actually said the dreaded words, but since this was prior to televised proceedings in the Commons, he got away with it. Not that it was a big issue, but it came on the heels of the revelations of the time, like the Watergate Tapes and AbScam, and just prior to the revelations of RCMP wrongdoing and wire tapping without writs of assistance. Parliament was tamed by the coming of television, more theatrical but also less filling...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It wasn't that he was accused of mouthing - he actually said the dreaded words, but since this was prior to televised proceedings in the Commons, he got away with it. Not that it was a big issue, but it came on the heels of the revelations of the time, like the Watergate Tapes and AbScam, and just prior to the revelations of RCMP wrongdoing and wire tapping without writs of assistance. Parliament was tamed by the coming of television, more theatrical but also less filling...


Mouthing? Not mouthing? 



> "Fuddle-duddle."
> – What then PM Pierre Trudeau claims he said instead of "F*** off" in the House of Commons to Tory John Lundrigan, member for Gander-Twillingate in Feb. 16, 1971, when pressured to deal with unemployment. Members of the press gallery say they observed Trudeau mouthing the swear.


Nice page:
CBC News Indepth: Canadian Government



> "F*****g bastard."
> – What Prime Minister Brian Mulroney allegedly called Winnipeg Liberal MP David Walker Dec. 11, 1991, during an attack by Walker on the government's child-poverty record. Opposition MPs and a Canadian Press photographer in the Commons say they clearly heard Mulroney utter the phrase.





> "Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody, I'd go further up the gene pool."
> – Liberal cabinet minister Reg Alcock when asked by reporters on May 4, 2005, whether he offered an ambassadorship to Tory MP Inky Mark in return for Mark giving up his seat in the House of Commons, thus making the Liberals' minority government a little more secure.





> "I get sick ... not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent."
> – During the election of 1863, Sir John A. Macdonald threw up during a campaign speech and when his opponent pointed this out, Macdonald shot back with this answer.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Sir John A. ruled!

I think they should have more swearing in Parliament, and more truth, with people getting called out for their crimes and bad ideas. In a more realistic Parliament, someone would be voted off the island every week until Evil Dick runs the place - that would be better than the sorry bunch of scum and neer'do'wells we have now. In a Big Brother Parliament, we would also get to watch all of the proceedings, everything that goes on in the back offices, bathrooms and janitors closets, though I think I'd skip After Dark of the politicans started peeling their clothes off...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> It wasn't that he was accused of mouthing - he actually said the dreaded words, but since this was prior to televised proceedings in the Commons, he got away with it. Not that it was a big issue, but it came on the heels of the revelations of the time, like the Watergate Tapes and AbScam, and just prior to the revelations of RCMP wrongdoing and wire tapping without writs of assistance. Parliament was tamed by the coming of television, more theatrical but also less filling...


What the hell are you talking about?


----------

