blueblood

Ali velshi on cnn whenever the us jobs reports breaks down where the jobs are going, his sidekick christine romans also contributes to the breakdown in that they both say that private sector job growth is positive for the economy. This is the same ali velshi who brings up the income gap in the usa and is wondering why middle class wages have flat lined when there is global competition Public sector jobs do not create wealth and are funded by our best friend the tax system. Its funny that they "pay" income tax which is essentially tax dollars paying their salary taken off their pay check.

Or create wealth

It looks like the liberals are picking off ndp support while the tories are snapping up a lot of the undecided group, or as I call it the mdancer,guyser,bonam,capricorn,etc. group. At the end of the day that's the group that matters.

Yes all these promises are hunky dory, but I believe it leads people down the road of entitlement. In canada we went down that road in the 60s and 70s and it all came to a head in the 1990s. Canadians have an entitled view of healthcare even though its current form is unsustainable. I don't think we can afford daycare. What's worse is once those programs are in place, it is political suicide to consider cutting them. The usa is having a massive debate about entitlement spending. It is expensive, and in the long run doesn't drastically improve a person's living situation. These are the type of spending where there is no return on taxpayers investment. At the end of the day people have to realize that there are things they can afford and things they can't, whether that comes to houses or children.

And I think he campaigned on these. Like harper should be campaigning on the budget he just made and paint the opposition as irresponsible instead of this coalition business.

I agree jdobbin was legit. He was clear he was a member and knew some of their going ons. I for one would be curious to know his thoughts on the current state of the LPC because if I remember correctly he was concerned about the LPCs viability when dion was party leader.

And had to say yes sir to the bond vigilantes just like clinton! Had trudeau known what the bond market was we wouldn't be in so much debt.

Are you sure? I remember pmpms campaign chalk full of pork barrell spending.

You do know what sort of promises martin made in his last election. He cleaned out the cupboard had he won and kept them! I think that in a minority govt with harper being "difficult", a left of centre caucus, and the ndp/bloc needed to pass legislation, it would be bad news bears. Like I said the bond vigilantes and free trade made the clinton administration look good too!

And that's what's needed to do well in a debate. Even imo ignatieff's ideas are proposterous, ignatieff has made a living of public speaking and writing. Harper used to crunch numbers. It wouldn't look good. Harper is in the same boat as dion when it comes to debating. The only person on the right who would stump ignatieff would be uncle kevin, but he would piss off all of the swing voters in doing so. Ill call a spade a spade, debating iggy 1 on 1 is a bad idea, especially if harper is trying to go for the center.

Free trade and bond vigilantes would make any finance minister look like a genius. Had martin won the election and spent all that money on social programs, we'd be in a bigger mess than we're in now.

I agree, but I would be disappointed in harper having to give canned answers because of his poor communication skills. I'd love to see it, but harper is no reagan and no mulroney. If this were to happen, harper stumping ignatieff would be mind blowing.

And what is so wrong with a person setting up a daycare out of their house or buying/renting a building. Or with providing those big corporations tax incentives to have daycare set up at the workplace. That can already be done or is being done. What's going on is a trend in most developed worlds to cut corporate tax rates. Obama is planning on doing it as well. He tried the tax and spend approach and couldn't create more jobs. Here is an intersting tidbit to low corporate taxes. Ireland which has some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world refused to touch their tax rate. Even after an election that sent the old ruling party into oblivion they did not touch the tax rate, instead the population took the draconian cuts like a champ. Why? Low taxes brought prosperity once, it will bring it again. Germany and france were tripping over themselves to bail ireland out thinking they could squeeze higher taxes as part of the bailout package but ireland told them to pound sand. As for the uni grads. That education is only good when there are jobs to be had. A big problem in egypt was university grads who could not get a job even though they had all the education in the world. That is my concern, education inflation, to have people stuck in school for 8 years to make 50k because every tom dick and harry has a four year degree, is hard on the economy by itself because of the cost to get that education. If given the choice b/w a uni grad and someone with a grade 12 who can run heavy equipment, the uni grad doesn't get the job because the other one has betteR skills. As you put it yourself if there's no cash there's no jobs. Those bricklayers and plumbers often times start up their own companies and depending on reputation, amt of work, and skill can be quite flush with cash and often employ "gnomes" to make their work go faster.

I'm sure he has no problem standing behind the sorry record of having the strongest economy in the western world and the quickest deficit exit strategy as well.

Govt jobs aren't "real" jobs. The corporate tax cuts are a far better method to create jobs with. When martin did it he was a genius, when harper does it he's evil. Harper is one of the craftiest people in ottawa, he is a horrible communicator.

That's just the reality of it. Harper is in it to win an election. His policies aren't warm and fuzzy spend policies that make everyone feel good. If harper was to get into it with ignatieff about corporate tax cuts vs billion dollar learning passports on the fly with an eloquent speaker such as ignatieff that could be a disaster. The only way harper can make his policies palatable is in those canned soundbytes. Chretien and martin didn't campaign on slashing spending and balancing the books, but once they did canadians bought into it and martin looks like a hero. I think that's what harper wants out of his time in office - the guy that did what was necessary and got the job done. The usa is having a devil of a time dealing with their entitlement spending which is too much tax dollars on consumption. The administration which fixes this will be relegated into political oblivion because everyone loves their entitlement spending. For a fiscal conservative/tea party type, its maddening. The 1990s liberals had the ideal situation for dealing with the deficit: free trade, the bond vigilantes banging the war drum, people in the finance industry high up in the caucus (manley, martin, mccallum later on), the gst, and a right wing opposition essentially saying go further. That does not exist in the usa.

And that's why I'm not in politics.

It was turned down I believe, because if harper were to legitimately have a debate of substance with ignatieff, he would look like a jerk, because according to the centre left harper's policies are heartless. Even though corporate tax cuts are good for the economy and create jobs, it is a lot harder sell to a largely economic illeterate base vs. Say a billion dollar daycare and billion dollar learning passports. I'm sure harper would love to rip ignatieff in two about the economy. Given that ignatieff is a far better public speaker than harper, and harper having a cold image it would be better to take a pass. For harper to "win" the debate, he'd piss off the electorate. Its always harder to sell a policy where there is a no involved, vs. A yes policy. For example the gst tax cuts (yes I will cut the gst vs no I won't cut it for xyz reason)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the price of the house vs. Income. Probly not a good idea to buy a house at 8x earnings. Those investors were at parts a little slow as well. The cash flow of lehman was slashed for a year before the collapse, yet their income (through the liabilities of homeowners) was still rising. Had the investors looked at cash flow, they wouldn't have went for such a bath. As for those bonuses, they are included in the contracts. It was cheaper to pay the bonuses than go through the litigation that was sure to come. It sucks, but that's how it goes down.

Looks like august's theory is shot full of holes. The coalition talk might have gave a boost to the tories, but left of centre people who don't like the idea of coalition interpreted iggys door analogy different than others and are throwing their eggs in the liberal basket. I see the ndp getting squeezed. With both harper and iggy stating the election is between the two of them. Look for the polls to tighten up a bit until the debates. I think the ndp is taking a bath this time around

I beg to differ. The lenders were deceived by the homebuyers saying they would be able to pay their mortgage. If you were borderline for getting a loan, would you tell the banker "I don't know if I can make enough money to pay the loan?" If you did, you'd get punted out of the office. it cuts both ways. The lenders either were forced to lend to bozos by legislation or by the bon/shareholders in order to compete with the banks under the legislation. If anything its an attitude of entitlement on both sides that was the foundation for this mess. (I want a house vs. I want double digit returns)

Except when jimmy carter forced fdic insured banks to make loans that didn't discriminate on income. The other banks had no choice but to compete. Fast forward 30 yrs and it all came to a head. In canada, there is no such regulation. Also those low income people had no business walking into a financial institution getting mortgages on homes they can't afford. The bad thing with all those banks down there competing with each other is that the initial rate is low to get them in the door, the the rates are jacked right up to compensate the risk and ensure returns for bon/shareholders. A lot of people took a bath. Nobody is forcing those people to walk in a bank and take loans of money they can't afford. Stupid policy and stupid people make for a big mess. Yet another reason why commerce/economics/management should be mandatory for high school grad. We can learn the mistakes from our friends to the south, not repeat them.

If I can quote mike "the situation", "Dude, that is a grenade!!!"

Taxpayers aren't ponying anything up and aren't taking anything out, yet they get to elect a govt that appoints management. That sounds like a good deal to me. I don't own shares of nokia, should I vote in their shareholder meetings?

Ah, but the commercial banks are also owned by people and deal with people's money. Do the shareholders set the loan rates? No, they appoint a board of directors who in turn appoint management. The BOC works the same way. Voters elect the govt, the govt appoints management at the BOC to make decisions on interest ways. Similar setups, and rightfully so, it ensures the voters/shareholders get some input while ensuring that there is competant management.