jdobbin

He certainly is one of the people who appeared as one of the spokesmen. By the way, did you notice that FOX News labeled the event? http://mediamatters.org/items/200904160011?f=h_latest

I think we can do without assistance for the oil industry which runs in the billion. Seems a profitable industry ought to be able to be able to fund things on their own.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30243307/ Seems like she feels she needs to reach out to the very base of the party and in its wake, she is hostile to people she once worked with. McCain seems ambivalent about her nowadays. Then there is the issue of stimulus. She signed on for it and some Republicans are upset with her although I don't know too many times where Alaska refuses federal dollars.

You can also end Medicare, EI, OAS, the military, the RCMP and all government operations and Canada would have the lowest taxes in the world!

So if Harper raises taxes, you'll be gone then.

The website is run by a Republican and Republican party people have jumped on board even though it called a non-partisan event. It was promoted with advertising on FOX News paid for by FOX. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30227452/

Really? When? And when will the Edmonton based government decentralize to the municipalities?

I guess it remains to be seen. My thought, like the National Post mused, is that Harper is looking for a job.

How many are uniounized in Quebec? I'd say there is very few here. I think the link says they need more to make inroads in places like the west.

And you think that the U.S. media is going to tell the story?

And you think the CBC is the only network in Canada? The only media? You think they are all Liberal supporters who are opposed to Harper? You really think the conspiracy runs that deep?

Which is what the Alberta government does.

I agree that the Liberals have done a poor job on EI. They used the surpluses for deficit fighting and cut benefits. The only luck they had was the economy was starting to do better so there was not a hue and cry with low unemployment for many of those years. The NDP were the only ones advocating for EI changes although I don't if we can go back to supporting such seasonal unemployment as we once did. There has to be a medium to all this. The question is: Can the NDP translate their policy into a winning strategy to form government? I don't think so. The NDP is too till cavalier on spending. They need to take a lesson from their provincial cousins on the subject which they seem loath to do. The Liberals really cut the support of EI. The question is whether Ignatieff has the right policy idea for EI now. Some analysts like what they see. I'd like to know more as the policy is fleshed out.

By going to the liberal mainstream media in another country?

On the deficit or EI?

That is socialist? The provinces used that time to cut their taxes or pass on the costs to the municipalities. Federal transfers often come with strings that are agreed to by the provinces. Don't want those strings, refuse the transfers. Even Alberta accepts $4 billion in transfers. You means like Western Diversification based in the west? There is a lot of cries of hands off but at the same time recognition that things like environment and health don't stop at provincial borders.

The political namecalling adds nothing to the discussion. We know that Harper said he would not have a deficit and well, we now have a deficit. Unless major cuts are coming, we are likely going to see some sort of tax increase. Ignatieff should just say that he can't rule one out. If Harper takes a hard line and then raises taxes himself, it will be he who takes the heat.

http://www.canada.com/News/hires+former+Wh...0064/story.html It looks like the thing that Harper wants to sell is himself. Pretty sure he is angling for a job on foreign media.

Was he talking about deficits or EI?

Did it once, I'm sure they can do it again. Well, the deficit didn't end under the Tories. Doesn't look like they will do it now.

Lot of people felt the same way about the deficit.

Since Harper can't cut spending, it is doubtful that he will be able to cut the deficit. Martin actually cut spending and held the line on it. In other words, you will vote Tory no matter how many Liberal bad policies from the past they adopt. And look where it has gotten you?

Ignatieff has already said that a carbon tax is not in the cards. For better or for worse, the cap and trade is where we are headed. Resolutions are not the same thing as a policy platform in an election.

I am not speculating. I am telling you what Harper actually said and it was that he was not going to run a deficit. If he was wrong about that, what else is he wrong about? I'd rather have someone not rule out the possibility of a tax increase that to blatantly say it won't happen in light of a deficit. And since you have made it clear that no taxes is where your vote is going to go, I hope that you don't turn around and vote Tory and find some contorted reason to do so if they do raise taxes.

It sounds like he was describing it as Flaherty and the Finance department have been describing it. They said $34 billion this year, $30 billion next year and something in the next year that might be anywhere from $10 to $25 billion in deficit. The Finance department had called it $60 to $85 billion in deficits over that time. Unless you are trying to say that Ignatieff was saying that it was that much this year alone, I'm not sure what your concern was.