Moonbox

I didn't read any mention of it anywhere.

You're right. He pretty much swept Ontario other than Toronto and a few GTA suburbs.

Bush cheated now huh? Your posts are so worthless here it's not even funny.

He's got a long record of arrests for small things. The worst was he was the co-founder of, Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for a number of murders and attacks. That in and of itself would make his admittance to Canada a dubious affair. I think it would be ludicrous to assume the government was trying to make any sort of statement.

Ignatieff won't comment on deficits... He's being a little wishy-washy I think. He's obviously making sure nobody can pin him down on his position for the deficit. He'll make sure that whatever Harper does he'll be in a position to criticize the budget even though he'll likely vote to support it. It's not like Harper wouldn't do the same thing, but it's interesting nonetheless. He's as big of a tool as the rest of them.

Jerry that's a pretty good and well-thought out argument. I don't generally agree with you, but in this case I totally do and I'll tip my hat to you. I'm totally 100% against big stimulus but I'm unforunately part of the minority and there doesn't seem to be anyone right now championing my cause.

That doesn't even make sense. The LPC and NDP are all hooting and hollering about stimulus. Ignatieff made it clear he'll topple the government without a stimulus plan. Seeing as though we're already in the red, how does stimulus = non deficit? Here's another attempt at that link you said was broken, btw... Coalition 30B stimulus Let me know if that works. It talks about Liberal ministers' stimulus spending for those of us who are debating that they wouldn't be spending a lot themselves. A nonsense argument. Your explanation only helps underline how little you understand economics. This means nothing. This doesn't change the fact that stimulus, under the present economic conditions, means nothing OTHER than deficit. The whole idea of stimulus is to pump money into the economy to help soften the fall. This means the government budget goes way out of wack. You can't increase taxes to provide stimulus because all you've done is taken more money out of the economy to just put it back in with bureaucratic government spending. The government is trying to turn an economic nosedive into something where we land on our feet and are able to start running from there. Says madmax the economics guru. Hate to tell you this, but the role of government is to look after the electorate as they feel they want to be looked after. If most people are clamoring for stimulus to save their jobs, that's what the role of government is generally going to be. For the record, I don't like a $40 B spending plan either. I would only criticize Harper, however, if there was an alternative who's not going to spend. We don't have one right now. I prefer Harper's planned tax cuts to the present philosophy, which seems to be throw even more money at the poor, unmotivated and uneducated and let the rest of us fend.

Don't be silly. A GST cut will ONLY affect your spending. You might not consciously decide to spend more, but after a purchase you'll have more money in your wallet. It's better than cutting you an income tax rebate and letting you squirrel it away. I am optimistic but I'm basing this on about 60 years of economic history. Providing the recession doesn't end up as a Depression, we'll be on our way back up by 2010. If it's as bad as you think then we're f'd either way. To an extent I agree. Investing in transportation, energy and utilities is probably a good idea. Dubious projects of the artistic and social nature, however, are best to be avoided right now IMO.

I make the assumption based on deductive logic. Because you clearly don't support the CPC, and because the other worthwhile parties are all promising huge stimulus, I conclude you support a party that supports stimulus. I'll graciously apologize if you're a Green Party supporter, however, and have pity on you as well. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home There's a link on the left side of the article with the details. Easy find. The coalition was threatening to bring down the government on the basis of not providing stimulus. Their plans were $30B worth of it. This does not include the deficit we'll run next year regardless. You do the math.

It depends. Long term infrastructure is probably a little late to make any difference. We need things that will infuse cash in the short term. Things that can start yesterday.

but why would you criticize them for doing what your party of choice is demanding/forcing them to do? That's foolishness.

The timing of any infrastructure spending is WAY off now. Infrastructure spending needed to start like 6 months ago to have any effect on the recession. By the time contracts bids are accepted and work starts we're already going to be out of the recession. Infrastructure spending takes forever to take effect. I think we need some but $40B of infrastructure spending would be silly. GST cuts are the only thing that are going to encourage spending.

You can go to your bank and ask them to change your privacy preferences. The banks have do not solicit lists and generally honor them in the interest of customer satisfaction. You have to go in and ask them to do so on your own, however.

Nobody cares what YOU think his intent was. YOUR economic background probably doesn't extend past high school math class. Regardless of what your murky and partisan financial accumen leads you to believe, tax cuts in 2008 and spending announcements in 2008 ARE making the recession easier on us. What YOU are doing is criticizing the Conservative government for doing exactly what your party of choice is advocating. You're saying we'd be better off economically with massive Ignatieff deficits than with massive Harper deficits. To argue that Harper spending in 2008 was terrible but massive stimulus demanded by the Liberals in 2009 is okay is unbelievably flakey. He probably still believes government's job is not to bail out industry. Demands by the coalition have reversed his position. Leading up to the election, Harper said a lot of things. Politicians all do this. He was trying to prevent people from panicking before the election and voting him out. His opponents fanned the flames of panic to do the opposite. It was politics. Harper said he was not going to run a deficit in 2008. He probably could have avoided it if he wanted to. The coalition, regardless of Harper's intentions, totally blew any possibility of a balanced budget out of the water. Oh WoW! A politician who BS's. Why don't we go down the list of BS Obama flung around during the US election. Let's hear you criticize him for it! That's what an election is. It's promises and rhetoric aimed at a retarded electorate who generally knows nothing of the issues. You can chose to stay informed and get over this fact or you can flap your hands and cry about it. It's your choice but only one of them avoids bed wetting and tantrums.

People are hugely mistaken on a few very important things about the Obama campaign. Personally I would have voted for him. With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush. Obama didn't have to sling mud. Republicans had already dived head first into the mud and were covered in it of their own accord. All Obama had to do is say, "We're not going to be like THEM" and he was a shoe-in. It certainly helped that he was charismatic and opposed the war in Iraq. All Obama had to do in the election was stand back, watch Sarah Palin self-destruct on television and make sure he didn't land himself in scandal.

Providing a synopsis might help. I'm not clicking it because I don't want to get Rickrolled.

Oh my god don't make me laugh any further. I'll bust a gut. On one hand you have a young (relatively) black American, a demographic which has NEVER handled the position of president. On the other hand you have an old fart of an ango-saxon university prof who lived the majority of his life outside of Canada. On the one hand you have a president-elect with COMPLETELY different position on virtually EVERYTHING than the demon of George Bush, and on the Canadian side you have a Liberal Leader with virtually identical views on war, economics and international policy as the current prime minister. A comparison of Obama to Ignatieff is about as apt as a comparison between Hilary Duff and Donald Trump. This is why the Liberals have such a problem creating buzz and excitement for their party. If people like you are making comparisons like this, you just reinforce the joke the party has become. I'll agree that he's an intelligent shift to the right from Dion at least. It's the CPC's own fault for letting retarded fundamental christians into the leadership. You're also right in that it'll probably cost them votes and possibly an election. or that he endorses torture in interrogation? Or did...until someone made a big deal over him being quoted as saying such??? Ignatieff is as right as they come. He's as much American as he is Canadian and an American Democrat makes a CPC right winger look like a communist. Personally, I'm not worried. I'm all for lower government spending and lower taxes.

I have no idea what DND or DFO are. I feel so stupid.

Alright madmax I'll meet your juvenile emoticons with simple logic. 1. A tax cut on consumer spending can ONLY help to increase consumer spending. Do you agree or disagree? 2. Government spending pumps money into the economy. Do you agree or disagree? 3. Harper indicated over a year ago that the economy might face a slow down? Agree or disagree? It's REALLY amusing watching you and others froth at the mouth over Harper spending over the last year or so and paint Ignatieff or Layton or whoever as a beacon of hope as they promise similar deficits and spending moving forward. Apparently increased spending leading up to the recession = BAD Increased spending AFTER the fact = GOOD? Could you please explain how?

Talking about Canadian and American militaries competing for resources is idiotic to say the least. If we get oil reserves mapped and exploited the Americans won't touch them. It's a wash to the Americans if Canada manages to assert some of its claims to the Arctic. They already have cheap access to all of our country's resources. Can you imagine: "Oh NO Barack! Our longest standing ally and trade partner has started building oil rigs and fisheries in the Arctic! Now we're going to have to import these resources duty-free from Canadian companies that are already partially owned by our own corporations!" The Americans will make and exploit claims but but they are certainly not going to assert their will over us and deny claims we take advantage of. Our economies are far to intertwined already to bother. The last thing we are going to see are American destroyers shutting Canadian oil rigs down.

The Conservatives right now are about as centre as you can get. The Liberals shifted drastically left under Dion/Rae leadership and suffered for it. If Iggy can bring them back to the centre-right they may indeed have a chance. MOST Canadians vote right of centre, believe it or not. The question is how far right will they go and how many will stop voting Liberal the further left they go.

The Americans crossed a line we haven't even neared yet. Our federal government's finances are a COMPLETELY different picture from that of the US. Don't even compare them. No we haven't. We've seen tax cuts with increased spending combined with a collapsing economy. The first two work to diminish the effects of the last. Your argument here shows a FUNDAMENTAL lack of logical thought. Either you don't understand the economy, or you're just blowing hot air. Either way, it makes it hard to take you seriously. We both know that expenditures have risen and that taxes have been reduced. That's fine. We get it. Your math, however, and the implications you make from it, again prevent anyone from being able to take you seriously. Revenue is down for two reasons. One is obviously the 2% GST reduction. The second is the fact that corporate revenue and personal income is DRASTICALLY down across the board because of a massive recession. I agree that the spending was unecessary. I am VERY pleased that taxes were reduced, however, because in all likelihood that has pre-emptively sheltered us somewhat from the effects of the recession. If you were to rule out the GST cuts and the spending increases, we would STILL be running a deficit. What's particularly amusing to me, however, with all you economic 'geniuses' is how you will condemn 2008 spending and the 2009 proposed deficit but all the other parties out there also promised massive stimulus and deficits. ANY stimulus spending will take many months to a year to even have an impact on the economy. Harper spending in late 2007 and through 2008 IS being felt already and this is savings jobs and keeping people working RIGHT NOW rather than in 6-12 months. Fancy that. Harper warned of a slowing economy in 2007. Mayhaps he was making plans to buffer the effects? Harper warns of slowing economy - Dec 2007

I really don't think this is something to worry about at all. It's common knowledge how Harper's government works. I don't see how this is going to do ANYTHING but make Ignatieff look even more like Harper than he already does. We've got two very pro-American leaders who have demonstrated VERY similar views on a good number of things and now one of these leaders is even hiring the other's staff.

It's 100% emotion based. Take away the public opinion for Bush and Iraq and you have this: -Americans enlisting in the ARMY (which serves) and receiving pay, benefits, education etc in return for enlisting. -The same Americans then refusing to do what they signed up to do in the first place. These soldiers are breaking their end of the contract. What is their moral opposition to war in Iraq? They don't believe in the war? They're not really being ordered to murder civilians or anything like that. There's ALWAYS civilian casualties in war and it pretty much can't be avoided. I would understand if American soldiers were being ordered to murder families and babies and whatnot, but their whole argument for going AWOL is extremely extremely weak. You know what you're signing up for when you enlist in the Army. Past enlistees had the fortune of NOT having a conflict to serve in. Now there's a conflict. You either do what you signed up for, got paid for and promised to do or you face the consequences.

It's going to be a public opinion battle. Personally I'd rather not have people who shoot our allies running the streets of Canada. If he's willing to fight with the Taliban, he's willing to finance them as well. It's clear where this dude's loyalties lie and it's NOT with Canada. He has no business here at all.