Moonbox

Does anyone else find it ironic that the people here who have been criticizing Harper's over-spending are now frothing in excitement at the prospect of a Liberal/NDP coalition that's going to topple his rule because they don't think he's spending enough?? (Hey Jdobbin!) Even up to and leading into October people were furious at his tax cuts and spending increases. Personally, I always felt he was overspending and I've never been hugely impressed. With that said, the opposition has been and still is promising to spend MORE. That's why I've never voted against Harper and that's why I may vote for him again. Jdobbin I'll ask for the THIRD time now how you justify bailout money (and giant deficits because of it) in addition to what's already been spent when previously you were a consistent opponent of bigger budgets leading up to now. METHINKS it may be a little partisanship? For the record, I'm not against running a moderate deficit in times like this. Personally, I was quite fine with the prospect of Conservative deficits this year. I'm not so sure I'm okay with running $15-20 billion deficits a la Trudeau/Mulroney because the worthless big three and their even more useless unions cannot and never will be competitive in their current state.

The Bloc would hold the balance of power. A Liberal/NDP coalition means very little because the CPC controls more seats than both of them combined. Every decision will have to cater to the Bloc because without the Bloc's help no legislation will pass. The Conservatives cooperated with the Bloc in 2006 and the coalition would have to pretty much the same. It's a matter of what considerations are offered to Quebec to decide how happy/unhappy the rest of Canada will be with the arrangement. Quebec is already our biggest welfare province and to allow it to go any further is likely going to alienate the rest of Canada even worse.

Why? What's the alternative?

Non conciliatory and bullying are two VERY different things. What I said was that the conservatives wouldn't call an 'election' any time soon because it would be unpopular to do so. The thought of a coalition hadn't even crossed my mind. I'd rather have the Tories leading us right now. I don't need bailout money, nor does my family. Blue collar needs the money right now. The Liberal/NDP coalition is promising it. I'm not pleased with this but I'm betting they'll pay politically when their bailouts and tax increases are announced. On the other hand, I think whatever party leads during the recession is going to hurt for it in the future. I'm disgusted with the Liberals as they are right now, and if a party is going to sink because of the economy, I'd rather it be Bob Rae, Justin Trudeau and the whole gang. Typical dodge and avoid. The question was what do YOU think about the intended billions about to be thrown in as bailouts/stimulus? The economy has been slowing for over a year now and I've been quite fine with increased spending along the way. Jdobbin you've been opposed to virtually EVERY spending announcement made. I find it hilariously ironic how you think spending billions in extra stimulus (which the conservatives have already been doing somewhat) is all of the sudden okay under the Liberals. This is what makes it really difficult to take your arguments seriously. Now that a Liberal government is on the horizon, are you all of the sudden becoming a champion of Keynesian economics? I won't be surprised, but I do believe it might hurt your credibility. If, on the other hand, you're prepared to be just as critical about Liberal spending, particularly this aid package which is the crux of the whole fiasco, then congratulations, you're on your way to becoming someone we can all take seriously.

Canada is a hard core capitalist country. There are only a few in the world more capitalistic than Canada. I laugh every time people say we're a socialist country. I vomit every time I hear Trudeau's name.

It's getting so so so incredibly old hearing you say that. "Ruthless Bullying" I can't even take you seriously when you say this. Harper didn't bully. He took advantage of a paralyzed and crippled opposition who disagreed with basically everything he said and pushed his party platform forward. That was it. He advanced his agenda because nobody was going to stop him. Why bother cooperating with your political rivals/enemies if you're not required to? Don't bother answering by the way Jdobbin. That was a rhetorical question. Having said that, I'm actually HOPING the Liberals and the NDP get in bed together. They'll make it a three-some with the Bloc. If I was Harper I'd be doing whatever I could to let someone else govern during this economic S**T storm and take the heat for the fat deficit in a few years. What I'd like to know though, particularly from you Jdobbin, is what your position is on a Liberal/NDP coalition that has pretty much indicated they'll start throwing billions worth of hand outs and bailouts to struggling Canadians. Can you justify the spending now once the Liberals are in charge???? /rolls eyes

and the truth shall set us free.

Haha...cited by whom? What policies, pray tell? High taxes? No, the Liberal government was extremely lucky in that it lead a government for 13 years that pretty generally was booming worldwide. The dot com boom busted but that was NOT what was really propelling the economy forwards. Huge real estate markets, record profits for resource and finance companies and unheard of cheap lending were the leading factors in NORTH AMERICA'S 10+ year economic boom. The Liberals benefited from that and were not responsible for it. Now the Conservatives are inheriting what turns out to be an artificially inflated economy. The cheap lending turned out to have a price. The real estate market was over develloped. Financial companies were basically fixing the books and an unsustainable auto industry has finally proven itself unsustainable. Add to that the fact that resource prices, which were sky rocketing due to speculation, are now plummeting and this is why we're about to face deficits. We have yet to see what the 2009 budget is going to be. If Harper lowers spending it would be interesting to see how long it takes for him to be voted out of office.

This whole debate is just silly. Comparing Conservative finances now to Liberal Finances post 1993 is ridiculous. It's like comparing the skill of two skippers on a 24 foot yacht where one captain is sailing in a hurricane and the other is sailing on a bright sunny day. You can't compare. The liberals federally have had the great fortune to have not faced a recession in 25 years and were fortunate enough to be in power during Canada's biggest economic boom in 50 years. I've already said on numerous occasions that I think Harper could really curb his spending. I also think an income tax cut would have been better than a GST tax cut. With that said politics is ALWAYS about comparisons. Right now our country IS a nanny state. WE, as Canadians, have turned our government into a pandering slave to uneducated and ignorant public opinion. We saw what happens when the government announces spending cuts in Quebec. It's worse than raising taxes almost. Aside from that, we DON'T WANT a government right now that's goin to drastically cut spending. It's bad economic policy. A deficit is a good idea right now. We just don't want unsustainable Trudeau/Mulroney style deficits.

Now there's a post full of dazzling intellect. Another person who doesn't understand why the deal was made. The 'bailout' was made to free up liquidity in a cash-starved Canadian economy. The banks weren't in trouble, but if they kept their lending tight to protect themselves then any potential recession is magnified. The banks, Canadians and their government all want to avoid that.

I don't think you understood why Canadian banks are making deals with the government. You've put a hugely negative spin on what the government and the Canadian banks are doing when in reality our banks and government have performed admirably compared to the rest of the world recently. Why should Canadian banks be hurt by worldwide subsidation of foreign financial industries?

You totally missed the point of the article... and you totally don't understand how the deals between our Federal Government and the banks work.

Why Canada's Banks Don't Need Help An interesting article from Time.com If you're too lazy to read basically what's being said is that while Canadian Banks are in no danger of collapse like everywhere else in the world, now that foreign banks are being backed by their governments Canadian Banks are at a huge disadvantage competitively without federal help.

Chrysler is done. There's not a chance in the world it will survive without pretty much a government buyout. GM and Ford are teetering on the brink. Personally, I say good riddance. I'm not against well-paying jobs for Canadians. I think Canada NEEDS these sort of primary manufacturing businesses in order to survive as strong economy. With that said, the Big Three gouged North Americans for decades with garbage cars for terrible prices. They were allowed to do this because there was no competition. Thank god to Toyota and Honda for allowing us an alternative where 30% of the cost of each vehicle DOESN'T go towards overpaying employees and paying benefit/pensions to uneducated and often unskilled workers. GM has something like a $30/hour labour cost disadvantage compared to a Toyota or Honda when benefits and pensions are factored in. Why on earth should we, the consumers, pay that? No wonder we're not buying those cars. Obviously you feel bad for the families getting laid off at the Big Three but only for how stupid they were to go along with the most disastrous and short-sighted union in world history. Message to CAW employees: Your wages and benefits are unsustainable and have been for a good long while. Next time you go to the negotiation table try and be a little more realistic.

not to mention incoming auto-industry bailouts.....

Jdobbin technicalities don't make your point any stronger. A money bill you say? It's fairly easy to slip these sorts of things into the annual budgets just like the CPC put the immigration bill in last year's budget. It's not hard to turn a policy bill into a money bill. Is that what they need to do to get any policy reform done??

It all depends on what the Liberals choose to vote against. If they vote against something small and silly that the majority of Canadians couldn't care less about, they will likely have a problem. On the other hand, if the CPC comes out with something harsh and unpopular and an election is called because of this, the CPC will likely feel the brunt of the blame. The assumptions you make Jdobbin are lacking in one very important area. They all assume that the CPC and the LPC don't understand how regular people think. As I've said already, numerous times, Canadians do not want another election soon. They will be disgusted in whatever party brings it about. Harper is going to continue pushing through legislation that is difficult to make a big issue out of. If the Liberals start being obstinate about silly little things most Canadians don't care about and try to block everything then yes, there will be an election and yes Harper will call it. The Liberals aren't that stupid though. By the same token the CPC isn't stupid enough to purposely put forward legislation that could turn into an unpopular election issue. We'll see the same crap continue from last year. CPC puts forward legislation that the Liberals might not like but can't really campaign against and nothing will change for probably at least 2 years. Harper knows another snap election would see his fortunes turn. The Liberals know if they play politics it would go equally bad for them. This isn't hard to understand.

No he won't. I think you're totally out of touch with what the average Canadian thinks and knows about politics. The multitudes do NOT know much about politics. They do NOT want another election. The voters will abandon the party that forces the next election if it comes too soon(ie whatever party votes non-confidence OR Harper if he just outright calls one). He knows this. You apparently don't. Unless I'm mistaken you seem to think he's deliberately going to come up with bad legislation for Canada to provoke an election. I think you're out to lunch on that. What's really going to happen is Harper is not going to compromise with the Liberals because he simply doesn't have to. He won't poison-pill it, but he'll ignore the opposition's protests should there be any simply because he can. Not anytime soon. Again, remember this conversation. We'll see in the summer who was right. He's going to decide not to have an election. You're going to look foolish. Maybe 1.5 - 2 years from now there will be another one, but I'm quite honestly having trouble taking you seriously when you come up with nonsense like this.

Everyone here is ignoring one very simple fact. There isn't a party out there other than the Bloc maybe that has the potential to even compete in an election over the next year or two. Unless unbelievably stupid legislation were proposed (like anti-abortion/gay rights/religious schools) or something equally as right-wingnutted, the Liberals would have absolutely no chance to win an election after a non-confidence vote. This minority is basically a carte-blanche majority AT LEAST for another year. Bob Rae is an EXTREMELY intelligent man (though his policy is generally terrible) and he's not stupid enough to crush his party's fortunes on an election the Liberals can't afford and can't win so soon after a renewed mandate has been given to the CPC. They will continue to abstain or vote with the ruling government and all of this bluster on these forums will be a total waste of time.

Jdobbin you're being silly. The conservatives will say the Liberals can't criticize their budgets effectively UNLESS they opposed them. They can't squarely blame the Liberals for the budgets altogether. Your whole argument here is devoid of any sort of solid rationality. You and I have discussed on many occasions how Harper has shown himself to be a bit slippery when it comes to his promises. With that said, he's not an idiot. We all know that Canadians don't like unnecessary elections. At least with the last one people with a head on their shoulders understood why it was necessary for Harper to call an election politically. It would have been disastrous not to call one given the economy would be tanking shortly. Why feed the Liberals ammo for what they declared was the inevitable defeat of Harper's government? Anyways, now that the election has come and passed, NOBODY will be calling an election within the next year and probably at least the next two. Why? Because Canadians get tired of it and it will look negatively on whatever party triggers it. For the next year or two, Harper has a defacto majority. He'll make everything into a confidence vote because he can and because he doesn't have to cooperate with the Liberals. It looks good on the Liberals, frankly. We'll see how he governs over these next two years but there's not a chance in the world that he'll force another election before the LPC leadership convention. Remember this conversation so that later on when you're claims turn out to be total balogna we can all have a good chuckle. Maybe by then you'll 'revise' your prediction again after it turns out to be impossible...kind of like your election predictions....

Maybe people need to understand what taxes Flaherty is talking about. It's NOT corporate income tax rates that are in question. It's CAPITAL INVESTMENT taxes for businesses. These are taxes which businesses must pay when trying to build and grow their businesses. When our auto sector is tanking and we're losing jobs by the tens of thousands, please explain to me the wisdom in OVER taxing companies that will be potentially investing money to create jobs????? Ontario's capital investment taxes are the 4th HIGHEST in the WORLD for any state/province/country. Only places like China and Brazil have higher. Oh WoW!

Flaherty was the only responsible finance minister we've had in Ontario for 20+ years. I'm totally against his selling off the 407 but aside from that he was excellent and was needed in Ontario. Now we have cry baby McGuinty whining about a deficit after something like 16 Billion in spending increases. I'll take Flaherty over anyone else in recent memory thank you very much.

I don't dislike Dion as much as a lot of people do. I think he had good intentions and gave it an honest try, but his priorities were different from most Canadians. The main problem I have with him is how he complains about Conservative propaganda against the Green Shift, but his entire Green Shift campaign was propaganda. If he would have went out and honestly said, "Yes, the Green Shift will make things more expensive for most people and your income tax cuts will mostly not offset this, but this is necessary to save the environment." I would have had more respect for him. Instead, he spins that the Green Shift won't cost Canadians a dime and that revenue neutral means that everyone will get back what they pay in taxes. Unfortunately for him, this was an outright lie and he was called on it. To whine about being caught BS'ing is deplorable.

The Arrow was costing tax payers so much money it wasn't at all worth it. The fact that nobody could find foreign buyers for the project really shows you how much spin Canadian media put on it as to the merits of the project.

The best way for Ontario to get a fair shake is to make it a campaign issue during an election. Vote for a party that is going to help Ontario out. The Liberals and Tories will always be in contention for your vote so if enough Ontarions are vocal about it the promises and pledges will start flying. Ontario got the rawest deal of all under the Liberals. This is why the vote has swung so dramatically away from them.