Foxer

Well hold on now - the gov't doesn't get 'defeated' - either it has the confidence to govern or it doesn't. The opposition traditionally expresses that in confidence votes or votes that are a matter of confidence. But while 2 parties had clearly said they do not have confidence, the libs refused to vote. Not just once but 40 some odd times. Further - dion began pitching his election platform and suggesting he was going to call an election. At that point i think it's fair to say that Harper can be forgiven for thinking maybe he didn't have their confidence. So - he went thru the motion of asking them if there were any items they might be able to agree on in the new parliament. It was a bit of a joke because everyone knew there wasn't, but what the heck he asked. So - they didn't have any confidence. That is a dysfunctional parliament by definition. Is it a departure from tradition? Yeah - but can you honestly tell me that the opposition had confidence in the gov't? If they didn't - it's time to go to the polls. it ran in quebec as i recall But sure. The thing there tho was that martin insulted the military. Goodness knows there were no shortage of attacks from martin that were directed at harper, but he really shouldn't have gone after the military folk. If for example harper had a bird pooping on hospital workers or something, i think he'd be getting a serious wholloping from his own party pretty quick. Bottom line - it shouldn't have run and they yanked it and he owned it. But - it really isn't much of an insult compared to the stuff dion (and duceppe) have been shoveling.

A promise made on the previous election isn't really valid automatically the next election. And i read two or three records of their policy documents at the time and as they were reported in the press, and couldn't find any mention. Obviously the website's gone so we can't look at that, but I sure don't recall seeing it during the election. I do know they'd promised it before. Like i said - If dion promised last year not to have a carbon tax, and this year he proposes the green shift in his platform - then it's not a broken promise.

Ok - but in fairness if he didn't run on it as part of his platform, then it's not a 'broken promise'. If the platform changes between one election or another or one year or another as the overall plan changes, thats kind of the way it is. You can say it's a little indecisive or that he flipped on that issue but it's hardly a broken promise. For example - last year dion was against carbon taxes. If he were elected now and put in the green tax - of all the things I might say I wouldn't say he broke a promise. A gov't is only responsible for the platform they run on. I think you have to call a spade a spade - it may be a change of direction or the like, but the only promise that is a promise is one made to the electorate during a campaign, or one made while in office during the term of that office only. Dion said he'd raise the gst a year or so ago - now he said he wouldn't consider it. If elected - does that mean he's broken his promise no matter which way he goes? I think not - he's said he wouldn't during an election campaign, and it would be a broken promise if he did. (i'm not going to discuss whether or not i think he'd break it )

Its been estimated to cost 600 million. Not small change, but not really expensive as far as federal spending goes.

I'm not sure that was ever part of his election platform. He talked about it in the years leading up to it - can you actually post any kind of reference where he made that promise as part of his mandate? (and don't just say 'done' - what kind of a reference is that? )

Well that's a neat trick seeing as not all the tax cuts harper has brought in were even in place 2 years ago. The last batch just kicked in this last tax season, and most people were quite surprised how much they got back. Income taxes are currently lower than they would have been under martin's plan. The gst is ALSO lower. In addition, there are numerous 'specialty' cuts such as bus passes and sports programs up to 500 dollars. So - harper cut both income and gst taxes.

Eliminate excise tax? - No, i don't think he did. I think you'd need to post some reference for that. True. Genuine broken promise. Mind you - so did the libs and they voted for it as well. hmmmm - not QUITE true. Even in his initial speech he said that it would be held then - 'except if the opposition loses confidence in teh gov't'. In this case, with dion actually on the election path with his green plan and having heard from all the opposition that there is nothing they can work on to reach consensus, he was in reality acting properly. The law was never meant to give the opposition the same unfair advantage it was taking from the gov't - it was supposed to level the playing field. You can't pretend the opposition had confidence in teh gov't when dion didn't even bother to show up for votes 40 + times and was out campaigning on his election platform. Oh sure they have. The puffin thing is a joke and not harper's. Tasteless, sure, but still. Harper has focused on dion's policy, which is entirely fair game and not 'dirty'. That's what they're supposed to do. Dion on the other hand promised to run a clean campaign and then immediately started attacking harper himself! It took him only hours to break his word. To date, harper has not attacked dion at all, just his policy. No politician is. (Did you just come to this planet or something? :D) but Harper is light years ahead of dion. Dion was saying carbon taxes aren't the way just a year ago. Dion didn't get anything done on kyoto when he was actually IN power, except to name his dog. Dion was musing just a short time ago about raising the gst, now he swears that was never the plan. Dion says he opposes harper, but doesn't show up to vote. Dion said his election plan was 100 percent ready to go and has said that several times - well we can see it wasn't even close. Harper broke his word on income trusts. That's the truth. But the rest of the time he's been dead honest and he owned the fact he said he wouldn't do that and did (and the opposition supported him.) He's been a more up front politician than we've seen in quite a while. Certainly more honest than mr 'brown envelopes' or mr Martin.

I don't recall them making that promise - gst, children's 'sport' tax and other income tax, etc but i don't recall them promising to reduce the excise tax. Do you have a reference for that?

Harper's tax cuts in office have been higher than anything the libs produced or suggested. Apperently, liberal math suggests that if a number is higher than another number, it's the same. Which certainly explains how the gun registry managed to get to over a billion

That would be true - if the CPC tax cuts weren't actually larger than the original proposed liberal cuts. But of course they have been. The tax cuts to the average family have greatly exceeded what martin proposed. So - you're the math expert - if i take away three apples - but give you back FOUR... how many do I have again? Ahh. I take it you're one of those types who, when confronted with something he doesn't agree with, prefers insults to intelligent debate. Fair enough, here's a response you'll be more able to understand. "i'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Nyahh Nyahhh" But - for more intellectually minded folk out there, the fact remains. A person who is on disability receives zero benefit from a tax break. A gst cut puts actual money in their pocket - a tax cut would not. And as a percentage of their disposable income, given their circumstances the tax break does them more good than it does the wealthy. Yes, the wealthy save more money. But they also have more money. For a person just getting by it's a much more significant savings. Think of it this way. If after spending my money on my basic bills (rent, etc) i have 10 dollars left over. And a gst savings results in me having 11 - that represents a 10 percent increase in my disposable income. Now - if i make a million bucks, and after my basic expenses i have half a million left - and the gst cut results in me saving 2,500 bucks, that's only 5 percent of my disposable income. And the fact is - as a wealthy or even middle class person' i've probably got a lot more ways to reduce my gst burden anyway. For example, I personally lease a vehicle and most of the gst is simply written off against gst i bring in, so I pay almost NO gst already on my truck. The poor person, who would not have benefitted from a tax break, actually benefits more in terms of a real disposable income increase than the rich example. And probably needs the money far far more. See how that works? A hair more complex than counting apples, but i think you'll get it if you think about it. BTW - a minor hint for the future - it never hurts to be polite. If you're polite and wrong, people just think you made a mistake. If you're a jerk and you're wrong - people think you're an idiot.

They already did. May said she supports dion for PM. She did that some time ago. But never elected anyone. Which leads to the obvious question - how many of her 'voters' support the party, and how many are just protest votes. The rhino's actually did pretty well some years too, but nobody would suggest anyone actually supports ideas like building a bridge to hawaii to support tourism. If you can't elect a single mp - then I would have to say that your party truly does represent a fringe element and isn't a serious party. It doesn't help when you're rooting for another party either. Realistically, that's pretty solid proof she doesn't consider her party 'real' either. You'd never see harper sending layton a 'hope you win' note. I think the Greens need a new leader. But in any case - let them win a seat, then let them come to the table.

Very true - but the fact is those people who spend less probably need the savings more. It represents a bigger part of their disposable income. I don't care if i'm earning a million a year about saving a few bucks on groceries or clothes, but if i'm trying to get by on 15000 bucks a year, every nickle counts. Sure - i never claimed income tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. And of course Harper included income tax cuts in his budget as well. BUT - the fact is that the gst is directly pointed at the economy. I can put my income tax cuts into savings or rrsp's if i want, I dont' have to spend it. But a GST cut is only valuable if I'm out stimulating the economy with the purchase of goods or services. You'll have a very difficult time arguing that lower income earners aren't benefitted more by the gst - they need the savings the most. In a low tax bracket, income tax cuts do little good. And people like the disabled who rely on gov't benefits get no boost from an income tax cuts. Middle class ... well it's kind of hard to say. Middle class people will benefit the most from a stimulated economy in many ways, so there's that element. They will also be able to buy and enjoy more goods and services - they have to have a car chances are, and that just got cheaper. They have to buy gas and that got cheaper (till the carbon tax.) on the flip side - it won't help them reduce their debt the same way, whereas an income tax rebate does. So - it's kind of a toss up, depending on how you look at it. The more you dig down into it the more you see the pro's and cons of both. I think harper did the right thing choosing to blend the two - giving people income tax cuts AND reducing the GST. Often hybrid solutions are not great ones, but I think this one worked well, and the fact our economy has been strong despite global economic crashes elsewhere is a good indication that it was successful for the most part.

When the defunct countries were used as a platform to launch major attacks against us This isn't iraq, or some situation where the threat is 'questionable' - this was a clear threat that had already cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

She already endorsed Dion for Prime Minister. How can you possibly call them opponents? I might be sympathetic if she hadn't done deals or endorsed another political party - and if she'd actually won a seat that'd be different (even preston had to win one seat before they let him in). But seriously - she's a fringe party and largely a protest vote, she has no place at the table if she's already saying who she'd like to see as Prime Minister (and it isn't her apperently).

Actually - that's not quite accurate. For two reasons. First - everyone spends. Everyone. Even people on welfare spend money on gst applicable items. For them every nickle counts. So there is no such thing as someone who doesn't spend. But second and more important in the long run - Cuts to the GST tend to stimulate the economy and that tends to keep people working and cash flowing to the gov't via income and other taxes. The recent economic findings showed that we avoided recession due to increased consumer confidence and spending domestically. And the GST reduction plays a role in that. If it costs less to buy things - people spend more. That's just the way it goes. There are those who claim the GST is a small amount of money, but if that were true it wouldn't result in a 5 billion dollar reduction in revenues for the gov't. When people buy goods and services, that is what keeps people in those industries with a job and an income. And that is what keeps an economy going. As to 'growth' - those figures can be a little misleading. Consider this - if your economy went from "100" to "5" because of a housing market crash (just to pick something at random ) and the next year went from a 5 to a 10 - it would be reported as a 100 percent growth. If your economy went from 100 to 90 because you'd done some smart fiscal things, and then climbed to 95 the next year, it would be reported as 5 percent growth. Would that mean the country who had been devastated was somehow 'doing better'? OF course not. Canada's economy is far better than most nations right now - we're doing pretty good. In fact - if you exclude ontario we're doing REALLY good, but the slow down in the states has forced our dollar up and demand for manufactured goods down, and there's really very little we can do except wait that out. As to 'running a deficit in the first months' - that's just being silly on the parts of the liberals. If you get a paycheque on the second day of the month, but your rent is due on the first so you pay it, you wouldn't say "he ran a deficit for the first day of the month'. We had the money - it just hadn't been collected yet. We're running a surplus for the year and budgets are measured year by year - not month by month or week by week or hour by hour. When we used to OVER collect by tens of billions of unnecessary tax dollars, it was different. Now that we're collecting reasonable amounts of money and leaving the rest in the hands of the Canadians who earned it, some months we're going to spend more than we take in, and some months we're going to take in more than we spend. At the end of the year - we still have more money than we spent.