Barts

Because we're better than them? At least that's what we delude ourselves into thinking.

Government is too big! Taxes are too high! So goes the conservative dogma. If you are a conservative and know that the government is too big or that taxes are too high, you must know also know how big government should be and how low taxes should be. You can't know something is too big unless you know what size it should be. This is obvious. Don't you agree? (If not why not?) So, conservatives all, how big should the government be and how much tax should Canadians pay? Once you've told the "commies" and "lefties" that, maybe we can take a look at what kind of Canada would be the result if the government was just the right size and taxes were just the right amount according to conservatives.

These kinds of statements are just pure nonsense, based on nothing but pure ignorance, and intellectually irresponsible. These are the kinds of rants made by simplistic conservatives who never take into account the details of their uninformed populist dogma. Even worst, the assumption is that life will be better if what you're suggesting--minus any details--is implemented. Put some actual policy suggestions to this rant, add some real numbers, and explain the consequences based on, hopefully, such notions being implemented successfully in other jurisdictions. If you can't do that spare us the silliness.

Conservative tax cuts are nothing more than a tactic to "buy" votes. They will not help the economy. First, the tax cuts will be small for most people; anyone notice the 2% GST cut? Second, most of the money will be either spent on paying down credit cards or, for the most part, imported goods, particularly from China. Neither consumer action will do anything for jobs or economy stimulation in Canada. And, lastly Canada and its economy will have little to show for the tax cuts except more Chinese and Asian junk in our landfill sites. Expenditures in infrastructure on the other hand will create jobs, and leave a "bricks and mortar" legacy which will improve the quality of life in Canada and productivity. The Conservative tax cuts political purpose is to put into the budget something that the Opposition parties will--in the view of the Conservatives--be loath to vote against. The way to stimulate the economy is to increase taxes, particularly the consumption and gas taxes and the highest marginal income tax rate, borrow heavily, and spend massively on infrastructure (high speed inter-city train system, super high speed national broadband, public transit, schools, health services, home insulation, etc.) that cannot be outsourced and that will provide a legacy. The Conservative's approach, we know does not work, and is intended only to seduce voters with a con. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether they actually believe their discredited dogma or are merely charlatans. Perhaps both.

The Conservative policies on climate change.

You beat Martin badly? The Conservatives have yet to beat anyone badly. "Barely" is the word you should be using.

After a little research on Lend-Lease, for the record, it appears that the British did rather well, given the 2% interest they were charged on the £1,075 million. As Lord McIntosh of Haringer is reported in Hansard, "My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us." Also, the Lend Lease program was financed by the US not the Soviets nor the Brits. The Wikipedia entry on Lend Lease is interesting, and is at odds with the assertions you're making in key areas.

The Liberals are distributing a truly shocking video. Here's the link. Notice that the speaker is in focus. The books in the background are in slight soft focus--very artistic. The lighting is good. The sound is good. And, the speaker can be understood to be using one of Canada's official languages.

Stephen Harper knows exactly how Canada works. That's why he visited the Governor General to ask her to save his sorry political a**. What Stephen Harper also knows, however, is that many Canadians don't know how Canada works. And, as an opportunistic, unrepentant liar, he exploits that ignorance to the detriment of Canadians and to the benefit of his ambition.

RIP-Triple E Senate.

I don't think I am. The massive expenditure in the US created jobs and infrastructure locally. The expenditure in the UK was accompanied by a massive destruction of infrastructure and economic capacity. Also, after WWII, it was massive public spending in the form of the Marshall Plan that made it possible for Germany to rebuild. It was the failure to implement such a plan after WWI that lead to Hitler and WWII.

Perhaps, Goat Boy, you could remind us what the "5...big election promises" were, and what Harper did about them.

Please do, if it makes you feel better. Harper, on the other hand, rode into Parliament on a Reform's White Horse of moral superiority. Turns out that, if anything, Harper is the moral inferior of most Members of Parliament and past Prime Minister's.

Let me suggest that WWII appears to have helped end the Great Depression (which the world was already emerging from at the beginning of WWII) because it was, in fact, a massive public works program. Governments of the day raised and spent monies at a rate that would not have been politically tolerable in peace time. Perhaps the level of spending in WWII demonstrated the scale of public spending necessary to end a depression. If that's the case, perhaps now's the time for a massive government spending program on infrastructure. I suggest infrastructure because it's one area of public spending that directly benefits a society by creating jobs and leaving lasting assets in the form of new sewers, roads, transit systems, schools, parks, recreation centres, etc. Merely cutting taxes, as so many suggest, simply insures that much of the money for jobs and investment goes to create benefits not in Canada but in countries exporting to Canada.

With Harper's Senate appointments, I'm wondering if there is any principle left that he has professed that he's not now betrayed? I can't think of any. Fixed election dates? Lifting third party election spending limits? Greater role for committees? More freedom for Members of Parliament? Increased government transparency? Greater Access to Information? No deficits? Cutting government spending? Telling the truth? Keeping election promises. Etc. As I pose this question, I'm aware that Harper's Kool Aid drinkers will whine, "The Liberals made him do it! The Liberals made him do it!", that it's all the Liberals fault, but that's to be expected. So, I wonder, is there any principle you can name that Harper once championed that he hasn't betrayed?

The junior Senator from Alaska, with no seniority, will not be a powerful voice in the Senate, regardless who takes Stevens' seat.

Harper is a fool, and he lies, and--as he's shown since the election--is incompetent.

Deficit spending is neither good nor bad. It is a valid fiscal tool available to governments. It's a valid economic tool used routinely by people to buy large ticket items like cars and houses. Would you say that in a time of war that deficit spending would be inappropriate if it was the only way to fund the defense of one's country? Or is losing the war preferable because it would mean handing over to the enemy one's country with a balanced budget? I use the extreme example of war to underscore my point. Blindly decrying deficit spending is silly.

Where did I say "high taxes" help an economy? Both calling for "high taxes" and "tax cuts" are simplistic. Just because I know that the mantra-like call for "tax cuts" is non-nonsensical, it does not follow that I believe inordinately high taxes are good. Tax policy does not lend itself to simplistic, uninformed assertions like that made by the original poster. It matters as much what is taxed as how much to tax. As for Ireland, the Irish are learning--as the tax cut fanatics never seem to learn--that there is no "free lunch". See Ireland battles deficit as jobless rate surges in the International Herald Tribune. It's a lesson we're learning in Canada, too. It's not a matter of low taxes or high taxes but rather sound tax policy. Taxes that are too low have profound implications for the quality of life in country, as do taxes that are too high. Is the concept of sound tax policy too difficult to grasp? And lastly tax policy cannot be separated from how the tax funds are spent.

Where's the "tax cut". In the U.S. mortgage interest payments are deductible, which encouraged people to remortgage rather than pay off mortgages. All of which exacerbated the current economic problems brought on by the sub-prime mortgage ponzi scheme. As I say, tax policy is more complex than the mantra "tax cut" entails.

High school level economics course. No. University? Yes.

The greatest con perpetrated on people is the dogma that tax cuts help the economy. It ranks right up there with the magic of blanket deregulation. Such a tax notion is so simplistic as to be pure nonsense. Moreover, there are no examples--let me repeat "no examples"--of tax cuts, as they are preached by simplistic conservatives, helping an economy. Taxation is a complex area of public policy that requires research, care, and thoughtfulness. Somethings that the preachers of the tax cut dogma never invoke. Did the Conservatives reduction in the GST help the economy? No! Is ti contributing to putting Canada into a deficit? Yes. So, before you preach tax cuts, present the empirical evidence for your belief. Or admit that you have nothing to support your position except--religion-like--faith.

Harper's problem, which is also Ignatieff's problem, is that none of the Opposition parties trust him personally. It doesn't matter what Harper proposes, he cannot be trusted to either implement his proposals or not do everything in his power to "kill off" the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

The Liberals walk the earth in Opposition which, for them, is purgatory. Politics is about power and governing, anything less is a form of non-existence. Don't confuse the walking dead with life. This is politics.

Politically, the only poll that matters will be the one after the coalition has governed for, at least, 18 months (the Bloc commitment) or 2 1/2 years (the NDP commitment) or longer. Two years, six months from now in 2012 no one--except the most extreme Reform Party hangers on--will remember what happened in early 2009. No one will remember Harper who will, like Manning, be huffing and puffing at some right wing think tank for out to pasture neo-cons. Having ranted all that, I'm not confident that the Liberals will not, once again, fail to seize the day and cower away with the chicken-shit notion of rebuilding their party from the Opposition benches. The question is what will they, in fact, be rebuilding? The party that couldn't stand up to Harper, the guy who always chokes in the end? The party that abandoned Canada to Harper during the time of its greatest need since WWII?