independent
-
Posts
338 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by independent
-
-
What's your definition of a fiscal conservative, someone who taxes the hell out of people and doesn't spend a dime? We've had that and people voted that out of office.
Then there's the Liberal spending promises... Which begs the question, Should the Liberals be Liars for breaking election promises to run a fiscally sound economy or be financially incompetant keeping those promises?
Platforms of this election stated the tories are planning on keeping spending down.
Harper has increased spending, lowered taxes, paid off some debt, and still runs a surplus (albeit a very small one). That is financially competant to me, and as a taxpayer is far better than having that money sit in some slush fund doing nothing. It's not Harper has vast amount of city people and easterners who believe in high gov't spending, Harper has to win elections by attempting to cater to these people. Hell Paul Martin, the Liberals financial hero was prepared to spend a boatload of money to cater to these people as well.
I have had more money in my pocket due to Conservative gov't policies. I like how the Liberals equate theft with fiscal conservatism.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt49a.htm?sdi=revenue
The amount of revenue from taxes as gone up ever year for the federal government. How do you figure the conservatives dropped their taxes. Just because a government reduces one tax it does not mean they will not get it some where else.
-
You'll find that there are plenty of Harper supporters who are unhappy about his Liberal style spending. Me, for example. I'm hoping it's a temporary aberration.
Canadians are addicted to large government and bureaucracies. Reducing their size must be done incrementally or they'll fall into conniptions. Harper understands that. Dismantling the gun registry would be a good first step.
Key difference between Liberals and Harper. Both the Liberals and Harper have their list of what they feel is important. Harper is very focused on what he wants to get done and will overspend if need be too get there. The Liberals main focus has been on not overspending and prioritize spending according too what they feel has too be done. Previous governments have come to terms with the high cost of imprisonment and have found ways to control those costs. Harper will be much more intent at achieving his goal of being tough on crime(regardless of cost). (The way I see things) There is misconception that Harper's low priority on social programs means less spending. He wants to have a military presence in the North. His spending habits will just be focused on different priorities.
Did Harper ever come out and say I am intent on making government smaller. The Liberals came in and were intent on controling spending. You should be comparing Harper too Mulroney style spending.
-
The dollar's precipitous fall is the only economic good news we've heard this last month. It will go a long way to helping the manufacturing and tourism sectors.
It will help manufacturing and our tourism industry. http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/sto...a5d&k=32384
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...;refer=currency Harper understood the problem the problem of the rising dollar and how it effects manufacturing but prefered too do nothing about it.
-
The economic timing for introducing tax shifting or has been terrible. Just in time to make people think fearfully about trying to account for the loss of natural capital in the real world that fuels growth in our economy.
If I didn't know any better I'd say the timing of the financial crisis was deliberate. In reality though, it's no coincidence that thousands of animals are on the brink of extinction due to a crisis of natural capital at the same time we human's are having a financial capital crisis. The easy wealth has been liquidated and humans are now reduced to reaching for yield by selling and trading numbers on paper.
Playing it safe...what does that mean to people who can't even recognize never mind acknowledge the real danger they're actually in?
People who not recognize real danger vote. It is up to the government, media, intellectuals etc. too educate the public.
-
Preposterous, laughable, ludicrous sputter from someone who hasn't the first faint clue about what economics is or how economies work.
You must be one of Harpers speech writers.
-
Interesting, this writer thinks the Liberals need to turn right
-http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opi.../article/457204
(If you leave out all the exageration for effect) The article makes some good points. The Liberals have to concentrate at what they do best and let the NDP represent the Left which they do quite effectively.
-
They can't help it that is the Tory way of governing. Big government, government knows best, the daddy state syndrome.
The're all the same, even if they're from different planets.
Its all relative. compared too who's government. There is little different between the size of A Liberal controlled government and a conservative controlled government. The only difference would be in priorities.
-
His big spendings on social programs are definitely leftist.
What spending are we talking about?
-
It wasn't even a matter of moving left. The Liberal "Green Shift" plan had possibly the worst timing I've ever seen(massive increases in oil prices) so that gave the Conservatives lots of ammunition to use against the Liberals. In addition, Dion, to the populace, seems to be a rather weak leader so he wasn't really able to defend against the Conservative attacks very well. And finally, to top it all off people still are a little sour from the sponsorship scandal and aren't all that keen to give the Liberals another chance yet.
I don't think it's very surprising that the Liberals had their worst showing ever. They just need a relatively reliable leader with a fairly safe platform and just wait it out. In 4-5 years they will probably win again by playing it "safe".
You nailed the problems. The Liberals were not at all prepared to go to an election. The polles were not on their side. There election platform was a work in progress. It is best for the Liberals to maintain a central-central right position and wait in out.
-
So did martin and the liberals infact the liberals even raided the EI surpluses.
The Liberals concentrated on bringing in balanced budgets and to start paying off the debt. They were being a responsible government. You will see Harper run the debt back up blaming everybody else instead of making the tough choices the Liberals were willing too make.
-
I don't think Harper is necessarily to blame for this since the crisis the US is facing is affecting us rather dramatically. I just wish Harper didn't blow must of our surplus on, in my opinion, poorly thought out tax breaks. Raising the minimum income tax bracket would be a tax break for everybody but it would especially help the poor, encouraging them to work, and reducing the burden of the social services we spend on them.
What goes on in the states has nothing too do with productivity in Canada.
-
Why does everything in this country require government interference? I tired of this attitude what is the government going to do. All this centralized planning must be stopped.
http://www.alternatives.ca/article4079.html
The Harper government has increased spending every year in power. I certainly hope you did not vote for him.
-
They can't help it that is the Liberal way of governing. Big government, government knows best, the nanny state syndrome.
EDIT0- It's going to be hard to get the people of this country to think for themselves and solve there own problems but slowly we may be able to reverse the tide.
You are saying that the average guy on the street can impact the value of the Canadian dollar, interest rates, high taxes etc. You can not be serious. The lack of productivity is clearly in the hands of government. Too stay productive as a country you have too do what you do best. Governments have a huge impact on that. It may very well have been the policies of the Harper government that caused the problem as the article suggests.
-
reason # 1 and #2 are questionable to say the least...#3 has corrected itself.
Negative productivity gains is a serious problem. The Harper government needs too address the problem. It should not matter what party you support.
-
http://www.alternatives.ca/article4079.html
Harper government first in Canada to oversee negative productivity gains since data gathered in 1961.
-
Great post. Most Canadians whether they're on the left or the right are really not far off from center and parties like the NDP in particular, would be well-served to take note of that.
I agree. Conservatives like too call the Liberals leftist to discredit them.
http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/harper-left-of-martin.php
Above is a 2006 article that suggests that Harper was actually too the left of the Paul Martin liberals. The Liberals are very solid in the center and have some right leaning members. Calling them leftist is an attempt too make them sound like they are the same as the NDP. If you look at thier platforms you will see that is far from the truth.
-
Isn't that the same as any other party? Do all Liberals think alike? Do all New Democrats?
Yes. Just not too the same extreme.
-
Looks like no more explanations will be necessary. thegreenshift.ca website no longer exists. The site is redirected to liberal.ca. This is probably the first step in removing the green shift from the Liberal policy book. This must be crushing for Dion because this was his flagship policy on which he staked his political career. Unlike Mr. Dion, I won't mourn the passing of the green shift plan.
It will be crushing for Dion because he believed in it. You may yet lament its passing when harper pulls out his plan.
-
Maybe the use of the word 'secular' was wrong but the fact is that the Liberals garner the vast vast vast majority of their support from Toronto and Montreal. Is it not remarkable that nearly HALF the Liberal seats in the country came from TWO cities? It speaks volumes about where the Liberals are in terms of the spectrum of Canadians they connect with.
This was not always the case, but as Canada's priorities and ways of thinking have shifted, Liberal ideals have remained entrenched. 'Liberals know best' is a phenomenon that western Canada has completely and totally rejected, along with Ontario outside of the 416 and 905. This is not going to reverse itself.
The conservatives have a long way to go as far as wooing regions that the Liberals have typically coddled, but at least they're breaking ground there.
Both the Conservatives and the NDP are pushing for a two party system. I am not convinced that two parties that divergent is the best thing for Canada. I have always believed in moderation. It would leave a lot of people not voting because neither party fits there needs.
-
Good point, he won.
But what happened yesterday is as good as it's going to get for a Harper-lead CPC. Is that really a victory?
Personally, I'm happy to see to him stay. As as a liberal, I don't want to see anything strengthens the CPC. But if I were a CPC strategist.... I would start really looking at Harper as a liability for the party.
Clearly the conservatives seem too like his autocratic type of leader. It may even be necessary with all the divergent view points of his candidates. They are probably better keeping Harper because of the lack of alternates. Maybe someone should start a tread for possible replacements. I think they would come up empty.
-
Harper will not call an election any time soon.
When the Liberals pick their new leader (I'd pick Ignatieff at this time), then they'll pull the plug quickly. Ignatieff is right wing but he's acceptable in Quebec.
If Harper can't win a majority against Dion and can bungle so badly his campaign, he won't be able to face a more formidable opponent.
The liberals do not have the finances. They could not respond to Harpers attacks because they were under financed. You can not run a leadership convention and then run in a federal election. The lose was a much about lack of funds as it is about Dion's leadership. wait for the numbers to come out comparing election expenses. Remember too include all the money Harper spent before the election that will not be included in election expenses. If there is another election in the next four years it will be because Harper calls one again or Harper does something extremely stupid that angers the voters.
-
Agreed. Charest has a done a decent job in Quebec. The point is that this will not translate into a national reputation that is needed to run for PM.
That the party was utterly wiped off the map in the next election seems like a relevant fact to keep in mind here.
Charest will not excite Ontario at all. Ontario appears to be rebelling against too many Quebec leaders of the Liberal party lately.
Besides, Quebec is tough electoral ground for all parties (except the BQ) no matter what. But Ontario is the bastion of the Liberal party. This has to be the number one priority. If the Liberals can't hold a majority of Ontario seats, they are toast no matter what happens in the rest of the country. Ontario is the base.
Charest may be a exception too the rule.
-
The Bias media line is pure BS.
Just look at how much of the Liberal Media openly supported Harper in this election.
Media are always bias. That is what sells. Harper did a better job of using that too his advantage.
-
But he gained seats so the population is starting to like him, give him 3-4 more years of governing and if the Liberals and NDP let him do some GOOD for the country the people will come around.
They are smarter than the Liberals believe them to be, thus wwwwhy the Liberals are only 77 seats.
Hell people even voted for Layton to not give the Liberals a vote and yet not vote for Harper, that really says something against Dion and his Liberals!!!'
Harper gained seats. NDP gain seats. Harpers adds making Dion look like some kind of monster worked. Now Harper has to do what he says he is going to do.
Balanced budget
Tough on crimes.
lower taxes
He promised to ruduce green house gas. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/science/.../09climate.html
He has to deal with job losses.
Harper was given the mandate but he is still on thin ice.
Remember HARPER said the Liberals will run this country in too debt.
He better deliver.
Progressive Canadian Party
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
There is no secret agenda. However there is a big difference between promises made and the direction that a Leader wants too push a country. Any leader has thoughts and dreams that differ from what the party stands for. Harper has a long history of political involvement that should give you an idea about which way Harper might Lean. In General when a party gets a majority the party will start too take on the personality of its leader. Harpers focus will go from what I MUST do to get elected to what I would like to do too make Canada a better place.(Leave a Legacy). That would apply too any Leader and it becomes stronger the longer they stay in power. What do you think Dion,May or Layton would do if they got a majority could be asked as well. The stronger the leader the more this becomes the case.