GST Ads

[Michael Bluth]

1) I have substantiated my opinion of Harper.

You have not substantiated your opinions directed towards me, personally.

No you didn't.

This is what you said.

Even Harper agreed with this when he was an economist/policy wonk before he sold out to become a politician.

If it is good enough for Harper when he was still an honest man, and if it is good enough for the CD Howe and CTF then it's good enough for me.

To substantiate what you said you would actually have to support the first sentence and provide evidence of Harper no longer being an 'honest man'.

Your refusal to do so is proof of haughtiness and self-importance in the tone of your posts.

2) You have not bothered to attack my reasons for my opinion for Harper being a liar.

Uhhh, because you didn't provide any.

Instead, you decided to attack me personally.

That is an important distinction.

Important life lesson. When you find yourself digging a hole - step 1 stop digging!

3) If you want to discuss your opinion or my opinion on Harper, in a substantive way, then I suggest we do it in a different thread.

If you are not capable of doing that then I suggest we focus on the topic at hand.

And your insulting Harper's honesty is substantive how?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[msj]

No you didn't.

This is what you said.

To substantiate what you said you would actually have to support the first sentence and provide evidence of Harper no longer being an 'honest man'.

Your refusal to do so is proof of haughtiness and self-importance in the tone of your posts.

Uhhh, because you didn't provide any.

Important life lesson. When you find yourself digging a hole - step 1 stop digging!

And your insulting Harper's honesty is substantive how?

I have provided enough support for my opinion of Harper and have stated enough on this matter already above in my reply to capricorn.

Once again, I did not attack you or capricorn personally (well not directly - I already apologized if either of you voted for Trudeau).

Now, back to the subject - there is a reason you would rather focus on this issue ad nauseum rather than on the Cons allegedly helping the poor with their GST cut.

The reason is very simple: it's because, since the Cons raised taxes on cigs you can no longer claim the absurd notion that the Cons cut the GST to help poor people.

Since poor people pay little in GST in the first place it is obvious that a GST cut benefits those who have the means to pay for GST taxable items.

But hey, no, lets argue over an opinion backed up with reasons rather than focus on your lost thesis.

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[capricorn]

You think he has made mistakes. Fair enough.

What politician hasn't?

I think he is a political XXXX just like Chretien (is that better? Self-censorship is the way to go!) .

There is absolutely no comparison between Chretien and Harper. If you think both are synonymous then I think you have given up on this country.

Neither deserve any respect that you supposedly would bestow on them (and, lets be frank here capricorn, do you really not have a low opinion of Chretien? I mean, really?).

Chretien and his bunch were bad for Canada. So far, Harper has not done anything for me to disrespect him as a person. I'll leave it at that to prevent further thread drift.

Why it has to derail the discussion to the point that you and Bluth resort to attacking me personally is beyond me.

Had you not attacked Mr. Harper's integrity as a person you would not have heard a peep from me.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on Harper. I can also admit that I can see how you could argue he has made "mistakes" rather than being an outright liar.

I see some progress here.

[msj]

Now, back on topic.

One can see the increases to the excise duty structure for booze here:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/bp/bpa3ae.htm

Oh, Harper - help those poor people by reducing GST on booze and cigarattes

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[msj]

What politician hasn't?

There is absolutely no comparison between Chretien and Harper. If you think both are synonymous then I think you have given up on this country.

Chretien and his bunch were bad for Canada. So far, Harper has not done anything for me to disrespect him as a person. I'll leave it at that to prevent further thread drift.

Had you not attacked Mr. Harper's integrity as a person you would not have heard a peep from me.

I see some progress here.

Just so I have this right: It's okay for you to personally attack me because we happen to disagree over our opinion of a politician?

[jazzer]

The fact remains Stephen Harper is our Prime Minister and as such he commands a certain amount of respect

That's rich. I've yet to read the right on this board respond in a way that would "respect" Jean Chretian, Paul Martin, or even Trudeau.

[Michael Bluth]

I have provided enough support for my opinion of Harper and have stated enough on this matter already above in my reply to capricorn.

Once again, I did not attack you or capricorn personally (well not directly - I already apologized if either of you voted for Trudeau).

You keep shifting the ground. Why? You haven't substantiated your opinion on Harper. Your opinion alone is not a substantiation. The subject is your complaining about personal insults while hurling them yourself.

But hey, no, lets argue over an opinion backed up with reasons rather than focus on your lost thesis.

An opinion backed up with reasons? You didn't even do that. You can't even admit that you haven't provided any support. Haughty and self-important indeed.

How about an opinion backed up with proof? Evidence?

Here is the case. Harper promised a GST cut. The Federal finances can afford it. You don't like it. No reason to question his honesty. tsk tsk tsk msj is it really that difficult to admit error for you?

That's rich. I've yet to read the right on this board respond in a way that would "respect" Jean Chretian, Paul Martin, or even Trudeau.

Is that the schoolyard classic "I know you are but what am I defence?"

Edited January 8, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[msj]

You keep shifting the ground. Why? You haven't substantiated your opinion on Harper. Your opinion alone is not a substantiation. The subject is your complaining about personal insults while hurling them yourself.

An opinion backed up with reasons? You didn't even do that. You can't even admit that you haven't provided any support. Haughty and self-important indeed.

How about an opinion backed up with proof? Evidence?

Here is the case. Harper promised a GST cut. The Federal finances can afford it. You don't like it. No reason to question his honesty. tsk tsk tsk msj is it really that difficult to admit error for you?

Is that the schoolyard classic "I know you are but what am I defence?"

I have substantiated my opinion of Harper with two examples - one when he was outside of politics (at least directly) when he did not mind the GST only to "change" his mind to get elected. The record is clear here for anyone wishing to look into it. This is why I later compare Harper to Chretien as a political XXXX.

The other is a blatant lie on the Income Trusts. He said one thing and did exactly the opposite when there are/were alternatives to be had.

Those are good reasons for anyone wishing to take the time to consider them rather than hurl personal insults towards specific members on this board.

But hey, when you start backing up your personal slurs of me with "evidence" then I will consider providing a longer and more elaborate argument.

Regardless, this is all to deflect from the fact that you screwed up with respect to you specious claim about the Cons doing good for the poor by reducing the GST on booze and cigarettes.

Clearly they raised excise duties to mitigate the GST cut on these items contra your earlier opinion (which you clearly did not base on facts).

But why focus on when you are factually wrong when you can continue the same monotonous accusations and cry "Evidence" when it has been staring you in the face many posts ago?

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[Shakeyhands]

That's rich. I've yet to read the right on this board respond in a way that would "respect" Jean Chretian, Paul Martin, or even Trudeau.

Yep. It's an amazing double standard.

[Michael Bluth]

I have substantiated my opinion of Harper with two examples - one when he was outside of politics (at least directly) when he did not mind the GST only to "change" his mind to get elected. The record is clear here for anyone wishing to look into it. This is why I later compare Harper to Chretien as a political XXXX.

But why focus on when you are factually wrong when you can continue the same monotonous accusations and cry "Evidence" when it has been staring you in the face many posts ago?

Substantiation takes more than your recollection of facts.

The record might be clear in your mind.

By your standard of proof I have provided much more evidence of your haugtiness and sense of self-importance than you have of Harper's no longer being an honest man.

As for the the GST stuff?

Providing links to technical budget information is yet more proof of your haughtiness and sense of self-importance. To edit a post and add the link a significant period of time later is shifty....

[guyser]

Wow!

Who knew the righties were so thin skinned and such hypocrites. I guess I forgot to include whiny too.

stevey used to be an honest man. Used to be?Hmm not so sure......oh no...buy kleenex stock today .

Clue-- he is a politician.

Yours,

Timmie Worker

[msj]

Substantiation takes more than your recollection of facts.

The record might be clear in your mind.

By your standard of proof I have provided much more evidence of your haugtiness and sense of self-importance than you have of Harper's no longer being an honest man.

As for the the GST stuff?

Providing links to technical budget information is yet more proof of your haughtiness and sense of self-importance. To edit a post and add the link a significant period of time later is shifty....

1) You have not even attempted to substantiate your direct and personal slurs towards me.

2) The record is clear - I posted the link 6 minutes after I asked you to find it yourself.

As I said then and I repeat now - I am far too nice to you and your ilk. Now, go back to page 12 to see for yourself.

3) As for the link - well, what else am I supposed to put up? That is what the government gives me so that's what you get.

If I don't put one up you whine. When I do put one up then you complain it's too difficult to understand.

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Of course, I don't see how taking time to read through some technical material gives me any sense of "self-importance."

So, I can read.

Most people on this board presumably can too.

I suppose by your standards most of us here are self-important" for having this amazing ability.

Edited January 8, 2008 by msj

[Michael Bluth]

I suppose by your standards most of us here are self-important" for having this amazing ability.

Condescension is a synonym for haughtiness. Every post of this nature proves my points weren't an insult. Plain, fact sir!

Unless you really meant the ability to read was "amazing"...

You just keep proving my point and arguing against yourself.

[sharkman]

MSJ, you seriously have your knickers in a knot about the GST, big deal. I would suggest to you that those in power just may have a few more tidbits of information with which to make such decisions which you are not privy to. Furthermore, they have to consider the entire population, not just the characters who seem to find fault with anything they do.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

That's rich. I've yet to read the right on this board respond in a way that would "respect" Jean Chretian, Paul Martin, or even Trudeau.

Well, those politicians deserved everything that was said about them. Harper is the only honest politician in Canada who deserves respect and only the Conservatives are the party who deserve respect. Can't you see that?

[jdobbin]

Yep. It's an amazing double standard.

Not unexpected. Nor is the personalizing that seems to come with it.

Honesty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems that some people who invested in income trusts will never believe Harper is honest. The first day when he swore in his new cabinet and had Emerson standing beside him, people wondered if they elected an honest man. Many couldn't believe this was the same person who seemed so against floor crossing months earlier. And let's not forget about Fortier being appointed to cabinet. It hardly seemed an honest position to take from a man committed to accountability.

[Michael Bluth]

MSJ, you seriously have your knickers in a knot about the GST, big deal. I would suggest to you that those in power just may have a few more tidbits of information with which to make such decisions which you are not privy to. Furthermore, they have to consider the entire population, not just the characters who seem to find fault with anything they do.

Well said Sharkman.

I still don't get the never-ending attempts at arguing for a double-standard. So be it. No use arguing when you can prove your opponent's argument wrong any number of ways and they still won't admit the painfully obvious.

I do look forward to the reactions of such angry people once the Conservatives are in power with a majority.

[guyser]

Well said Sharkman.

Funny, wasnt sharkman telling msj that "those in power just may have a few more tidbits of information with which to make such decisions which you are not privy to."?

So....then doesnt the same apply to you sharkman and capricorn? Meaning you dont have the "tidbits" to rebutt , but you did anyway and then scold him for it? Perhaps you three are privy to something the rest of us dont?

Just wondering........

And didnt msj say he was an accountant? If so, yeah....he wouldnt know squat about the gst , but you guys...........whoo hoo, you would surely know. Call the baker, your transmission needs changing.

Darn, have to edit since I forgot...

Cheers,

Your Timmies worker/slash community collge student.

"Condescension is a synonym for haughtiness" hey....I could show the world some condescension couldnt I mr Bluth ????...timmies worker, community college, you get the drift yet sport?

Pot = kettle

Edited January 9, 2008 by guyser

[capricorn]

So....then doesnt the same apply to you sharkman and capricorn? Meaning you dont have the "tidbits" to rebutt , but you did anyway and then scold him for it? Perhaps you three are privy to something the rest of us dont?

Everyone outside the government decision making process had access to the same raw information. The country had a record surplus, the economy is in good shape and Canadians were looking for tax relief. The Conservatives had already promised a GST cut and added income tax cuts. Regardless of the opinions of economic experts tossed around about the merits of one tax over another, the fact is Canadians got both. It amazes me that some would not see this as good news for taxpayers.

Blind partisanship stands in the way of acknowledging that something was done to reward Canadians for their hard work over the last number of years.

[sharkman]

Funny, wasnt sharkman telling msj that "those in power just may have a few more tidbits of information with which to make such decisions which you are not privy to."?

So....then doesnt the same apply to you sharkman and capricorn? Meaning you dont have the "tidbits" to rebutt , but you did anyway and then scold him for it? Perhaps you three are privy to something the rest of us dont?

Just wondering........

And didnt msj say he was an accountant? If so, yeah....he wouldnt know squat about the gst , but you guys...........whoo hoo, you would surely know. Call the baker, your transmission needs changing.

And it certainly applies to you as well, a college student who likes to whine about conservatives. What's this, you don't think there are accountants on both sides of the issue? (and economists and business owners and part time college students) Stay in school.

[msj]

MSJ, you seriously have your knickers in a knot about the GST, big deal. I would suggest to you that those in power just may have a few more tidbits of information with which to make such decisions which you are not privy to. Furthermore, they have to consider the entire population, not just the characters who seem to find fault with anything they do.

Ah, the "those in power have more information" argument.

Rather than being brought to us by Britney Spears/Tom Cruise it is brought to us by the sharkman [iirc, BS and TC both supported Bush in his quest for WMD in Iraq on the grounds that he was the President of the USA and, therefore, must have more information than us pee-ons. Yeah, that turned out well ]

Of course the Cons have to consider the entire population. I mean, no kidding sherlock.

The government also has a duty to try and do what is best for the majority of the population.

Brilliant people within the CD Howe and the CTF have been issuing reports for years now arguing for income tax cuts and business tax cuts rather than GST cuts. I also note that these organizations are not bastions of liberal thought.

Over the years I have read some of those reports - I doubt most of the people on this thread have not even attempted to look for these never mind actually read one (here's looking at you, Bluth).

I also understand something as basic as: if you don't cut the GST this means you can do something else. But hey, I have actually prepared budgets for not-for profits and businesses so what do I know about making choices under restraints?

[msj]

Everyone outside the government decision making process had access to the same raw information. The country had a record surplus, the economy is in good shape and Canadians were looking for tax relief. The Conservatives had already promised a GST cut and added income tax cuts. Regardless of the opinions of economic experts tossed around about the merits of one tax over another, the fact is Canadians got both. It amazes me that some would not see this as good news for taxpayers.

Blind partisanship stands in the way of acknowledging that something was done to reward Canadians for their hard work over the last number of years.

But you forget: the Cons actually raised income taxes for 2006 (from 15% in 2005 to 15.5% effective July 1, 2006). Don't forget the decrease in the basic personal exemption.

They finally came around with their October 30, 2007 statement and reinstated the 15% tax rate retroactive to January 1, 2007 (and adjusted the bpe to $9,600).

Just imagine what the basic personal exemption and tax rates could be without the GST cut.

Imagine real tax cuts - not some tax credit which only applies if you take the bus, or have a kid(s) under 18, or some text book credit - a real cut to marginal tax rates.

And the tax cut has the advantage that it doesn't add any more complexity to the tax system - unlike all those tax credits this allegedly conservative government has implemented.

[msj]

Condescension is a synonym for haughtiness. Every post of this nature proves my points weren't an insult. Plain, fact sir!

Unless you really meant the ability to read was "amazing"...

You just keep proving my point and arguing against yourself.

Michael, you are the one who has not provided any evidence of anything.

You make a claim that you either did not know was true or purposely misled us on.

I then corrected your mistake (or lie) and you ask for proof.

Then I provide some proof and you ask for more.

Then I edit my post 6 minutes later to provide more proof.

And you complain that that is a significant amount of time.

Then you whine that the proof is too technical.

After all this, you continue to focus on the personal insults while ignoring the simple fact that your claim (that the GST cut benefits low income people thanks, in part, to a reduction in tax on booze and cigs) was entirely wrong.

And there's the rub - since I demonstrated that you are wrong (or, possibly lied), you are compelled to continue the insults against me rather than face the substance of my argument.

Continue to deflect all you want - only sharkman and capricorn are buying it and that suits me just fine.

[sharkman]

Ah, the "those in power have more information" argument.

Rather than being brought to us by Britney Spears/Tom Cruise it is brought to us by the sharkman [iirc, BS and TC both supported Bush in his quest for WMD in Iraq on the grounds that he was the President of the USA and, therefore, must have more information than us pee-ons. Yeah, that turned out well ]

Of course the Cons have to consider the entire population. I mean, no kidding sherlock.

The government also has a duty to try and do what is best for the majority of the population.

Brilliant people within the CD Howe and the CTF have been issuing reports for years now arguing for income tax cuts and business tax cuts rather than GST cuts. I also note that these organizations are not bastions of liberal thought.

Over the years I have read some of those reports - I doubt most of the people on this thread have not even attempted to look for these never mind actually read one (here's looking at you, Bluth).

I also understand something as basic as: if you don't cut the GST this means you can do something else. But hey, I have actually prepared budgets for not-for profits and businesses so what do I know about making choices under restraints?

Ah, so I'm sherlock, eh? If you're going to use name calling, at least try to not live up to the stereotypical out of fashion/trend accountant. Next you'll tell me you pity the fool who supports the GST cut.

Governments do things to stay in power, Mr.Pocketprotector, and like 20 governments before them considered the voters on this one and guess what, it'll get votes. Add in an income tax cut AND an Employment Insurance cut, and full of themselves accountants like you get to spout off about it, banging away at your keyboard, working out your frustrations. Good for you.

[msj]

Ah, so I'm sherlock, eh? If you're going to use name calling, at least try to not live up to the stereotypical out of fashion/trend accountant. Next you'll tell me you pity the fool who supports the GST cut.

Governments do things to stay in power, Mr.Pocketprotector, and like 20 governments before them considered the voters on this one and guess what, it'll get votes. Add in an income tax cut AND an Employment Insurance cut, and full of themselves accountants like you get to spout off about it, banging away at your keyboard, working out your frustrations. Good for you.

Another lesson in politics with a bunch of personal insults.

Yes, that $0.07 cut in EI rates this year means so much.

I thought the Cons were going to make the EI system right? When are they going to start?

Edited to add:

Yeah, huge decrease:

EI premium rates and maximums

Edited January 9, 2008 by msj