Dumb Remark of the Day - 2008

[Wild Bill]

And they ran massive deficits. And before that, there simply wasn't the program spending that there is today.

Wrongo! The deficit really didn't get rolling until AFTER Trudeau! When Pearson was running the country I don't think we had a deficit. If we did it was "mice nuts".

You must have been to young to remember, or involved in "hippy times".

[Argus]

And they ran massive deficits. And before that, there simply wasn't the program spending that there is today.

They ran deficits because Trudeau knew the way to electoral success was to let the boomers have their cake and eat it to. He kept introducing new programs but never introduced taxes to pay for them. However, that's neither here nor there. As I said, this country is considerably larger and wealthier than it was before, and I for one would gladly forego cuts to the GST in order to pay for a larger, better equipped military.

[Smallc]

As I said, this country is considerably larger and wealthier than it was before, and I for one would gladly forego cuts to the GST in order to pay for a larger, better equipped military.

I agree with that completely. All the GST cut really did was damage the fiscal capacity of the government.

[Rovik]

And how is tax breaks to corporations going to help a single mother pay the rent bill, or pay $800/month daycare in Edmonton? How is big oil tax breaks going to help a taxi driver on a 8 month waiting list for a MRI in Corner brook? How are tax breaks going to help a low-income family in Charlottetown pay for the increased costs for oil and gas when their budget is already maxxed out? How are tax breaks going to help a graduating student in Halifax with a $75000 student loan debt? Tax breaks to big oil are not going to help these people. Instead of tax breaks to big oil, social programs should be strenghtened to help these people.

I realize economics are not your strong suite, but when the government grants various tax breaks to "big oil" the purpose is not to decrease the price of gas but to build up infrastructure in Canada, to, in effect, increase the size and productivity of the industry in order to create more jobs and, ultimately, higher tax returns for various levels of government.

Actually over the years, it has been other parties that have stole ideas from the NDP (ie..medicare.) Many of Leyton's ideas are good; such as proportional rep. with the HOC but the Conservatives and the Liberals don't want to proceed down that road because it's not in their best interest. And I believe to make banks, cell phone companies and oil companies accountable for any service charges and rate increases would be very popular with many in Canada but both the Conservatives and Liberals seem to be heavily influenced by the lobbyists form these sectors in addition to donated monies so they are not going after them.

What new ideas? What idea has Layton offered which he didn't steal from somewhere else, usually somewhere it wound up not working? Everything he wants to do in Canada has already been tried, and, for the most part, produced mixed or poor results in the US, UK or elsewhere.

Well I don't know about not voting or him; he'll get his share of votes. I believe the Jack Leyton and the NDP have huge obstacles in getting their message out to the people. First, many try to paint him as a extreme left-wing nutcase. In fact, I find the attacks are very personal and baseless. People try to turn his zeal and his energy for what he is trying to do into some sort of fanaticism. It's fear-mongering; pure and simple. People have tagged the moniker Taliban to him as he previously suggested that the govt. of Afghanistan will have to eventually negotiate with the Taliban for peace. But guess what, many others including Canadian reps have said the same thing and don't be too shocked that if there is any peace in Afghanistan; it is because it included bringing in the moderates of the Taliban into the govt. Don't laugh; you wil be surprised who is in the govt now; we're talking warlords and drug lords. If this happens, I like to see the people who put down Leyton's idea apologize (though it won't happen.)

Second, people try to paint the NDP as an extreme socialist party who will bankrupt the country. Well the NDP are social democrats, not pure socialists and will endeavour to have a balanced budget (in the last election, the budgets of the three parties were not far off if I can call correctly.) And ponder this, Harper's govt. has been one of the biggest spenders in Canadian history. And look at all the election goodies worth millions and millions of dollars they are spewing out now. They seem pretty loose with the taxpayer's money to me.

Third, many invoke the spector of Rae's 90's NDP party as an example of how the Federal NDPS would govern if they were in power. Yet, you don't hear Devine's bad Sask. Conservative govt. as a comparsion to the Federal Conservatives or Smallwood's bad NF Liberal govt. as a comparsion to the Federal Liberals. Let face it; all the parties have had bad provincial govts at one time or another, yet it seems only the NDP's provincial govts are referenced...doesn't seem fair to me.

Fourth, the Conservatives and Liberals tend to be talked about most in the media and have the support of most columnists across the country. It's hard to fight that no matter what you try. Sadly, this leads to the general public mainly focusing on the Conservatives and the Liberals because they hear about those two parties a majority of the time. And the old adage is true; "out of sight, out of mind."

Sadly, these mistruths, scare-mongering and little media attention have turned some people (who would be natural supporters) away from the NDP.

Right. Which is why they're not voting for him.

[M.Dancer]

Do you refer to the same socialism now in practice stateside? You know, the pinko/commie brand where the govt takes over private enterprise and the public purse bails out bankers and speculators? Oh I forgot, only massive commercial losses are socialized, profits remain private.

And that is apros pos of what?

[Wilber]

I agree with that completely. All the GST cut really did was damage the fiscal capacity of the government.

Just like any other tax cut.

[Argus]

And how is tax breaks to corporations going to help a single mother pay the rent bill, or pay $800/month daycare in Edmonton?

As I said, the intention of those tax breaks is to improve the success and encourage expansion of the industry. This leads to more employment as well as more taxes returning to government. The government then uses those taxes in transfer payments to all the poorer provinces (where do you think that money comes from if not Alberta and a few others?) with health, education and welfare costs.

Second, people try to paint the NDP as an extreme socialist party who will bankrupt the country.

The NDP never learned from Britain's Labour party and other more moderate social democratic parties in Europe. It clings to the sixties mentality, and it insists on representing the few at the expense of the many. As a white, straight, middle class taxpayer the only things the NDP has in mind for me is higher taxation and a whole lot of new rules to control what it believes are my politically incorrect ways of thinking, writing and behaving.

Why on Earth would I vote for them?

[August1991]

Paul Martin compares Harper to the Liberals and declares that the Liberals will keep their promises:

"We’re not here to say that, in fact, we’re going to give you a long list of promises and you can rest assured that, once we take office again, we will renege on (them)," Mr. Martin said. "We’re here to say this is our belief in Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia and this country. And if we tell you that we’re going to do something, let me tell you, a Liberal government will do it."

Chronicle Herald

A Liberal government do what it says it will do? WTF?

Edited September 18, 2008 by August1991

[White Doors]

I'm sure we could have such a military...provided we stopped most of the rest of Canada's program spending.

Really? Does the UK have social programs? Does the UK have a credible military?

You really should think before you speak.

[Smallc]

Really? Does the UK have social programs? Does the UK have a credible military?

You really should think before you speak.

The UK also has a population that is nearly double and a much smaller country to provide infrastructure for. Canada's situation is quite unique around the world. You don't actually think they're doing it on purpose do you?

We do have a credible military. Its not large, but it does very good work. The parts that need work are being rebuilt, but there are almost countless other funding priorities.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Just like any other tax cut.

No, the GST cut gave much less to the middle class than income tax cuts would have according to most economists. Those types of cuts would have helped the working class more than the cuts that we got. They still would have damaged fiscal capacity, but in the eyes of many, they would have been more worth it.

[Wilber]

No, the GST cut gave much less to the middle class than income tax cuts would have according to most economists. Those types of cuts would have helped the working class more than the cuts that we got. They still would have damaged fiscal capacity, but in the eyes of many, they would have been more worth it.

Any cut in taxes lowers a government's fiscal ability unless they are just moving the tax burden from one sector to another, in which case it is not a tax cut.

[Smallc]

Any cut in taxes lowers a government's fiscal ability unless they are just moving the tax burden from one sector to another, in which case it is not a tax cut.

I just said that. What I said was that the cuts we got were said to give less to the middle class and so didn't make things much better for the people while making things worse for the government. We could have made things better for the people according to economists.

[Wilber]

I just said that. What I said was that the cuts we got were said to give less to the middle class and so didn't make things much better for the people while making things worse for the government. We could have made things better for the people according to economists.

I don't know, a 2% price reduction on almost every good and service you buy except for food is hardly nothing.

[White Doors]

The UK also has a population that is nearly double and a much smaller country to provide infrastructure for. Canada's situation is quite unique around the world. You don't actually think they're doing it on purpose do you?

We do have a credible military. Its not large, but it does very good work. The parts that need work are being rebuilt, but there are almost countless other funding priorities.

If we had a military that was 1/2 as capable as the UK we would have a MUCH more capable military than we do now and I, for one, would be a happy camper.

You also have to look at NEEDS. We need a more capable military simply because of our size which is amplified by contentious issues in the north.

And yes, I do think that the liberals INTENTIONALLY degraded our armed forces.

Thankfully our current goverment has made strides to correct this, but much more needs to be done - especially in regards to our navy. We do have the largest coastline in the world afterall.

[White Doors]

I just said that. What I said was that the cuts we got were said to give less to the middle class and so didn't make things much better for the people while making things worse for the government. We could have made things better for the people according to economists.

I am old enough to remember the debate about then the GST came in, they said it was grossly unfair to the lower class and the middle class. go figure.

That said, the GST will stay at 5% and hopefully any significant tax reductions will be on the income tax side.

[Smallc]

If we had a military that was 1/2 as capable as the UK we would have a MUCH more capable military than we do now and I, for one, would be a happy camper.

I would like it just as much as you, but in order to have a Military at that capability level, we would need to find an extra $12 - 15B a year. I think that Harper should go through the government just like Martin did and find more efficiency improvements. We wouldn't find the kind of money needed, but if that money was put towards defense, it would help. We may be able to get to the spending level of Australia with that.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I was just looking, and I had no idea. The UK has a total budget that is equivalent to nearly $1T CDN.

[Argus]

The UK also has a population that is nearly double and a much smaller country to provide infrastructure for.

The UK's population is double ours, but on the other hand its military is 4 times that of Canada, excluding its reserves, which are almost ten times larger than our reserves, and the UK has bombers, attack helicopters, nuclear submarines and nuclear missiles - which are all rather expensive.

As to infrastructure, please point me to how much the federal government spends on our "larger" infrastructure each year.

[Smallc]

The UK's population is double ours, but on the other hand its military is 4 times that of Canada, excluding its reserves, which are almost ten times larger than our reserves, and the UK has bombers, attack helicopters, nuclear submarines and nuclear missiles - which are all rather expensive.

As to infrastructure, please point me to how much the federal government spends on our "larger" infrastructure each year.

The federal government spends a great deal of money on infrastructure and many other things through over $40B in transfers to the provinces every year. Aside from that though, I just finished saying that the UK has a budget of nearly $1T over all. Thats 4 times the size of ours. Their military spending is also over 3 times higher. Those are levels that we just couldn't support while maintaining other priorities.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

The federal government spends a great deal of money on infrastructure and many other things through over $40B in transfers to the provinces every year. Aside from that though, I just finished saying that the UK has a budget of nearly $1T over all. Thats 4 times the size of ours. Their military spending is also over 3 times higher. Those are levels that we just couldn't support while maintaining other priorities.

Oh, I dunno! How much would the money spent on the Liberals gun registry bought for the military? Or what they blew with the HDRC?

[White Doors]

I was just looking, and I had no idea. The UK has a total budget that is equivalent to nearly $1T CDN.

total government yearly budget, yes. Canada's is well over 600 billion per year.

so we could do 6/10 of the capability of the UK's?

ps: Australia has less than half the population of Canada.

edit, Canada's budgetary revenue was 243 billion in 2007.

Are you sure about the UK's being over one Trillion?

Edited September 16, 2008 by White Doors

[Rue]

I realize economics are not your strong suite, but when the government grants various tax breaks to "big oil" the purpose is not to decrease the price of gas but to build up infrastructure in Canada, to, in effect, increase the size and productivity of the industry in order to create more jobs and, ultimately, higher tax returns for various levels of government.

Lol, its obviously not yours either Argus. The current government like the ones before it have placed a large tax on our consumption of gasoline which was initially put in place by the Liberals as a temporary measure until the budget deficit was eliminated. It has stayed in place ever since.

Your good buddy Stevie Harper claimed he would lift it but hasn't arguing by lowering the GST he did the same thing which is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard next to the above.

Basic economics should have indicated to you that if you give a large corporation a tax break (which I actually do not think the federal government has done ) and that large corporation is dependent on world market prices there would be zero guarantee any of that money could go into hiring more Canadians.

More to the point would you have anybody believe trying to get people hired by oil companies is a good way to spend our tax money? Oh I get it you believe we should give subsidies to oil companies because that helps our economy. Really.

Do show us the statistics that indicates how Petro Canada, Esso, Shell, and Sunoco who currently have a monopoly in Canada and prevent competitive pricing, have hired the amount of Canadians you would suggest the tax breaks have led them to hire and how this has benefitted Canada.

Do tell us economic expert.

Oh wait we can put Canadians to work running gas stations. Brilliant.

The oil sands project is the only major economic project right now on the go with Hibernia coming up. Just how many people do you think that employs in the big picture.

Get real. The price of gasoline and oil is dictated by speculators on world markets the same speculators who you would of course not regulate and have led to the current fiasco in the U.S. and where we have an alleged free market economy dedicated to avoiding regulation now asking taxpayers to pay billions of their taxes to subsidize bail outs of the same companies whose speculation has led to our current fiasco with mortgage financing.

Do me a favour do look at the link between mortgage failure and the price of gas. As the price of gas rised, so did the number of mortgages that defaulted. Doesn't take an economic genius to know one triggered the other.

The point is consumers ran up huge debts encouraged to live over their financial means by banks, mortgage lenders and businesses encouraging them to buy now and pay later to feel our economy. Only that same economy has been compromised by sky-rocketing oil and gas prices which ripple effect into the pricing structure of all goods being sold making it impossible for anyone to keep up with the added debts coming from the increase of fuel prices.

Clear and simple, tax breaks to oil companies to get Canadians jobs is bullshit. It has never led to the amount of jobs that could offset the negative offset of world market fluctuations and the decision of the oil corporations to lie and fix prices.

Your buddy Steve Harper is no different then the Liberals. He will not stop the price fixing and challenge the oil companies because he does not want to give up the federal tax cash cow that comes with the escalating prices.

The only thing wrong with Stephane Dion is he can not speak English and so can not explain what he is talking about. The scheme he is touting is actually a free enterprise scheme and most economists agree with it. Its not even radical.

The problem is people like you and the average Canadian have about a ten second attention span when it comes to economics and so spew out these ridiculously simplistic theories you believe in such as oil companies when given tax breaks hire people which is good for Canada.

Yah they care about us.

Bottom line is, Harper will get his majority because we as human beings are lazy. When faced with discomfort we don't want to see the big picture. When a politician appeals to us to be short sighted and take the lazy way out we buy it. Steve Harper tells people what they want to here-I won't tax you but he has and will continue to tax us no differently then anyone else, and ultimately his tax break on diesel fuel which is yet another cheap short term gimmick to get votes will mean nothing as the price of diesel fuel will rise and offset any tax break.

Stephane Dion's mistake is not his idea, just that in politics people don't want to hear long term ideas, they want what can you do for me today ideas. Our politicians base their platforms on whatever it takes to get elected.

Dion is a stubborn unrealistic jack-ass who thinks people will take the time to think and go to the web-site and exercise long term thinking. He believes Canadians have an attention span of more then 10 seconds on economic issues. For an alleged academic in the ivory tower, he actually believes too much in the ability of the average Canadian to understand concepts he understands. It would not dawn on him no one has a clue what he is selling for two reasons-firstly he can't speak English, secondly it is clear he has no idea how to explain the green tax because he ignored his handlers who told him, don't make it an election platform, hold off on it, and only if you are elected, then slowly raise it and allow many months of discussion.

Stephane Dion has been deliberately left to hang in the wind and fail. He was a compromise candidate put in by Chretien's wing to stop Ignatieff who was Martin's choice. The Ignatieff wing has sat back and allowed Dion to hang himself so they can quickly get rid of him after this farse of an election ends.

We will get your majority Tory government, the same failed economic policies that have ruined the U.S. and give you great confidence and continue to watch China and the Asian markets use predatory pricing to turn us into a bunch of debt ridden idiots with inferior products.

Esso cares. Petro Canada cares. They want to help us by hiring Canadians.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That's almost as good as telling me that isn't a herpes sore on Paris Hilton's mouth just a pimple.

[Argus]

The federal government spends a great deal of money on infrastructure and many other things through over $40B in transfers to the provinces every year. Aside from that though, I just finished saying that the UK has a budget of nearly $1T over all. Thats 4 times the size of ours. Their military spending is also over 3 times higher. Those are levels that we just couldn't support while maintaining other priorities.

The UK doesn't have provinces. That's why it might seem that their federal budget is so much larger than ours. Their federal government does the work our provinces do, in addition to federal responsibilities. Their military spending is 3 times higher than hours in part because nuclear missiles and subs are horribly expensive.

However, I'm not talking about tripling the budget for the armed forces. We could easily afford to double the size of our actual infantry troops without affecting other programs.

[Argus]

Esso cares. Petro Canada cares. They want to help us by hiring Canadians.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. That's almost as good as telling me that isn't a herpes sore on Paris Hilton's mouth just a pimple.

I'm curious, Rue. What were you on when you wrote this long-winded pile of hysterical drivel? Little of it makes sense and even less of it is on-target. It makes idiotic assumptions and is overall one of the more childish and inane posts I've seen coming from you.

I did not advocate corporate welfare. I'm generally not a fan of it. I merely stated what the "intent" was behind putting government money into oil development in Canada. And yes, it is in Canada's economic interest to develop our oil resources here. I would have thought that would be obvious to even the most pie-in-the-sky tree-hugger. I'm not even going to bother responding to anything you wrote as it reads like a rant screamed out at the top of a drunk's lungs just before the drunk falls flat on his face and starts snoring.