The Reason Harper Won!

[capricorn]

You hit the nail on the head.................LIBERAL CORRUPTION..........Canadians see this party for what it is ....self serving ...i think Canada has learned after the "Liberal dark years" that this party just simply isn't fit to Govern Canada....

I can't understand why the Liberal campaign team arranged for Jean Chretien to speak at a large Dion rally. All this did was remind Canadians of Liberal sins. A large segment of the Canadian population are revolted just at the sight of him. Add this one to the list of gaffes committed by the Dion campaign team.

[wulf42]

I can't understand why the Liberal campaign team arranged for Jean Chretien to speak at a large Dion rally. All this did was remind Canadians of Liberal sins. A large segment of the Canadian population are revolted just at the sight of him. Add this one to the list of gaffes committed by the Dion campaign team.

lol....i know what you mean .....they just dig themselves into a hole with every step they take...........Jean Chretien has finished any chance the Liberal party might have had to ever Govern again......Canada simply won't allow the Liberals to take the wheel again ever.

[William Ashley]

NAFTA? I was sure the Liberals promised to tear that up - you mean it's still around? They must have cancelled the GST, didn't they?

I'm not liberal/conservative I'm not partisan and have my own party - this seeming jeer is good point.

Yes Chretien failed to deliver his GST reductions that won Harper a lot of popularity.. however now that 2% won't be applied to debt reduction.. and what of this 10 billion deficit coming up next year.. where did that come from? How much would 2% gst generate? How far ahead are budgets forcast..

anyway.. point being that NAFTA and ATA need to insure rights to protect resources from exploitation and foreign ownership.. while foreign companies should be able to take part in development - they should not have a majority stake. 50% of canada's oil industry is owned by foreign companies and gas/oil is Canada's largest sector this is proposterous that half of canada's largest industry isn't even owned by canada.. or that 8000 corporations have a 8% share in canada while there are 1.5 million canadian companies to share the rest...

Canada needs to insure that canada maintains powerful corporations, this foreign buy up of canada needs to be kept in check especially when it is the industries that generate base wealth such as natural resource industries, or the vital agriculture industries.

NAFTA fails to protect those pinacle things. Ownership of Canada, by Canadians.

We need to insure that our partners be just that partners not our boss.

Oh and how would that 60 billion given to banks to buy up credit go to pay off canada's debt.. and still give the bank money explain that one.. seems idiodic to buy bad debt when you can prop banks by paying off the national debt.

paying off nearly 1/10th of the national debt seems way more responsible than adding 1/10th to buy questionable mortgages just before a recession.. and HE IS AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR.. he is selling canada out and every day that passes you are letting him screw canada even more.

The amercans arn't fair traders under NAFTA anyway.

Edited October 20, 2008 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

I'm not liberal/conservative I'm not partisan and have my own party - this seeming jeer is good point.

Oh and how would that 60 billion given to banks to buy up credit go to pay off canada's debt.. and still give the bank money explain that one.. seems idiodic to buy bad debt when you can prop banks by paying off the national debt.

paying off nearly 1/10th of the national debt seems way more responsible than adding 1/10th to buy questionable mortgages just before a recession.. and HE IS AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR.. he is selling canada out and every day that passes you are letting him screw canada even more.

The amercans arn't fair traders under NAFTA anyway.

We the tax payer didn't end up taking on anything we didn't already have. Every single one of those morgages were insured by CMHC. So that means each and everyone of us were already on the hook the if anyone of those morgages defaulted. What was done freed up lending capital at our banks. Your right he is and Economics professor and he knows a lot more than you do, you've proved it over and over in just this thread.

You are a partisan hack it may not be for the liberals but you are for some far flung cause.

Most Canadians are centre, centre right or centre left. The key is they are centre. This is why the far left and the far right have never formed a federal government. Anyone who understands politics in this country understands this.

[White Doors]

But see, Harper won't be running against Dion the next time and the next time is going to come very soon - as soon as the Liberals get their new leader.

Harper had an excellent chance to win a majority, make the Conservatives a national party and put Canada sort-of back together. Instead, he blew it.

And people say that Harper's claim to fame is that he's the master strategist!

Unless it's McKenna at the helm of the Libs, Harper won't have much to fear.

[drewski]

paying off nearly 1/10th of the national debt seems way more responsible than adding 1/10th to buy questionable mortgages just before a recession

ya it would, but Harper didn't do that. His government bought already insured (ie. we'd lose the money if the banks kept the mortgages and they were defaulted on), non high risk mortgages. The chances of us losing any more money on these then we would have if we hadn't is the same as us having to ever call Jack Layton, the Right Honourable, ie non-existant.

[Moonbox]

This will cost us nothing extra. We will likely make money on it. There is a risk we could lose double what we were on the hook for to begin but if the lowest risk mortgages in Canada go down then we'll have a lot more to worry about than the 25 Billion from this plan.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Moonbox

[drewski]

Are you sure your not talking about the Conservatives?

I was thinking the same thing. cadman & the election funding come to mind quickly

frankly politicians of all parties can be corrupt. The Liberals are far from having control over this.

[cybercoma]

EDIT - To everyone else. The Liberals are supposed to be a centrist party but have since moved to the left. They are not true to their roots at all. How can the Canadian voter be asked to trust a party that keeps changing its identity?

Canadians are more likely to trust a party that is flexible and willing to adapt its message to meet the wishes of the electorate. That's why the Liberals have been successful and that's why the current Conservatives are successful.

Parties that are rigid and unchanging in their ideas are largely shunned by Canadians, see the NDP as an example. They would have been best served to adjust their message a decade ago, but continue to be a weaker than they were in 1988. Although they've gained seats, they're not making any inroads as a serious alternative.

Edited October 20, 2008 by cybercoma

[Griz]

The whole election was outright dumb and a waste of time and money

[madmax]

Canadians are more likely to trust a party that is flexible and willing to adapt its message to meet the wishes of the electorate. That's why the Liberals have been successful and that's why the current Conservatives are successful.

Parties that are rigid and unchanging in their ideas are largely shunned by Canadians, see the NDP as an example. They would have been best served to adjust their message a decade ago, but continue to be a weaker than they were in 1988. Although they've gained seats, they're not making any inroads as a serious alternative.

Federal Election Results 1988

Conservatives:5,667,543

Liberals: 4,205,072

NDP:2,685,263

Federal Election Results 2008

Conservatives:5,205,334

Liberals:3,629,990

NDP:2,517,075

After 20 years we see much of the same. Obviously the NDP had more votes in BC, More Votes in ALberta, More Votes in Sask and More Votes in Manitoba then did the Liberals. However this doesn't always translate into more seats.

But if you look at the numbers.

The Conservatives are down 462209 votes from their 1988 high.

The Liberals are down 575,082 votes from their 1988 result.

The NDP are down 168,188 votes from their 1988 high.

If anything, the Liberals have lost the most ground. Harper has not achieved a Mulroney Breakthrough, thus no Majority unlike Mulroneys two back to back Majorities.

And the NDP have managed to resurect themselves from the 1990s purgatory, to climb back up close to their 1988 highwater mark.

All parties messages change throughout time. The Liberal Messages changes by the hour.

Dion, pitches Green SHift over summer.

Dion Green Shift is Campaign Plank, basis of which is used to fund all programs.

Dion says to media Green Shift is NOT central part of his campaign. (very strange) Says media said it was.

Dion Defends Greenshift in Debates, and promotes it. (Back on the table)

Liberal Party to Ditch Dion and Greenshift.

End of days.... Coming soon

[bush_cheney2004]

But if you look at the numbers.

The Conservatives are down 462209 votes from their 1988 high.

The Liberals are down 575,082 votes from their 1988 result.

The NDP are down 168,188 votes from their 1988 high.

Way cool...actual analysis....bravo!

In God we trust...all others bring data.

[William Ashley]

We the tax payer didn't end up taking on anything we didn't already have.

Then why did it cost many many billion dollars to buy them? Your logic is screwy.

Every single one of those morgages were insured by CMHC. So that means each and everyone of us were already on the hook the if anyone of those morgages defaulted. What was done freed up lending capital at our banks.

So why didn't the mortgages just get left along and the many billions go to reduce the national portion of the debt held by the banks.. wouldn't that free up capital?

Your right he is and Economics professor and he knows a lot more than you do, you've proved it over and over in just this thread.

Bah, the guy has no reasoning other than he is a sell out to the banks an foreign companies.. what can stimulate investment more than selling the country out... more profit for them, they can smell blood can't they?

You are a partisan hack it may not be for the liberals but you are for some far flung cause.

You are saying I am partisan... for who exactly, .. I serve the best interest of Everyone. re: non partisan.

Most Canadians are centre, centre right or centre left.

Lies... Canada is a left leaning country tha that is why left leaning parties got over 50% of the vote. It is just a sad story that the conservatives with right leaning supporters and a cowish following captures 38% of the allowed vote - that isn't counting those turned away when they tried to vote -and they are no doubt they were left leaning.

The key is they are centre. This is why the far left and the far right have never formed a federal government. Anyone who understands politics in this country understands this.

The reason the far left hasn't formed a government because Canadians arn't far left.. they work for corporations, obviously they don't want to loose their jobs... obviously though for some the right side is doing that for them anyway such as in Ontario and QUebec because the conservatives are a regionalist party. That isn't against sabatougng it's own industry and forcing their political rivals to bear the brunt. Because they are liberal proviences.. they are partisan traitors to the Canadian people.

[White Doors]

You are saying I am partisan... for who exactly, .. I serve the best interest of Everyone. re: non partisan.

err.... Your opinions don't best serve me, so that's strike one.

Secondly, you mentioned that you are starting a political party... hence, you ARE partisan.

Strike two...

[William Ashley]

ya it would, but Harper didn't do that. His government bought already insured (ie. we'd lose the money if the banks kept the mortgages and they were defaulted on), non high risk mortgages. The chances of us losing any more money on these then we would have if we hadn't is the same as us having to ever call Jack Layton, the Right Honourable, ie non-existant.

Except the fact we are buying them with a high dollar value relative to the potentia price they are actually going to be worth in 5 or 10 years. Also if they arn't at risk, why buy them?

Is it some sort of investment.. does the nation have some huge 10's of billions of dollar surplus I'm not aware of? How much interest do we save on 60 Billion knocked off the debt?

It just feels like a totally unneeeded asset buy, plus overhead now requiring many billions in mortgages?

It makes no sense at all. If this is good for some reason let me know.

And why is the Canadian government on the line for private mortgages anyway?

Edited October 20, 2008 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

There are times to be partisan. If not. The party stands for nothing. Look at the Liberals...all wishy washy at present.

[capricorn]

Lies...

Why not just say you don't agree with the poster's position? What makes his/her opinion "lies" and yours not "lies"?

Canada is a left leaning country tha that is why left leaning parties got over 50% of the vote.

Some Liberals voters mistakenly think that the Liberal Party is still centrist. Not everyone is well informed.

[Who's Doing What?]

We the tax payer didn't end up taking on anything we didn't already have. Every single one of those morgages were insured by CMHC. So that means each and everyone of us were already on the hook the if anyone of those morgages defaulted. What was done freed up lending capital at our banks. Your right he is and Economics professor and he knows a lot more than you do, you've proved it over and over in just this thread.

And now for everyone of those mortgages that are defualted on we are responsible for the property upkeep and taxes. Not to mention we also take the hit on any loss in property value, which as we head into what could be a severe recesssion I see happening.

[capricorn]

And now for everyone of those mortgages that are defualted on we are responsible for the property upkeep and taxes.

Repossessed homes (power of sale) don't stay on the market very long. Any equity built up in those properties provides room to adjust to a downward and lower than market value selling price. It is the original homeowner who loses equity, not the financial institutions holding the power of sale. We bought a condo repossessed by a bank for about $20K less than the original owner's purchase price. It had been on the market for two months. The bank wasn't looking to make a profit. All it wanted was to cover their basic costs associated with the property and unload it asap.

Not to mention we also take the hit on any loss in property value, which as we head into what could be a severe recesssion I see happening.

You might be right there. Perhaps the government's CMHC planners have addressed this potential scenario in any agreements concluded with the financial institutions. Who knows.

[William Ashley]

Why not just say you don't agree with the poster's position? What makes his/her opinion "lies" and yours not "lies"?

Some Liberals voters mistakenly think that the Liberal Party is still centrist. Not everyone is well informed.

I would say - I am not someone to disagree with others opinions because I don't like them, I stand for the truth, not what I think feels better. Perhaps some Canadians see it as a centrist party because they have no clue of a global identity towards leftist and rightist policies whether bolshevism or austrian freekmarket capitlst, or anrachy. ON a global scene the liberals are a weekly leftist party - anyone that has a party of intellectuals is likely to be leftist - it goes with the territory - although not wholely cause of some being lawyers - eg. Bob Rae was the leader of the Ontario NDP - a clearly socialist party --- stephane dion was connected with a party who's current leader was a communist supporter -- - these ideals lead to the notion that the liberals are leftist. Since the NDP essentially emerged from the communist party of Canada.

I say lies.. because they are lies, not because I don't like them. I think the liberals can only be seen as a centrist party in that they take all sorts of people and there is a fiscal conservative wing in the party.... socially they are very much to the left of the spectrum.. the fiscal conservatives such as martin, or others take on and flavour them as PRO CORPORATION.. which is more right bearing.. but in free market capitalism it could also be as anti socialist which could also be seen as market liberalization which means leftist also. There is a line between corporate control of government and govrnment support of corporate entities seperate from the state apparatus direcly.

I'd still lable them to the left.. and they arn't a center party.. they arn't moderates. They don't support the constitution enough to be centrists.

I should extend though the legal identity of the party, and the popular identity of the party due to cultural similarity.. eg. they are moderates because we do what they stand for.. = moderate

vs.

we try to make society more closed and exclusive to elitisits = right

we try to make society for the people = left

moderate would be upholding the law and making the law upheld by the acts passed in parliament but both the conservatives and liberals are winged because they trample the constitution.

Edited October 20, 2008 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

I would say - I am not someone to disagree with others opinions because I don't like them, I stand for the truth, --- stephane dion was connected with a party who's current leader was a communist supporter -- -

There is no truth to that.

[M.Dancer]

I would say - I am not someone to disagree with others opinions because I don't like them, I stand for the truth, not what I think feels better.

Since the NDP essentially emerged from the communist party of Canada.

There is no truth to that.

Edited October 21, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Mr.Canada]

Paul Martin got even less of the vote than PM Harper with 36.7% in 2004 yet I heard no outcry from Left Wingers about it.

[Alta4ever]

Except the fact we are buying them with a high dollar value relative to the potentia price they are actually going to be worth in 5 or 10 years. Also if they arn't at risk, why buy them?

Is it some sort of investment.. does the nation have some huge 10's of billions of dollar surplus I'm not aware of? How much interest do we save on 60 Billion knocked off the debt?

It just feels like a totally unneeeded asset buy, plus overhead now requiring many billions in mortgages?

It makes no sense at all. If this is good for some reason let me know.

And why is the Canadian government on the line for private mortgages anyway?

They morgages where taken over by CMHC to free up lending capital in the banks, to ease the credit crunch. CMHC was already on the hook for these morgages that means that the tax payer was alreadyon the hook if these go belly up. IF you buy a house with less then 25% down you have to buy the insurance from the CMHC. These on the whole are good risks.

The reason why CMHC exists is the same reason why the government insures deposits at banks, to protect us from defaults.

[Mr.Canada]

There is no truth to that.

M.Dancer, I don't think this guy does any research other than from conspiracy sites.