Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[Radsickle]

The Chretien Liberals who followed added enormously to that deficit in the first few years of their reign as well, until the deficit ended.

Hmmm... the deficit was growing and growing and then just suddenly ended? Wow. Well, it couldn't have had anything to do with sound fiscal management under Liberal leadership, eh?

Edited November 29, 2008 by Radsickle

[Argus]

Hmmm... the deficit was growing and growing and then just suddenly ended? Wow. Well, it couldn't have had anything to do with sound fiscal management under Liberal leadership, eh?

Until the RECESSION ended. That ought to be obvious from the context.

[Smallc]

Until the RECESSION ended. That ought to be obvious from the context.

And suddenly there was over $40B extra available every year....funny thing.

[Argus]

Why are some trying to portray the Liberals as bad when they brought the non-democratic political financing under control? Sure, they might've shot their own foot off a bit, but at least they tried to be accountable.

Oh please. Chretien had not the slightest interest in making election financing more democratic. He was and remains a vindictive man wrapped in bitterness, and he brought that law in at the tail end of his reign for only one purpose; to screw Paul Martin.

[Radsickle]

Ignatieff has spent most of his life as an American academic living in Boston.

Actually, Ignatieff was only in the States for 5 recent years as director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.

Well-schooled (not just an `accountant')

[Radsickle]

Oh please. Chretien had not the slightest interest in making election financing more democratic. He was and remains a vindictive man wrapped in bitterness, and he brought that law in at the tail end of his reign for only one purpose; to screw Paul Martin.

You always see that much bitterness in people's motives? I think he made it law because his opposition and some of his own party wanted him to.

[capricorn]

The real Liberal fundraiser problem is the leader.

The Liberals never adapted to the new rules of political fundraising brought in by Chretien in 2004. The fundraising problem pre-dates Dion although I agree his inept leadership made matters worse.

Rae and Ignatieff have paid their debts because they know how to fundraise. If either of them were leader, fundraising would be much less of a problem.

Both have admitted that Liberal fundraising techniques need an overhaul. Kudos that can raise funds for their own benefit but that in itself does not address the wider fundraising problem.

[Smallc]

The Liberals never adapted to the new rules of political fundraising brought in by Chretien in 2004. The fundraising problem pre-dates Dion although I agree his inept leadership made matters worse.

Actually, I would say it was the change to the rules in 2006 that created the real problem. It used to be that over 300 people donated $5 000 a year to the Liberals. Now with the limit at $1100, many of them don't bother....and many of them switched teams because of Dion.

[Argus]

You always see that much bitterness in people's motives? I think he made it law because his opposition and some of his own party wanted him to.

Chretien never gave a damn what the opposition said or wanted. And his term in office was one of graft, corruption, and huge, ten thousand dollar a plate dinners dedicated to himself. He never evidenced the slightest discomfort for all that money coming in from big business - until his last year in office, of course.

And Chretien was famously vindictive and unforgiving towards his enemies. He was and remains a man who can nurse a grudge until his dying day.

[Argus]

Actually, Ignatieff was only in the States for 5 recent years as director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.

Well-schooled (not just an `accountant')

He's still a man who spent 18 years outside of Canada, and then returned to run for the Liberal leadership.

[johhny]

He's still a man who spent 18 years outside of Canada, and then returned to run for the Liberal leadership.

And your point is?

[Radsickle]

Chretien never gave a damn what the opposition said or wanted. And his term in office was one of graft, corruption, and huge, ten thousand dollar a plate dinners dedicated to himself. He never evidenced the slightest discomfort for all that money coming in from big business - until his last year in office, of course.

And Chretien was famously vindictive and unforgiving towards his enemies. He was and remains a man who can nurse a grudge until his dying day.

Sounds like you've a grudge yourself...

So Chretien's only reason for changing the rules was to screw Mr. Martin, eh? That's the legacy Chretien's enemies would like remembered.

[madmax]

You always see that much bitterness in people's motives? I think he made it law because his opposition and some of his own party wanted him to.

No he was sticking it to Paul Martin.

[madmax]

And your point is?

He is a disconnected elitist.

He currently meets my ABD requirements, but is this all there is on offer? Someone who hasn't been in Canada for 30 years?

[Radsickle]

He is a disconnected elitist.

He currently meets my ABD requirements, but is this all there is on offer? Someone who hasn't been in Canada for 30 years?

A worldly scholar and a Canadian Politician for years now? The metaphorical Philosopher King? Could Canada be so lucky?

[jdobbin]

He's still a man who spent 18 years outside of Canada, and then returned to run for the Liberal leadership.

And didn't win.

Now he has the same amount of years as an MP as Harper did.

[jdobbin]

And what do you think transfer payments are primarily used for? I'll give you a hint. Healthcare. Education. That's almost as suicidal as running a campaign on a "green shift" that would increase taxes on fuel and manufacturing, during the highest gasoline prices in the history of the country, not to mention difficult economic times for Canadian manufacturing.

Harper raised those while in office. If Canada slides into massive deficit just to fund transfer payments, that will have to be cut. It would be suicidal to run that type of deficit federally for a length of time.

Sure you could cut some of this, but not nearly enough to balance a budget. Plus, you'd leave yourself open to gigantic political attacks by opposing parties. Let's see, cuts in CBC, you're anti-art and anti-culture,

The CBC would be funded privately. Better for the taxpayer. Better for the broadcaster.

cuts in Atlantic oppurtunities, you're anti-Atlantic Canada, cuts in Western diversification, you're anti-Western Canada,

I'd rather fund a national infrastructure program that have a redundant regional program.

cuts to VIA, you're anti-public transit

It should be privatized.

cuts to military college, you're anti-military at a time when the troops need all the help and resources possible.

We have a military college. The Quebec college just dilutes that.

Cuts to ethanol, you're anti-farmer.

Ethanol was not meant as a farm support system.

Good luck winning an election alienating that many constituencies.

That's why the Harper government can't cut. They lack courage.

I don't think cuts are necessary. 12 months from now, the economic outlook will be much brighter, and the budget will balance itself out, provided government doesn't increase spending, which from all signs, points to no. A small budget deficit during a global recession is not a bad thing.

I figured you would say that. Why not? As a Bush supporter, you have never met a spending increase that didn;t make sense. Deficits don't matter to you, it seems.

They do matter to Canadians though.

[jdobbin]

You just got done saying they should do it immediately to pay for infrastructure projects.

I was saying what one possibility was to ensure a large deficit wasn't produced.

My first choice would be to cut other spending.

[johhny]

I was saying what one possibility was to ensure a large deficit wasn't produced.

My first choice would be to cut other spending.

To cut funding during a recesion is what leads to depression

[jdobbin]

The Trudeau Liberals created our debt. That debt was what forced the Mulroney Tories to run massive deficits during the last recession. The Chretien Liberals who followed added enormously to that deficit in the first few years of their reign as well, until the deficit ended.

But... you know all this, of course.

Mulroney never made any significant budgetary cuts and raised taxes 19 times. The Mulroney era was not in deficit the entire time he was in power.

But of course, you knew that.

[jdobbin]

To cut funding during a recesion is what leads to depression

There is lots of areas to cut that wouldn't lead to that. A cut in cabinet size does not lead to depression.

[jdobbin]

So you're saying that a Liberal coallition would definitely NOT run a deficit, right?

Did I say that?

I think I just blamed Harper for creating the imminent deficit.

[jdobbin]

Ignatieff barely has experience in this COUNTRY, let alone Ottawa. And Rae has experience in running up huge, wasteful deficits and social engineering.

Ignatieff has as many years as Harper did as an MP.

As far as Rae goes, he might be an improvement over the high spending Harper.

[jdobbin]

Harper has spent most of his life involved in Canadian politics.

Ignatieff has spent most of his life as an American academic living in Boston.

You shouldn't be so anti-American.

[jdobbin]

Bypassing an election and grabbing for power solely in order to protect your party financing is not quite the same thing.

Gimme a break. I know that is the Harper talking points but there is enough in the rest of the document in regards to economic stimulus or lack there of to vote no.

And anyone who says this is not about party financing is a bloody liar or an imbecile.

I think it is about confidence. Harper said he was going to be conciliatory and focus on the economy. Anyone who think that the document presented was that is a bloody liar or an imbecile.