Be optimistic about 2009: Harper

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/25/...er-message.html

The coming year will be a difficult one for Canadians, said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who steered away from directly addressing the global economic turmoil in his holiday address.

"As we face the difficult year ahead, always remember that our's is perhaps the most peaceful and prosperous society on Earth," Harper said in the prerecorded statement.

Harper urged Canadians to look to 2009 with "optimism.

Quite a contrast from last year's Christmas messages.

[August1991]

And what would your beloved Jean "We wait an' see" Chretien have done?

Tell everyone that "Canada is da greates' counry, you know?"

[peijay]

And what would your beloved Jean "We wait an' see" Chretien have done?

Tell everyone that "Canada is da greates' counry, you know?"

why do cpc supporters also feel it neccessary to try and switch the focus of every thing away from harper. could it be that they too, recognize the lies and distortions of fact as an everyday occurrence by this sad excuse of a pm. the day this deceitfull, controlling , bullying thug is thrown out on his (head) will be a great day for Canada. this could make 2009, a glorious year indeed.

the greatest threat to our country is not the economy, but harper and the cpc.

[charter.rights]

And what would your beloved Jean "We wait an' see" Chretien have done?

Tell everyone that "Canada is da greates' counry, you know?"

Chretien got together with Martin and Broadbetn to force Harper to do something about the economy. That's why Parliament is prorogued right now, because Harper didn't have the guts to do something himself.

And when he does come out with a budget at the end of January that aims to stimulate the economy by spending, you'll have Chretien, Martin and Broadbent to thank for it.

[Argus]

why do cpc supporters also feel it neccessary to try and switch the focus of every thing away from harper.

Ooo! Ooo! Can I answer!? Can I!?

It's really quite basic. Even as someone who has no particular affection for Harper, who votes Conservative not as a strong and enthusiastic supporter but because I think they're the best of a bad lot, I can't but help point out the sheer blinding hypocrisy of most of those here who criticize him for things they'd praise their own party for.

Harper is called names, like "bully" and "thug" by brainless people who really couldn't even define why they use pejoratives because, quite frankly, they don't know. There is nothing Harper has done to deserve such insults any more than the Prime Ministers who preceded him in the job. Ahh, but those were Liberals! So it was okay then! Right!? For sheer mean-spirited, ruthless nastiness, for example, no on in recent history beat Jean Chretien.

So when someone who is a dedicated and active partisan of the Liberal party criticizes Harper I personally find it fair to point out that those selfsame things were routine under previous Liberal governments which the poster actively and enthusiastically supported and continues to support.

As for people who shrilly post about how Harper and the CPC are "threats" to Canada - I generally just laugh at them. I figure eventually they'll grow up, or they'll lose their internet access when mom and dad boot them out of their basement and they have to get a job and pay for things themselves, or the doctors will increase their meds. In any event, they're people I can't take seriously.

[Argus]

Chretien got together with Martin and Broadbetn to force Harper to do something about the economy. That's why Parliament is prorogued right now, because Harper didn't have the guts to do something himself

Okay. That's the tinfoil cap version. The real facts, of course, are rather at odds with your bizarre little fairy tale.

Everyone and his brother knew that Harper's budget was going to contain a major stimulus package. But they couldn't announce it because the problem of the automakers was a primary feature, and they needed to wait until the Americans figured out what they were going to do first. The Opposition certainly knew this, as well. The three stooges were outraged at Harper's plan to grab their money. In a mighty flurry of indignation they decided to take over the government to protect their own funding. Then, when Harper relented, they all looked at each other and said "Well why not continue anyway" and so they did, or tried to. They made loud mouth-noises about the reasons being the need for an instant, immediate stimulus package - uhm, which they didn't have at hand, and couldn't explain, nor even say when it would actually be brought forward after they took over. But no one sane believed that was their real reason. They simply wanted power.

That's the adult, grown-up version which most Canadians understand - not you, clearly, which is why there has been no great rush of support for the "coallition" or any of its constituent parties. Quite the contrary, in fact. There was a rush of support for the Conservatives instead.

[jdobbin]

And what would your beloved Jean "We wait an' see" Chretien have done?

Tell everyone that "Canada is da greates' counry, you know?"

Sounds like someone is starting the day after Christmas with a "Bah Humbug" sort of reaction.

Don't think I mentioned anything about Chretien. I was comparing this year's message with last year's.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That message was underpinned with a suggestion that our expectations for the year need to be rethought. Things are going to be tough everywhere. Strangely no hope was offered by means of government efforts with solutions to our problems. It would have bee the perfect time to illustrate a course of action. At least a general direction of viable effort would have been nice to hear.

[fellowtraveller]

Okay. That's the tinfoil cap version. The real facts, of course, are rather at odds with your bizarre little fairy tale.

Everyone and his brother knew that Harper's budget was going to contain a major stimulus package. But they couldn't announce it because the problem of the automakers was a primary feature, and they needed to wait until the Americans figured out what they were going to do first. The Opposition certainly knew this, as well. The three stooges were outraged at Harper's plan to grab their money. In a mighty flurry of indignation they decided to take over the government to protect their own funding. Then, when Harper relented, they all looked at each other and said "Well why not continue anyway" and so they did, or tried to. They made loud mouth-noises about the reasons being the need for an instant, immediate stimulus package - uhm, which they didn't have at hand, and couldn't explain, nor even say when it would actually be brought forward after they took over. But no one sane believed that was their real reason. They simply wanted power.

That's the adult, grown-up version which most Canadians understand - not you, clearly, which is why there has been no great rush of support for the "coallition" or any of its constituent parties. Quite the contrary, in fact. There was a rush of support for the Conservatives instead.

B

I

N

G

O

!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

B

I

N

G

O

!

I think not. The reality is that it is Harper that wants power, this is an established fact. He called an election in complete contradiction to his stated fixed election plan simply because he had the belief that he could win a majority based upon the weakness of the opposition leader. Lets look at that for a moment, he could not gain a majority with the weakest Liberal leader in decades opposing him. Who is it that seeks power?

Yes the opposition fly specks tried a coup, but that is not over yet. Harper only delayed the proceedings by closing the Commons early to avoid a vote which 99% of Canadians believed he would lose. The move bought him some time. He now has to pen a throne speech, which will be subject to a confidence vote. Then he will have to propose a budget, which will also be subject to a confidence vote. Now keeping in mind that he has successfully pissed of the entire opposition, which represents some 60 plus percent of the electorate, to the point where the separatists and the leftists are now holding hands with the Liberals to remove Harper from power, the throne speech and the budget will have to contain features which the opposition parties want or it will be voted against. Then Harper finds himself back where he started, which is a long way from having a majority government and governing effectively.

Folks please remember that MOST Canadians do not support this government. It is a minority government and all sorts of nuances and rules come into play. Harper has not yet shown the people that he can govern under these conditions, in fact he has shown us that he cannot.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I'd be much more confident if Harper wasn't PM.

[fellowtraveller]

I think not. The reality is that it is Harper that wants power, this is an established fact. He called an election in complete contradiction to his stated fixed election plan simply because he had the belief that he could win a majority based upon the weakness of the opposition leader. Lets look at that for a moment, he could not gain a majority with the weakest Liberal leader in decades opposing him. Who is it that seeks power?

Yes the opposition fly specks tried a coup, but that is not over yet. Harper only delayed the proceedings by closing the Commons early to avoid a vote which 99% of Canadians believed he would lose. The move bought him some time. He now has to pen a throne speech, which will be subject to a confidence vote. Then he will have to propose a budget, which will also be subject to a confidence vote. Now keeping in mind that he has successfully pissed of the entire opposition, which represents some 60 plus percent of the electorate, to the point where the separatists and the leftists are now holding hands with the Liberals to remove Harper from power, the throne speech and the budget will have to contain features which the opposition parties want or it will be voted against. Then Harper finds himself back where he started, which is a long way from having a majority government and governing effectively.

Folks please remember that MOST Canadians do not support this government. It is a minority government and all sorts of nuances and rules come into play. Harper has not yet shown the people that he can govern under these conditions, in fact he has shown us that he cannot.

Wopw, what a complete and thorough misunderstanding of what is actually going on in Canadian hearts and minds....please keep thinking that way while we pray that the coalition does bring down Harper immediately, ASAP, pronto....

By the way, Harper does want power. So do all the other Party leaders, that is why they lead their parties.......

Edited December 26, 2008 by fellowtraveller

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps that can be changed...........

[bluegreen]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/25/...er-message.html

Quite a contrast from last year's Christmas messages.

Like most 'normal' people, I was busy enjoying my family, and so didn't hear the whole speech. Based upon the CBC snippets, It looks like Harper's Christmas wish is that everybody will just forget 2008, and let him start afresh. I'm certain he would rather look forward than back anyway, but given the events of 2008, he doesn't have much to look forward to.

2008 was marked by a pretty understated pair of political financing scandals the the CPC managed to gloss over.

The deficit slaying GST was rolled back another 1%, the consequences of which are really gonna bite the CPC's butt (and all of Canada's unfortunately) in 2010.

An election touted by Harper as a 'solution' to outraged partisanship in the house. (Give me a majority so I can shut them up). Said election was a failure for Conservatives.

Harpers greatest miscalculation ever, with his big flat slap in the face for everybody not a conservative. Lesson 1: How to mobilise the other guys supporters.

The Liberal party's coagulating (I like that turn of phrase, no?) about a new leader, who just happens to be the PC's worst nightmare personified.

A pretty damn serious economic downturn, for which the end ain't nowhere in sight.

The trigger for the next election passing to the oppositions hands.

All told, I am so very glad that Harper is so optimistic about 2009. It proves he is delusional, and so doubly doomed.

BTW, Merry Christmas, and holiday greetings to all. Even Harper, he might actually mean well by Canada, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt, till the end of the holiday season?

[charter.rights]

Okay. That's the tinfoil cap version. The real facts, of course, are rather at odds with your bizarre little fairy tale.

Everyone and his brother knew that Harper's budget was going to contain a major stimulus package. But they couldn't announce it because the problem of the automakers was a primary feature, and they needed to wait until the Americans figured out what they were going to do first. The Opposition certainly knew this, as well. The three stooges were outraged at Harper's plan to grab their money. In a mighty flurry of indignation they decided to take over the government to protect their own funding. Then, when Harper relented, they all looked at each other and said "Well why not continue anyway" and so they did, or tried to. They made loud mouth-noises about the reasons being the need for an instant, immediate stimulus package - uhm, which they didn't have at hand, and couldn't explain, nor even say when it would actually be brought forward after they took over. But no one sane believed that was their real reason. They simply wanted power.

That's the adult, grown-up version which most Canadians understand - not you, clearly, which is why there has been no great rush of support for the "coallition" or any of its constituent parties. Quite the contrary, in fact. There was a rush of support for the Conservatives instead.

That's a load of bunk.

No one knew at the time that Flaherty gave his economic update that GM and Chrysler were going to be asking for help. So in the mind of Flaherty and Harper there was no need to panic. Even when the coalition came to agreement, there was no certainty that the automakers would need help. There was lots of speculation that they would have been hurt by the economic downfall, but no one really knew too much.

The reality is however, that GM is not in trouble. They are still selling vehicles and advertising, albeit there is a seasonal slump going on right now, and the slowing economy may have an effect. But the truth is that GMAC got pinched by dabbling in mortgages and since GM owns 49% of their stock, they will be on the hook....unless they just let GMAC crash and cut their losses. All this blaming of the workers and unions is a ruse to deflect from the reality that GMAC - not a bank - got caught in the same wave that took down Freddy Mack by giving out below prime mortgages and then having to pay it all back.

But Harper could not have known this could he.....or COULD he.....The bail-out offered talks a lot about conditions for runnnign GM but it says nothing about GMAC. And since there really are no controls over what GM does with their share of the money, you can expect that GMAC will receive a winfall, and GM will carry on business as usual - of course long after they have bashed the unions and described what evil they are. This is about corporate greed and Harper is their front man for making as much in profits as they can. The downturn in the economy is an excuse for they to try to make more money for their investors at the expense of the workers.

Where I work, we are hardly affected by the threat of the economic downturn. People are still spending money (months ahead of their projects). Harper says this will get as bad as 2003... Huh? 2003 was a good year as far as cars, construction and service industries go. Perhaps he was talking about the losses in the stock markets in 2003 where greed reigns and commodities are sold like BJs on Yonge Street. Perhaps the problem isn't with the economy after all. Perhaps Harper has too much invested in his conflicting interests? And the need for calm and slow reaction is just a way to protect those interests from further losses. Of course it is at all our expense....

[Argus]

I think not. The reality is that it is Harper that wants power,

All politicians want power. That is why they are in politics. You might as well say Harper wants to breath.

Yes the opposition fly specks tried a coup, but that is not over yet. Harper only delayed the proceedings by closing the Commons early to avoid a vote which 99% of Canadians believed he would lose. The move bought him some time.

Which was all he needed for the highly unstable "Coalition" to collapse. Which it has done.

Now keeping in mind that he has successfully pissed of the entire opposition, which represents some 60 plus percent of the electorate,

Opposition parties always act in their own interests. It doesn't matter if they are "pissed off" or not. They are political animals and will take advantage of any situation which arises. You cannot rely on politicians to speak truth. But you can rely on politicians to try and seize control if they think they can get away with it. Dion was desperate for power. Ignatieff knows he has more time. He also can see that a coallition with the NDP and BQ is not in his best interests in the medium to long term. In addition, the figleaf of justification - not that it did them much good given what we've seen of Canadians' opinion of their takeover plans - for a coup is gone, as Harper will certainly have a major stimulus package in the budget.

Folks please remember that MOST Canadians do not support this government

.

"Most" Canadians did not support the Martin or Chretien or Mulroney or Clark or Trudeau governments either. Did you have a point? It's very rare a government wins over 50% of the vote, and it rarely retains that popularity for long once elected.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes Argus they all want power. That is a fact of life, those who seek power are legion. With respect to the Coalition, I would refrain from declaring anything at all about them until the Commons returns. The major stimulus budget you hope exists within the coming budget may find opposition in the House. A give away of tax dollars to failing corporations is one thing, supporting citizens is another. If the proposed budget does not focus on people but instead on business there will be trouble.

The point is that there is a difference between governing with a majority and governing with a minority. Harper does not have the required skill sets to govern under the current conditions.

[Smallc]

A give away of tax dollars to failing corporations is one thing, supporting citizens is another. If the proposed budget does not focus on people but instead on business there will be trouble.

You aren't sitting in the house though, so i don't see there being much opposition. The NDP and the Liberals wanted to help GM and Chrysler, so.....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The House isn't sitting, in addition the money came from the PM's office where there was no public debate. In the Commons, a new leader seeking to make a name for himself could very well question the matter.

We need to wait and see how this plays out.

[Smallc]

Majority of Canadians back loans to auto companies, poll suggests

Really? You really think that it would be to Ignatieff's of Layton's advantage to oppose the loans?

[Topaz]

For those who don't think Harper should have the name "bully' or "thug" well I think he should share that name with the rest of the members in the Conservatives! I have watched Harper in the Commons and he is always that one that starts the personal attacks giving the signal to the rest of the loud mouth ****** that is time to attack. What kind of government can ever get anything done when all they want is to have a verbal war and take down the person in the opposition party they are talking to and most of the time its not even on the same topic!!! They are disgusting in Parliament and one has to wonder now, what exactly are the people really like who keep voting for this group of people??? I'm not necessarily for the coalition but IF it has to be done, then its Harper's and the Cons own doing! Now, that being said, I think with more women in power within the Cons party and the "coalition threat" I hope that things will calm down and get serious.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually yes. Iggy could do the smart thing and enlighten Canadians to the folly of handing over money without any security to failing corporations who will end up rationalizing their operations in radical form, prior to going into a chapter 11 phase. Please keep in mind the bailout is on, the money is going through and nobody can stop it. So Iggy can make all the right arguments about the folly with impunity.

Here are some of the real drawbacks to the bailout.

1) These are loans without security

2) The money is going to the corporations, not the workers

3) The tax payer is being fleeced without recourse or public debate

4) There is no guarantee that it will work, the companies may yet fail

5) Jobs will still be lost no matter what else happens

6) The tax base will be compromised anyway

7) This opens the door to all sorts of bailouts when massive numbers of employees MAY be adversely affected

Now if the bailout works and the companies don't fail, Iggy can say that the cost was excessive and was a result of the Tories getting into bed with the corporations. If the bailout doesn't work he can say I told you so. In the current political environment, Harper was elected based on the claim that our economy was on track and we should stay the course, that has now proven to be at least an error in judgment on his part if not an outright lie or a declaration of incompetence. The sad reality is that Harper has himself cornered, he has to fork over money because of the political consequences of not doing so. Iggy on the other hand can sit back and make all kinds of observations and armchair quarterback his way through this mess without any political blowback.

In the greater scheme of things, now is a bad time to be at the helm because there is little that a government can do right these days to mitigate the harm that is being felt in Canada's industrial heartland. Most of the events are global impact types with spill over effects to local economies. Remember that we are locked into trade deals that are for the most part export intensive. If markets collapse, as they have, we have tough sledding ahead of us. Our economy is not geared toward internal consumption it is based on external consumption. What we have are large multinational corporate efforts, where production can be moved or transported to global locations where productions costs are lower without adversely impacting the company's ability to conduct business. In fact such moves are advantageous to corporate efforts and have become the norm for operations. In developed nations our labour costs are far high which makes us less competitive, and that in turn results in jobs being lost to lower production cost locations. A simple fact of economic reality, nothing more and nothing less.

To return to the point, Harper is trapped. Without an injection of capital these corporations may fail and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of job losses. Those affected would certainly vote against Harper if he failed to at least try to keep their jobs. Since those jobs are the industrial heartland of Canada, and represent the majority of constituents of the largest voting demographic in the nation Harper simply has no other viable politically option. The opportunity for Iggy is to layout before Canadians the cost to the tax payer, the risks to the taxpayer and the lack of any sort of plan to support the citizens that will certainly face job losses.

[fellowtraveller]

That's a load of bunk.

No one knew at the time that Flaherty gave his economic update that GM and Chrysler were going to be asking for help. So in the mind of Flaherty and Harper there was no need to panic. Even when the coalition came to agreement, there was no certainty that the automakers would need help. There was lots of speculation that they would have been hurt by the economic downfall, but no one really knew too much.

The reality is however, that GM is not in trouble. They are still selling vehicles and advertising, albeit there is a seasonal slump going on right now, and the slowing economy may have an effect. But the truth is that GMAC got pinched by dabbling in mortgages and since GM owns 49% of their stock, they will be on the hook....unless they just let GMAC crash and cut their losses. All this blaming of the workers and unions is a ruse to deflect from the reality that GMAC - not a bank - got caught in the same wave that took down Freddy Mack by giving out below prime mortgages and then having to pay it all back.

But Harper could not have known this could he.....or COULD he.....The bail-out offered talks a lot about conditions for runnnign GM but it says nothing about GMAC. And since there really are no controls over what GM does with their share of the money, you can expect that GMAC will receive a winfall, and GM will carry on business as usual - of course long after they have bashed the unions and described what evil they are. This is about corporate greed and Harper is their front man for making as much in profits as they can. The downturn in the economy is an excuse for they to try to make more money for their investors at the expense of the workers.

Where I work, we are hardly affected by the threat of the economic downturn. People are still spending money (months ahead of their projects). Harper says this will get as bad as 2003... Huh? 2003 was a good year as far as cars, construction and service industries go. Perhaps he was talking about the losses in the stock markets in 2003 where greed reigns and commodities are sold like BJs on Yonge Street. Perhaps the problem isn't with the economy after all. Perhaps Harper has too much invested in his conflicting interests? And the need for calm and slow reaction is just a way to protect those interests from further losses. Of course it is at all our expense....

Wrong-o.

The bailout request made by GM to Congress on November 17 was no surprise and had been talked about for months.

In Canuckistan, McGuinty had been yapping about it for months, well before the fiscal update on Nov 27.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Only the public was surprised, the governments and corporations knew exactly what was going on.

[charter.rights]

Wrong-o.

The bailout request made by GM to Congress on November 17 was no surprise and had been talked about for months.

In Canuckistan, McGuinty had been yapping about it for months, well before the fiscal update on Nov 27.

You are incorrect.

By November 27 GM had not approached the government to discuss any need for a bail-out. Flaherty was confident on his update that Canada was not going to be affected by the downturn. If there had been any government speculation that GM would be receiving a hand out, I'm sure it would have been included in his report.

While there was lots of media speculation that GM Canada would need a hand out, it is still factually incorrect. GMAC requires the bail-out for getting caught dealing with below prime mortgages. GMC is in a stable position building and selling vehicles as usual.