Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI

[blueblood]

I wish they did. Last time I checked that stimulus hasn't done anything.

More than giving 700 billion to poor people. Having all those employees of the financial institutions going on the dole while poor people get a check for being poor is poison for an economy. The Bush admin might not be the most intelligent admin, they certainly aren't complete idiots.

[punked]

More than giving 700 billion to poor people. Having all those employees of the financial institutions going on the dole while poor people get a check for being poor is poison for an economy. The Bush admin might not be the most intelligent admin, they certainly aren't complete idiots.

So they took the money and bought stock with it. Sounds great.

[jdobbin]

Your guess is as good as mine as to what went on in that meeting. Harper as you know is the type of person who would shell the GG if she gave the coalition gov't. Engineering their own defeat is a pretty simple accusation to dodge.

We have gone over this territory before. Harper might be in for a surprise if he tries to act like a horse's ass on this budget thinking he is going to get an election. The Liberals won't bring down the government on something trivial but they won't be bullied into voting yes on something that primarily benefits the Tories.

As for bullying the Governor General, I don't know that it would go over well either.

Ignatieff is bringing aboard some of the best moneymakers in the party. The small donor base could look a whole lot different in the next 12 months. I don't think Ignatieff would look to kindly on Harper bringing back the elections finances change tough. Harper promised it was off the table. It would look bad if he brought it back.

[jdobbin]

No, that's why I support the GST cut, everybody gets a cut (not to mention it really helps me). I was saying that business's not getting any tax cut, while the poor get it is sheer nonsense.

Business did get a tax cut last budget.

Are you saying that we should punish people for succeeding (priority given to low and middle income earners)?

Didn't say anything about raising the taxes of people at higher incomes. However, like Warren Buffet, I believe the higher incomes have the wherewithal to withstand the pressures of the economy that the lower and middle incomes can't.

I don't support any of these tax cuts without a time limit. There is no way I am going to support a deficit way into the future.

By all means, drop all of the GST for the next year, give all Canadians a complete tax break on personal and corporate income tax cuts but only if there is a time limit so that we are not in the hole forever.

[Huston]

Considering there are thousand poor to one of you I say the thousand poor. They are more likely to spend and on stuff made in this country. So I go with the poor. Sorry tickle down stuff stop being popular deal with it.

What trickle down? If there is no tax system there is no trickle down. Giving tax breaks to the businesses is not trickle down, it is a building up.

[Huston]

More than giving 700 billion to poor people. Having all those employees of the financial institutions going on the dole while poor people get a check for being poor is poison for an economy. The Bush admin might not be the most intelligent admin, they certainly aren't complete idiots.

What do you mean, they have already done it once. It was a couple of years ago.

[blueblood]

We have gone over this territory before. Harper might be in for a surprise if he tries to act like a horse's ass on this budget thinking he is going to get an election. The Liberals won't bring down the government on something trivial but they won't be bullied into voting yes on something that primarily benefits the Tories.

As for bullying the Governor General, I don't know that it would go over well either.

Ignatieff is bringing aboard some of the best moneymakers in the party. The small donor base could look a whole lot different in the next 12 months. I don't think Ignatieff would look to kindly on Harper bringing back the elections finances change tough. Harper promised it was off the table. It would look bad if he brought it back.

According to the CTV interview in december, I don't think that's off the table at all. It's an easy sell to the general public.

[Huston]

By all means, drop all of the GST for the next year, give all Canadians a complete tax break on personal and corporate income tax cuts but only if there is a time limit so that we are not in the hole forever.

Of course tax breaks will not do anything. There must be less government all together. The fruadulant economy they built by becoming service base, and a speculative investment strategies, all supported by a market controling education system that puts ... or well, supports and encourgaes people to spend big bucks on a useless philosophy degrees, plus all the culture that comes out of the ivory towers. Most graduates traveling after finishing school, building up higher debts and relizing there is no market for them, or have no clue how to establish a maket for that particulart thing. They have lived in a pampered bubble of consumption.

That's the problem. Anymore controls, and we have communism or facism.

[KeyStone]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Seems there is a basis for agreement on the budget. It remains to be seen whether Harper will be less confrontational in this session.

Yeah, seems like there is an agreement between the banks, and our 2 right wing parties.

It seems funny that no matter what the economic condition, the best practice seems to be lower taxes.

The economy is going well: Gosh, let's lower taxes because we have extra money.

The economy is going poorly: Gosh, let's lower taxes because we need to stimulate the economy.

In a time like this, there are so many people in need of help, that it would make sense to run a deficit to try and help these people.

Generally, the most vulnerable people are the most likely to spend all of their money locally so it's great for the economy.

But instead we're going to give tax breaks to successful corporations and individuals who still have their jobs.

Then, instead of running a deficit, it looks like these two Einsteins want to cut social benefits. Great timing.

[jdobbin]

According to the CTV interview in december, I don't think that's off the table at all. It's an easy sell to the general public.

And so is the easy sell that Harper is a horse's ass who wants an election over making Parliament work.

[jdobbin]

Then, instead of running a deficit, it looks like these two Einsteins want to cut social benefits. Great timing.

Don't think Ignatieff said anything about social cuts. In fact, he talked about enhancing EI.

[KeyStone]

Don't think Ignatieff said anything about social cuts. In fact, he talked about enhancing EI.

Perhaps you are right. I might have been confusing with Obama.

Still, Iggy seems to be calling out of the same playbook as Paul Martin.

[Progressive Tory]

Yeah, seems like there is an agreement between the banks, and our 2 right wing parties.

It seems funny that no matter what the economic condition, the best practice seems to be lower taxes.

The economy is going well: Gosh, let's lower taxes because we have extra money.

The economy is going poorly: Gosh, let's lower taxes because we need to stimulate the economy.

In a time like this, there are so many people in need of help, that it would make sense to run a deficit to try and help these people.

Generally, the most vulnerable people are the most likely to spend all of their money locally so it's great for the economy.

But instead we're going to give tax breaks to successful corporations and individuals who still have their jobs.

Then, instead of running a deficit, it looks like these two Einsteins want to cut social benefits. Great timing.

I agree. Corporate tax cuts are fine IF THEY KEEP JOBS IN THE COUNTRY. Any corporation that farms work overseas should NOT GET A TAX CUT NO WAY, NO HOW!

Recent cuts to the GST or future ones, are not the answer. It's been proven that it did nothing to stimulate the economy. Social programs not only feed the poor but that food is bought in the wealthy's grocery stores. Social programs not only clothe the poor, but that clothing is bought in the wealthy's discount stores. They don't spend their money abroad.

During the past two World Wars, front line soldiers were not the Eatons or the Powers. We paid attention to the poor and downtrodden then, because they filled the ranks of our armies. I grew up poor because my father was an injured war vet who raised his family on a small military pension. Manual labour was not an option for him because he had no knee caps and lived in constant pain courtesy of WWII. We depended on social programs then, and guess what. All seven of his children are now middle class because people in this country made sure that we didn't starve to death, and all seven of his children pay taxes, no longer depending on social programs.

If the wealthy want to stay wealthy, they better make sure that all Canadians are consumers, because if they are hard hearted enough not to care about the poor, they could very well be eliminating their present and future customer base.

Remember too that mass poverty leads to social unrest. Do you think that the French or Russian Revolutions took place because the citizens were bored? Starvation can be a great motivator. We need social programs to keep the discontented off YOUR doorstep.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[madmax]

Don't think Ignatieff said anything about social cuts. In fact, he talked about enhancing EI.

Iggy is speaking political talk. Everyone including the CPC and the LPC SHOULD already know EI reform changes have been in the works, and the only thing political parties would do is block them, and that isn't going to happen.

1) EI was reformed last month and he should know this, he has had time off to investigate. The anti poverty groups and social groups as well as members of the NDP/LPC/BQ and even CPC MPs have known the bureaucracy was making changes to EI.

http://www1.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/typ...r.shtml#Working

Basically effective December 11/08 if you are receiving EI benefits you are eligible to earn 40% of your benefit rate without penalty. This is an increase from the 25%.

New EI rates will be coming into effect early January/09 but it has not been formally released just yet so keep an eye out.

http://www1.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml

The fact that these changes haven't been formally released, just mean that the IGGY is placing a sure bet.

He is a political opportunist.

Further EI enhancements are in the works, but the full details aren't known, and many groups are pushing for a restoration of the EI program in this time of need.

Iggy is the last one at the breakfast table.

Jack Layton..November..

But we also need to protect good-paying jobs with direct sector-by-sector strategies, including credit guarantees for viable companies. And reform Employment Insurance, to get workers back on their feet faster, especially those in Ontario who've been treated unfairly to date. Lack of EI reform is a recipe for prolonging the downturm.

Shortly there after the first change to EI came, but clearly no one told Iggy. Nor would Iggy even know how EI works, as most MPs couldn't give a rats ass about it, it is just a political tool to say good positive things with no risk.

[Jean_Poutine]

Seems there is a basis for agreement on the budget. It remains to be seen whether Harper will be less confrontational in this session.

I seem to recall Jack Layton saying that he'll vote against the Conservatives at the first opportunity -- regardless of what is in the budget. The Conservatives have been talking with members of the other parties and people from the private sector, but they also won the election not the other parties. With that mind, I ask you, who is being unreasonable?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I seem to recall Jack Layton saying that he'll vote against the Conservatives at the first opportunity -- regardless of what is in the budget. The Conservatives have been talking with members of the other parties and people from the private sector, but they also won the election not the other parties. With that mind, I ask you, who is being unreasonable?

This is not about reason or logic, it is about governing. It is about politics, which is to say that it is all about talking to the public in a manner that provides support for the positions you have undertaken. This is what it is all about, not the actual policies, but the way in which public perception is manipulated.

[madmax]

I seem to recall Jack Layton saying that he'll vote against the Conservatives at the first opportunity --

I don't believe that stance has changed.

regardless of what is in the budget. The Conservatives have been talking with members of the other parties and people from the private sector, but they also won the election not the other parties. With that mind, I ask you, who is being unreasonable?

The CPC have a minority government not much different then last term. The CPC unreasonable, they were reckless, let alone untrustworthy. Parliment hasn't changed how it functions, and the Prime Minister and his MPs are enjoying PAY without work.

I have no idea if Iggy will trust the tongue of Harper. The Prime Minister didn't bother to tell the public in his national address that he was going to ask the GG to give him and his pals an extended holiday in order to avoid work.

[madmax]

This is not about reason or logic, it is about governing. It is about politics, which is to say that it is all about talking to the public in a manner that provides support for the positions you have undertaken. This is what it is all about, not the actual policies, but the way in which public perception is manipulated.

And that is what Iggy is doing right now.

[Progressive Tory]

I seem to recall Jack Layton saying that he'll vote against the Conservatives at the first opportunity -- regardless of what is in the budget. The Conservatives have been talking with members of the other parties and people from the private sector, but they also won the election not the other parties. With that mind, I ask you, who is being unreasonable?

Jack Layton is Jack Layton, and his anger over the Conservative's personal attacks to stay in power, was not unfounded. They used his father.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008...04/7634731.html

They taped his phone conversations.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...2/11/02900.html

They lied, and lied and lied some more. And when on a roll they lied again.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/...-broadbent.html

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...dian-flags.aspx

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/11/h...t-hypcrite.html

How could Mr. Layton possibly trust him? Mr. Harper has told so many lies that clearly he's losing track of them.

And again a reminder that in Canada we don't elect Prime Ministers and he only has the backing of a minority of Canadians. 62% DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM and only vote-splitting gave him more seats. Not a stronger mandate since he garnered amost 170,000 fewer votes in 2008 than 2006. He's slipping.

[capricorn]

Recent cuts to the GST or future ones, are not the answer. It's been proven that it did nothing to stimulate the economy.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." (Jean Chretien)

Economists generally panned the Stephen Harper government for twice trimming the GST in its first mandate, but that was partly because the cuts were made in good times.

Now that the Bank of Canada has officially said the country has entered a recession, some economists are giving more respect to the idea once derided as "a political gimmick."

In a report to be released Thursday, Dale Orr of IHS Global Insight gives relatively high marks to a third reduction of the GST as a potential measure for the government when it introduces what Harper calls a "significant stimulus package" package in the Jan. 27 budget.

---

There is also solid historical evidence that sales taxes do effect consumer behaviour. The introduction of the GST in 1993 depressed retail sales in Canada for months, whereas the one-point cuts of the past two years spurred spending.

According to Statistics Canada, retail sales surged 1.5 per cent in January following the introduction of the latest GST cut which went into effect on New Year's Day. The number of passenger cars sold in the month jumped by a staggering 16.2 per cent compared with December 2007.

"It meets the three T's requirement of timely, targeted and temporary," agrees Sal Guatieri, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, "so it could help."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/12...7700906-cp.html

The GST cut was shown to be directly responsible for increasing retail and auto sales. There is the proof that cutting the GST can and does have a role in stimulating the economy.

[Progressive Tory]

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." (Jean Chretien)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/12...7700906-cp.html

The GST cut was shown to be directly responsible for increasing retail and auto sales. There is the proof that cutting the GST can and does have a role in stimulating the economy.

"Increasing auto sales". Why did we have to bail them out?

Another view from a year of ago appears to have been quite prophetic. CTV Mon. Jan. 14 2008 "Recently announced tax cuts could end a decade-long streak of federal surpluses if even a slight economic downturn materializes in 2008, a new report suggests....The recent cut to the GST, in addition to reductions previously announced by the Conservative government, will cost $40.2 billion annually by the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the report said. Those reductions have "greatly eroded the fiscal capacity of the federal government... it turns out a mild recession -- not even a recession -- just a mild economic downturn would actually lead to the first budget deficit in over a decade."

Remember that Flaherty's economic update only gave us a small surplus if we sold 12 Billion dollars of our assets in a buyer's market. We're already in a deficit.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The government either already knew or was incompetent?

[Topaz]

It seems if a government cuts corporate taxes, income taxes, and the gst taxes, its a short win for those receiving the breaks but it puts the government in a short fall of funds and then it has to run a deficit or raise taxes to recover losses of revenue. Now, the banks, IF they reduced their profits abit in form of reducing their interest rate on all loans and credit cards for a good year that would put more money into the hands of more Canadians, wouldn't it? Most Canadians with cards are paying up 19% and alot of us may not know there a 10% credit out there at your bank but the banks don't advertise that. Lets face it no matter what this government does, Canadians will feel the effect of it for a long time.

[capricorn]

"Increasing auto sales". Why did we have to bail them out?

I see it in simple terms. The government wants to retain an auto industry in Ontario. One of the ways to accomplish this is to follow the US's lead and provide bailout money. Otherwise, there is a good chance the US would relocate the Big Three's operations to the US. Had the Liberals been in government they too would have provided a bailout.

It's true that the lower GST reduced government revenue and that is seen by many as a bad thing. You said it was proven that the GST did nothing to stimulate the economy whereas I provided facts that the opposite is true.

Any and all measures to stimulate the economy cost the treasury. Whether we liked the GST cuts or not, they had the effect of an economic stimulus. Economists who initially blasted the cuts now see them as a desirable measure in today's economy.

[capricorn]

dp

Edited January 9, 2009 by capricorn