Ignatieff Speaks. Take From it What You Will.

[Progressive Tory]

These videos were taken at a young Liberals Convention held in Vancouver. Bear in mind that they are amateur so the quality is not the best. In them you will get to hear his views on a variety of subjects. For Harper supporters it may help to know some of the things you can expect to hear in the next election campaign. Iggy supporters may have their loyalty confirmed or questioned. It is what it is.

I don't agree with everything he has to say but was impressed with his honesty. On a personal note, I may now realize why I was so drawn to him from the beginning. He reminds me of my dad. Not just physically, though my father was also tall and slim with bushy eyebrows; but the quiet intellect. When he speaks of ‘standing with someone...if not him then someone’; growing up my dad always said “if you don’t stand up for something then you might as well sit down.” A little surreal, but not the point.

So without further adieu, I present Michael Ignatieff:

On Human Rights

[Radsickle]

Iggy rocks.

[85RZ500]

PT, you're in love with the opportunistic drop-in, I will continually answer that I can't stand the sight or sound of him. LOL, so there

[Radsickle]

PT, I admire your spirit. Harper doesn't represent old-school Tories and I thank you for reminding us. I am so sick of his `lets be clear' phrase, I puke upon hearing it now.

[Progressive Tory]

PT, I admire your spirit. Harper doesn't represent old-school Tories and I thank you for reminding us. I am so sick of his `lets be clear' phrase, I puke upon hearing it now.

Thank you. I guess as a lifelong Tory I've felt like I was left out to dry when they were swallowed up by the Reform/Alliance. I never really liked Paul Martin as a PM (great finance minister though) and respected Dion's passion for the environment; but he really wasn't leadership material.

For me, Ignatieff best represents my views. I really liked his stance on the oil sands. He knows that they are a vital part of the Canadian economy, so is looking for a balance between the industry and the environment; while recognizing the health impact on communities like Fort Chip, that are downstream.

I also admired his views on Obama; prayed that he would win, but knows that our vast oil reserves gives Canada some bargaining power. Both are intelligent men; Obama graduated from Harvard and Iggy taught there; so any meetings will be handled with intellect, not rhetoric.

[Progressive Tory]

PT, you're in love with the opportunistic drop-in, I will continually answer that I can't stand the sight or sound of him. LOL, so there

I respect that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

PT, I admire your spirit. Harper doesn't represent old-school Tories and I thank you for reminding us. I am so sick of his `lets be clear' phrase, I puke upon hearing it now.

Its almost time to change that phrase to...."I am not a crook."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

These videos were taken at a young Liberals Convention held in Vancouver. Bear in mind that they are amateur so the quality is not the best. In them you will get to hear his views on a variety of subjects. For Harper supporters it may help to know some of the things you can expect to hear in the next election campaign. Iggy supporters may have their loyalty confirmed or questioned. It is what it is.

I don't agree with everything he has to say but was impressed with his honesty. On a personal note, I may now realize why I was so drawn to him from the beginning. He reminds me of my dad. Not just physically, though my father was also tall and slim with bushy eyebrows; but the quiet intellect. When he speaks of ‘standing with someone...if not him then someone’; growing up my dad always said “if you don’t stand up for something then you might as well sit down.” A little surreal, but not the point.

So without further adieu, I present Michael Ignatieff:

On Human Rights

The Young Liberals are a very important tool for the party. That is where they can begn to spread their word from, Iggy knows this. It shows a little foresight on his part I think, working toward some character development that he will need. This is a step Harper has not taken, in a direction that Harper should consider himself.

[Mr.Canada]

Thank you. I guess as a lifelong Tory I've felt like I was left out to dry when they were swallowed up by the Reform/Alliance. I never really liked Paul Martin as a PM (great finance minister though) and respected Dion's passion for the environment; but he really wasn't leadership material.

For me, Ignatieff best represents my views. I really liked his stance on the oil sands. He knows that they are a vital part of the Canadian economy, so is looking for a balance between the industry and the environment; while recognizing the health impact on communities like Fort Chip, that are downstream.

I also admired his views on Obama; prayed that he would win, but knows that our vast oil reserves gives Canada some bargaining power. Both are intelligent men; Obama graduated from Harvard and Iggy taught there; so any meetings will be handled with intellect, not rhetoric.

You hate the Alliance/Reformers but you don't mind taking their money from the oil sands, lol. I guess you don't hate them that much eh. Going to Harvard doesn't make one a leader. Ignotieff is simply Dion with better speaking skills, do not be fooled Canada.

[Progressive Tory]

You hate the Alliance/Reformers but you don't mind taking their money from the oil sands, lol. I guess you don't hate them that much eh. Going to Harvard doesn't make one a leader. Ignotieff is simply Dion with better speaking skills, do not be fooled Canada.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say 'hate'? I said that as a Red Tory, this Party had nothing for me. Believe me this was not based on simple bias. I researched each and every MP before coming to that conclusion. It was like going to a town hall meeting to discuss potholes and part way through those in attendance don white sheets. I'm not suggesting that the Alliance/Reform are KKK, but the difference between their views and mine, were that profound.

As to taking 'their' money. Since when is oil revenue the property of the Alliance/Reform? Are you suggesting that they're skimming off the top? All taxpayer money is supposed to be pooled for the benefit of all taxpayers. What are you suggesting? Do you have proof that Harper is stealing from oil revenue, because that's a pretty serious allegation.

As to Harvard, I only mean that these men will be able to discuss issues that concern both countries with intellect. No more ridiculous 'You're either with us or against us." Yes, Bush went to Harvard but was a 'C' student. Obama fishished top of his class and became a law professor. Quiet intellect replaces loud posturing.

[Progressive Tory]

The Young Liberals are a very important tool for the party. That is where they can begn to spread their word from, Iggy knows this. It shows a little foresight on his part I think, working toward some character development that he will need. This is a step Harper has not taken, in a direction that Harper should consider himself.

Harper doesn't do well without a script. His last campaign was conducted in what has been referred to by the media, as 'a bubble'.

"Nothing unexpected, no one uninvited, everything in its right place"

He prefers human props to actual citizens, and his overuse of the RCMP is bordering on paranoa.

[August1991]

As to taking 'their' money. Since when is oil revenue the property of the Alliance/Reform? Are you suggesting that they're skimming off the top? All taxpayer money is supposed to be pooled for the benefit of all taxpayers. What are you suggesting? Do you have proof that Harper is stealing from oil revenue, because that's a pretty serious allegation.

Uh, that's wrong. Natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction and provincial governments collect the royalties. This is a feature of Canada's constitution.

----

As to Ignatieff speaking and saying what he means, does he favour or not a tax cut? Who knows?

Nonetheless, Mr. Ignatieff had at it: "This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts, because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper’s mistakes for years to come," he told Ivison./P>

For good measure, he told Le Devoir in a separate interview that he very well might vote to defeat the government if the Prime Minister goes ahead with his plan: "If I see in the budget a permanent reduction in the government’s fiscal capacity to create conditions of equality for everyone, I will vote against it… I’m afraid that broad-based tax cuts might put us in a deficit situation from which we wouldn’t be able to emerge."

Well, it's a good try. But it's not going to work. Mr. Ignatieff discovered he was against a break for the middle class on Thursday or Friday, after Mr. Harper made it clear he was keen on the idea. Unfortunately, just a week earlier the Liberal leader had launched a coast-to-coast "listening tour" by telling everyone in Halifax a tax cut was at the top of his agenda.

"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Mr. Ignatieff said.

Kelly McParland

Now, we have the Toronto Star reporting:

Arguing that a recession is not the time to cut income taxes, the federal Liberals yesterday served notice on Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he risks defeat if he goes ahead with across-the-board cuts.

Liberals won't back tax cuts, Ignatieff warns PM

A recession is not the time to cut income taxes? WTF?

No, Ignatieff wants to borrow money in my name and spend it on stuff that he wants. Why not just give me the money and let me decide what to do with it?

If I were Harper, I'd enjoy an election in which Ignatieff is against a tax cut - assuming that really is Ignatieff's position.

[Progressive Tory]

Uh, that's wrong. Natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction and provincial governments collect the royalties. This is a feature of Canada's constitution.

----

As to Ignatieff speaking and saying what he means, does he favour or not a tax cut? Who knows?

Kelly McParland

Now, we have the Toronto Star reporting:Liberals won't back tax cuts, Ignatieff warns PM

A recession is not the time to cut income taxes? WTF?

No, Ignatieff wants to borrow money in my name and spend it on stuff that he wants. Why not just give me the money and let me decide what to do with it?

If I were Harper, I'd enjoy an election in which Ignatieff is against a tax cut - assuming that really is Ignatieff's position.

Natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction and provincial governments collect the royalties. Exactly. For Mr. C to suggest that oil revenues belong to the Alliance/Reform was ludicrous, so I simply turned it back.

As to tax cuts, Ignatieff has always said that he favours 'targetted' tax cuts, not sweeping tax cuts. Once again Mr. McParland went cherry picking for the Conservatives.

First off, if he had read the article when sober, he would have realized that the message to Harper was "...that he risks defeat if he goes ahead with across the board cuts." which could risk an extended deficit once the recession was over.

And if Mr. McParland had bothered to read Obama's plan, (and not just the headlines) with a measure of non-partisanship, he would know that the new US president refers to middle class as 'workers' and his TARGETTED TAX CUTS LIKE IGNATIEFF'S ARE AIMED AT THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $50,000.00 a year!

Nice try Kelly.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[August1991]

As to tax cuts, Ignatieff has always said that he favours 'targetted' tax cuts, not sweeping tax cuts. Once again Mr. McParland went cherry picking for the Conservatives.

...

And if Mr. McParland had bothered to read Obama's plan, (and not just the headlines) with a measure of non-partisanship, he would know that the new US president refers to middle class as 'workers' and his TARGETTED TAX CUTS LIKE IGNATIEFF'S ARE AIMED AT THOSE EARNING LESS THAN $50,000.00 a year!

Uh, Obama has said that his tax cuts will benefit 95% of Americans.

Now, if you think that 95% means "targetted" then I suppose Ignatieff has enough wiggle room to say anything he wants. Ignatieff can target a tax cut at 95% of the population.

As for me, I'll agree to any targetted tax cut if it targets my tax statement.

----

Anyway, for this policy to have any macroeconomic effect, the tax cuts/subsidies would have to be broad, affecting many people - and they should be perceived as permanent cuts.

In political terms, Ignatieff would be a fool to provoke an election by opposing tax cuts to middle income earners.

Edited January 20, 2009 by August1991

[Bryan]

If Ignatieff is serious about defeating the Govt over broad tax cuts, Harper should definitely call his bluff. An election fought over that issue would be glorious.

[Molly]

There'll be no election unless Harper opts to be as collossal an ass as in the 'fiscal update', because for better or worse, someone has to get on with the act of governing.

Unless he's that outrageous again, we'll be stuck with the devil we know for at least a few more months.

The 'fiddling while Rome burns' simply can't continue.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Molly

[Bryan]

There'll be no election unless Harper opts to be as collossal an ass as in the 'fiscal update', because for better or worse, someone has to get on with the act of governing.

Unless he's that outrageous again, we'll be stuck with the devil we know for at least a few more months.

The 'fiddling while Rome burns' simply can't continue.

The type of things we saw in the fiscal update is exactly what they should do. Lower taxes, cuts in political funding, restricting wages in the pubic sector, etc. All things that the CPC will easily hammer the opposition with if they vote against them. Absolutely, Harper should go for it and dare the opposition to vote it down.

What fiddling? This is the best government the country has had in at least 40 years. We have the best economy, and the best managed government in the entire world right now.

[Mr.Canada]

There'll be no election unless Harper opts to be as collossal an ass as in the 'fiscal update', because for better or worse, someone has to get on with the act of governing.

Unless he's that outrageous again, we'll be stuck with the devil we know for at least a few more months.

The 'fiddling while Rome burns' simply can't continue.

LOL, yeah how dare PM Harper ask parties to raise their own funds! This is Canada the socialist paradise where you can do nothing, whine about it then cash a fat cheque. What was I thinking.

[Progressive Tory]

If Ignatieff is serious about defeating the Govt over broad tax cuts, Harper should definitely call his bluff. An election fought over that issue would be glorious.

Indeed it would be glorious considering that recent polls show that Canadians oppose tax cuts, preferring infastructure spending. The time couldn't be better. He'd be wise to hold onto the 143 seats he has now and not risk losing them in another election. Quebec gone. Carbon tax gone. Dion gone. Do you really think he'd want to run an election campaign on lower taxes when Canadians are saying NO to lower taxes that provide no hope for eliminating the deficit once the recession is over. They can say NO at the polls too.

Of course, that's assuming the GG will allow another election which would mean at least another 6 weeks of inaction on the economy. The Coalition already has a budget inked and thanks to Harper's speech that you can hear in my signature, she knows she has other options.

[Progressive Tory]

LOL, yeah how dare PM Harper ask parties to raise their own funds! This is Canada the socialist paradise where you can do nothing, whine about it then cash a fat cheque. What was I thinking.

Oh for Heaven's sake. They are already supported with taxpayer's money in the form of tax credits for donations. They are already supported with taxpayer's money in the form of rebates for local election expenses. A buck ninety-five gives the grassroots a chance to help their chosen party by getting out to vote, ensuring that their vote always counts for something. It's called democracy.

But as to your closing question. I don't know what you were thinking either.

[Progressive Tory]

The type of things we saw in the fiscal update is exactly what they should do. Lower taxes, cuts in political funding, restricting wages in the pubic sector, etc. All things that the CPC will easily hammer the opposition with if they vote against them. Absolutely, Harper should go for it and dare the opposition to vote it down.

What fiddling? This is the best government the country has had in at least 40 years. We have the best economy, and the best managed government in the entire world right now.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. The best government in the world right now? Thanks for the chuckle. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.

the Harper gov't. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

But I'm nobody's fool:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/549456

http://mikewatkins.ca/2008/10/08/harper-go...ng-deficit-now/

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/07/15/summer-...nd-out-scandal/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al_gam_mostview

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:gJ4R9V...t=clnk&cd=6

[Progressive Tory]

Uh, Obama has said that his tax cuts will benefit 95% of Americans.

Now, if you think that 95% means "targetted" then I suppose Ignatieff has enough wiggle room to say anything he wants. Ignatieff can target a tax cut at 95% of the population.

As for me, I'll agree to any targetted tax cut if it targets my tax statement.

----

Anyway, for this policy to have any macroeconomic effect, the tax cuts/subsidies would have to be broad, affecting many people - and they should be perceived as permanent cuts.

In political terms, Ignatieff would be a fool to provoke an election by opposing tax cuts to middle income earners.

"Now, if you think that 95% means "targetted" then I suppose Ignatieff has enough wiggle room to say anything he wants. Ignatieff can target a tax cut at 95% of the population."

When this dispute first began it was over 'middle class'. I used the comparisons for that only. Again: 'Workers' 'Less than 50,000.00 a year.' Obama may be planning tax cuts for 95% of Americans, but that has nothing to do with Ignatieff's 'targetted tax cuts' which he says are for the 'most vulnerable Canadians' and 'lower to middle income'. He speaks very clearly for an elitist academic. I never went to Harvard but figured it out right away.

You may want a tax cut that the country will wear for decades, I don't. Duceppe hit the nail on the head. If you lose your job you don't pay taxes. How is lowering nothing going to help?

[August1991]

When this dispute first began it was over 'middle class'. I used the comparisons for that only. Again: 'Workers' 'Less than 50,000.00 a year.' Obama may be planning tax cuts for 95% of Americans, but that has nothing to do with Ignatieff's 'targetted tax cuts' which he says are for the 'most vulnerable Canadians' and 'lower to middle income'. He speaks very clearly for an elitist academic. I never went to Harvard but figured it out right away.

"Targetted" tax cuts for people earning less than $50,000 would be broad-based. In a separate thread, I argued in favour of raising the personal exemption since this would benefit low income earners. I would also like to see payroll taxes lowered.

But getting back to Ignatieff, he seems to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants and then gives himself wiggle room to interpret it however he wants. He's a flake.

You may want a tax cut that the country will wear for decades, I don't. Duceppe hit the nail on the head. If you lose your job you don't pay taxes. How is lowering nothing going to help?

How about this radical idea. The government should encourage job-creation by cutting income taxes.

A tax tends to diminish an activity and so an income tax tends to reduce employment.

[Progressive Tory]

"Targetted" tax cuts for people earning less than $50,000 would be broad-based. In a separate thread, I argued in favour of raising the personal exemption since this would benefit low income earners. I would also like to see payroll taxes lowered.

But getting back to Ignatieff, he seems to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants and then gives himself wiggle room to interpret it however he wants. He's a flake.

How about this radical idea. The government should encourage job-creation by cutting income taxes.

A tax tends to diminish an activity and so an income tax tends to reduce employment.

"But getting back to Ignatieff, he seems to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants and then gives himself wiggle room to interpret it however he wants." It's called politics and a good politician never gives the media or his opponents enough rope...or at least they shouldn't.

I won't get into the semantics of 'broad base' but I know what he meant and I'm not that bright, so the average Canadian will be able to figure it out.

But back to Tax Cuts:

Why Tax Cuts Just Don't Work "Wealth creation via tax breaks for investors, each claimed, would generate more jobs and more income for more people....But there are good reasons why we should be skeptical of such claims. If results of the past 20 years provide any evidence, it is clear that wealth doesn't "trickle down," and that "free" markets do nothing to redistribute income or help people out of poverty. Just the opposite, in fact."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said... If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves...." And if you're planning on giving me alternate theories, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is the U.S. economy.

Government Study: Tax Cuts Don't Work - "Contrary to the claim that the tax cuts will have huge impacts on the economy, the Treasury study finds that even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy. Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy."

And again why Iggy can't give numbers - without knowing what the numbers are:

Flaherty’s Fiscal Statement: Credibility Lost and Opportunity Squandered - "No respected economist – on Bay Street or off - places any credibility in Flaherty’s numbers. Patricia Croft, chief economist at RBC Asset management calls them a “mirage” and “smoke and mirrors.” TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond commented that you had to turn them upside down to get a better picture.... The Finance Minister doesn’t even believe his own fiscal statement, telling CBC Radio that he thinks it is probable that the federal government will go into deficit, just two hours after he forecasted five more years of surpluses." Kind of flake, don't you think?

Edited January 21, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Canadian Blue]

I also admired his views on Obama; prayed that he would win, but knows that our vast oil reserves gives Canada some bargaining power. Both are intelligent men; Obama graduated from Harvard and Iggy taught there; so any meetings will be handled with intellect, not rhetoric.

I'd rather be ruled by the whores at a typical Nevada brothel than the faculty at Harvard.

But back to Tax Cuts:

Why Tax Cuts Just Don't Work "Wealth creation via tax breaks for investors, each claimed, would generate more jobs and more income for more people....But there are good reasons why we should be skeptical of such claims. If results of the past 20 years provide any evidence, it is clear that wealth doesn't "trickle down," and that "free" markets do nothing to redistribute income or help people out of poverty. Just the opposite, in fact."

Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said... If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts of the past six years haven't paid for themselves...." And if you're planning on giving me alternate theories, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is the U.S. economy.

Government Study: Tax Cuts Don't Work - "Contrary to the claim that the tax cuts will have huge impacts on the economy, the Treasury study finds that even under favorable assumptions, making the tax cuts permanent would have a barely perceptible impact on the economy. Under more realistic assumptions, the Treasury study finds that the tax cuts could even hurt the economy."

I'm a big fan of tax cuts, more or less because I don't like this "progressive tory" notion that the best way to deal with an economy is to tax Canadian's to death and then pay a few bureaucrats to print off diversity panthelets.