Federal Budget - January 2009

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think Iggy will listen first then decide what to do. I hope the government is not defeated, but that is up to our elected representatives. I think Harper can be compelled to do what the public wants this way.

[Progressive Tory]

I think Iggy will listen first then decide what to do. I hope the government is not defeated, but that is up to our elected representatives. I think Harper can be compelled to do what the public wants this way.

If he isn't, he should be. However, he's caught between a rock and a hard place and since they've been singing tax cuts from the rooftops, those darn Canadians, just aren't listening. They don't want tax cuts. Now what does he do? 64 billion dollars later...

[capricorn]

The polls you link were taken January 3-7 and 8-12 and are outdated. Other polls have since been conducted that show Canadians do in fact favour of tax cuts.

This one was taken January 22-25.

In a surprising result, 62 per cent of respondents said they favoured broad tax cuts although as many – 63 per cent – agreed with the Liberals and NDP that they would be ineffective in stimulating the economy.

The survey found that if broad tax cuts are included, only 32 per cent would want the opposition parties to vote down the budget, while a majority of 56 per cent said they opposed defeating the government on the issue.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/577691

And this one.

Taxpayers urge across the board cuts in tax poll

CALGARY, Jan. 22 /CNW/ - With a Federal Budget looming on January 27,

Canadians are pondering their wish list to the government. According to a

recent poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies for H&R Block Canada, nearly

three quarters of Canadians would task the federal government to introduce

significant tax credits or tax cuts in the budget.

The poll by Angus Reid Strategies asked 1,010 Canadians what tax measures

they would take if they were the Federal Finance Minister. Coast to coast, the

majority of Canadians supported new tax cuts or credits from 68 per cent in

Atlantic Canada to 76 per cent in Quebec.

http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/Janu...9/22/c9798.html

[capricorn]

If he isn't, he should be. However, he's caught between a rock and a hard place and since they've been singing tax cuts from the rooftops, those darn Canadians, just aren't listening. They don't want tax cuts. Now what does he do? 64 billion dollars later...

Wrong. See my previous post and think again.

[Mr.Canada]

"Progressive Tory" is like Jack Layton whereas he only believes his own words as truths and rejects any outside info as disinformation coming from the desk of PM Harper. Or so it would seem.

[Progressive Tory]

The polls you link were taken January 3-7 and 8-12 and are outdated. Other polls have since been conducted that show Canadians do in fact favour of tax cuts.

This one was taken January 22-25.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/577691

And this one.

http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/Janu...9/22/c9798.html

I hadn't seen those, and found the first one interesting. However, most did agree that cutting taxes would not stimulate the economy. The second one was conducted for H & R Block and only discussed taxes. "The poll by Angus Reid Strategies asked 1,010 Canadians what tax measures they would take if they were the Federal Finance Minister." This didn't pertain to economic stimulus.

I concede, though still agree that broad base tax cuts will only extend the deficit once the recession is over. If the poll had asked 'knowing that broad base tax cuts could extend the deficit well into the future, would that change your position?' Dangle a carrot and we want that carrot, but if we know that grabbing that carrot means we'll be eaten by wolves, we might think differently.

But again, I concede. I apologize. I was wrong. Is that enough?

I still voted that the Liberals would accept the budget (but after a bit of tweaking.) I could be wrong. (again)

[myata]

I voted for the coalition, in the full and clear knowledge that it may just be wishful thinking. It's not that PM Harper cannot say the right thing, when he has to. It's that he can absolutely be trusted to not do the right thing, even if he himself said it, if it goes against his concervative beliefs (and he can get away with it, or at least he thinks so).

There should not be any doubt about that after: 1) Kyoto and the Environment; 2) Fixed election dates; 3) Games around Coalition; and more; and still more.

But of course, on the other side of the spectrum is now Mr Ignatieff, who I fear, may just be thinking that it's all back to the business as usual, with a behemoth Liberal machine facing mammoth Concervative one, and to screw everybody else. He may enjoy his spotlight as the leader of the Opposition, hoping that Consevatives would stumble and bleed on the economy and thus deliver him a majority on a golden plate without him having to move a finger about it. I seriously fear that that's what's going to happen tomorrow, and if so I'm prepared to kiss a sad goodbye to voting Liberals for a while (maybe a long while - as long as the difference between them, and their arch-oppenent has to be searched with an electronic microscope). Won't be much of a loss for them anyways, as that swing center of the center progressive-conservative group (not to be confused with the former PC party), would more than make up for that vote.

[Progressive Tory]

I voted for the coalition, in the full and clear knowledge that it may just be wishful thinking. It's not that PM Harper cannot say the right thing, when he has to. It's that he can absolutely be trusted to not do the right thing, even if he himself said it, if it goes against his concervative beliefs (and he can get away with it, or at least he thinks so).

I'm with you, and all opposition parties agree that Stephen Harper cannot be trusted. That goes without saying, since he has done little before or since to change their minds. In fact, the exact opposite. (His own party is putting out feelers for a new leader). I voted that the budget would be accepted on the grounds that it would appear that it meets all the requirements requested by the Liberals. It would be hypocritical for them to turn it down, unless, as Ignatieff states "It includes a poison pill."

The current Coalition deal was signed for Six Months. There are about 4 left, for Harper to regain some measure of confidence. Can he do that? Who knows. I'm guessing 'no'. I went to a pro-coalition meeting on monday hosted by the local Green Party. I know they have no seats but earned almost a million votes last election so do have a following, (the only Party to make any noticable gains) and have been actively campaigning for the NDP/Liberal deal.

Canadians don't really know Michael Ignatieff yet. His approval rating so far has been very positive. If he comes out locking horns; he'll be called another Harper. He's got to play this smart, and I'm guessing he will. He says that we won't necessarily have a Coalition government, but will have one if necessary. He'd prefer an election. Apparently all Parties are prepared to go to the Polls, though it would appear that perhaps the NDP and Bloc are not as eager. Judging by the apathy of the last Quebec Provinical election, I think they're sick of them. I know I am here in Ontario.

[madmax]

I went to a pro-coalition meeting on monday hosted by the local Green Party. I know they have no seats..... but have been actively campaigning for the NDP/Liberal deal.

The Green Party contribution to the coalition was to set the coalition on its heels and give the ball back to Harper. If I were an LPC/NDP MP there are two things I would want to disassociated myself from as quickly as possible.

1) DION

2) May and the Green Party

Especially since the Green Party has absolutely nothing to do with the coalition in any way shape or form. Nor will they have anything to do with the coalition in any way shape or form in the future.

Right now I am still waiting with baited breathe for the budget.

I am in no favour of an election, but since the CPC can't avoid deficits, I see no reason to allow them to drive us into one on purpose. And since Iggy is supporting large Deficits, I don't think there is anyone with the guts to do the right thing and balance the books while creating a jobs and industrial policy.

The CPC said they were going to run a 100million surplus, but were only out by $32Billion dollars.

Something has to be done.

[myata]

One thing I was hoping the coalition to move forward towards was a more fair system of representation. No, not proportional per se, but at least something to start the ball rolling. As a matter of fact, two (the environment agenda), and, now three (a meaningful counter recession action plan, without driving country down into massive deficits, or at least, massive permanent deficits).

With Ignatief at the Liberal helm, I'm just not sure anymore. I mean I want to hope. But he's just too handsome and too smart (looking) to not stick to the old Liberal adage, and to attempt something fresh and new, for a change. I hope I'm wrong.

[Progressive Tory]

Especially since the Green Party has absolutely nothing to do with the coalition in any way shape or form. Nor will they have anything to do with the coalition in any way shape or form in the future.

The Green Party have a great deal to say as a legal, registered, political party. Cross country they have been involved in active rallies and can certainly campaign to their members why a Coalition gov't is a good option. The full page open letter to Michael Ignatieff was paid for and placed by the Animal Rights Party (Perhaps not their official name).

The buzz recently has been that if there is an election in the near future, we could see a uniting of the left, even if just this once. The Greens are very much involved. As I mentioned last election, theirs was the only Party with significant gains. The Cons were down by 170,000 votes while the Liberals were down over 800,000. The Dion attacks ads should have brought the Liberal losses to the Cons, but it was the exact opposite. They stayed home. The Green Party gained almost 300,000 in an election with the lowest voter turnout. They are a voice to be listened to. It was only our archaic system that kept them out of the House of Commons.

They are actively involved behind the scenes and we're pleased to have them.

[Progressive Tory]

With Ignatief at the Liberal helm, I'm just not sure anymore. I mean I want to hope. But he's just too handsome and too smart (looking) to not stick to the old Liberal adage, and to attempt something fresh and new, for a change. I hope I'm wrong.

Since when is too handsome and too smart a negative? We're just so used to hokey, but look what hokey's done. Bush looked like a monkey and talked like a moron. That can't be your preference.

A PhD at Harvard. Vast International experience. Taught at schools that most University professors only dream of. Film Maker. Author. Political Commentator. It's time for smart. Long overdue, in fact.

[madmax]

One thing I was hoping the coalition to move forward towards was a more fair system of representation.

I have just corrected my sig to remove my proroguing protest and the short term dictatorship and extended vacations of our weak willed MPs. A fair system of representation is one where the government can't shut down parliment because they are having a bad week. In the meantime, the LPC are supporters of status quo, as are the CPC and the Federal NDP are the only party interested in changes to the House. The coalition also requires BQ support, so any changes to the house are a non starter, unless you believe the BQ are ever going to want to surrender seats for a PR system. So the coalition is NOT your choice for democratic change to the house. THe only party for that is the NDP and they would require alot more seats in another election to go down that road, because the LPC will never budge on this issue.

There are only two parties who wish for changes in the Senate. The CPC who want to have elected Senators, except right now they were more driven to fill them up with party hacks. So the only party with any credibility on the Senate issue is the NDP who want it abolished. The CPC would support this as a 2nd option, if Reform became an impossible task, however it looks like they would rather continue to stack the deck then engage in its abolition.

So essentially, party or coalition, you aren't going to see any changes to the system of government for a fairer system of representation.

So, the next question is ......

Why do people believe this is the perfect time for Government to reduce its revenues and increase spending?

I think this is nuts!!!

[cybercoma]

The Liberals will abstain from voting to be able to show their displeasure with the current government without sacrificing their party to the NDP and Bloc. The latter two will continue to vote together against the government for the foreseeable future. When the opportunity is right to take down the government, The Liberal Party will do so. In the subsequent election campaign, Ignatieff will paint the NDP as untrustworthy for having sold themselves out to separatists to try to forward their socialist ideals. At the same time, he will try to paint Stephen Harper as dishonest. Harper said that the opposition was not offering him any support. In response, Ignatieff has already begun creating this image of Harper the liar by saying the PM lifted Ignatieff's ideas verbatim in his throne speech. It would appear that Ignatieff is already setting up for the end game. It should be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

[Progressive Tory]

Why do people believe this is the perfect time for Government to reduce its revenues and increase spending?

I think this is nuts!!!

I think it nuts too, especially reducing revenue. I jumped on the stimulus band wagon, but am poised to jump off, or at least drag behind. I've been reading reviews from leading economists, who first off absolutely protest tax cuts. But the other problem for Canada is one that I hadn't really considered.

The Baby Boomers.

If we reduce our revenues too much at this time, we are going to be sunk in the near future, because the baby boomers are now hitting retirement age. We're losing revenues already in that natural progression.

We will never be able to get them back because no government will raise taxes, no matter how much sense it makes. We might want to curb this a bit. There's no way we can cut taxes AND increase spending. No way under the sun.

[Alta4ever]

The Baby Boomers.

If we reduce our revenues too much at this time, we are going to be sunk in the near future, because the baby boomers are now hitting retirement age. We're losing revenues already in that natural progression.

Most of those Baby boomers have been saving in RRSP's for retirement, this money is going to be taxed a the marginal tax rate not like capital gains or dividends, this will not be a huge hit to government tax revenue.

[myata]

So essentially, party or coalition, you aren't going to see any changes to the system of government for a fairer system of representation.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in this equation is people. People who'd want to see a system more reflective of their views of the world, rather than that stuck in the 18 century. I tired of basically the same guys (with maybe rare exceptions in between, like Trudeau or Harper) painting themselves in different hues and pretending to lead the alternative ways of government. A real true democracy should be able to represent the views of population more precisely than 40% of vote = 90% of representation, period.

So, in another country another time, somewhere where people would be interested and involved in a democratic change (no matter which part of the spectrum their particular political preference would fall), the incentive to go along with the change would be strong. If that's not us, then leaders like Chretien and Harper would be our best hope for many years. I mean what would a strong visionary leader have to do in an atmosphere where "do nothing and stick to the power at all cost" is the slogan of the day?

To P.-C.: sure, but we have yet to see his leadership talents. They haven't come out strong in the recent years at the top of the Liberal pyramid, while inconsistencies and gaffes did. I'm still waiting to hear why exactly he needs to be up where, other than, of course, to become PM and get the Liberals to govern again (which makes him vaguely reminiscent of another politician I know). I mean, sure, but what would it have to do with me? or the country?

[normanchateau]

Canadians don't really know Michael Ignatieff yet. His approval rating so far has been very positive. If he comes out locking horns; he'll be called another Harper. He's got to play this smart, and I'm guessing he will. He says that we won't necessarily have a Coalition government, but will have one if necessary. He'd prefer an election.

What a difference between December and January.

In December, Canadians were so outraged at a Dion-lead coalition, that polls indicated they wanted an election and Harper's popularity soared in those polls.

So the Liberals dumped Dion and replaced him with the far more strategic Ignatieff. Ignatieff now walks Harper, canine-like, on a leash. Harper is so desperate to keep his job, as demonstrated by his grovelling to the GG in December, that Ignatieff now knows exactly what he needs to do to maintain control. He just needs to threaten Harper and Harper's professed principles of a lifetime are completely abandoned. The National Citizens Coalition is outraged at today's budget. Harper, who once lead the National Citizens Coalition, has shown that his principles, be they fiscal conservatism or social conservatism, mean nothing if they cost him his job.

In the months to come, as Ignatieff continues to pull the leash and control Harper, Harper's image with Canadians will more closely resemble that of Dion...weak. Moreover, just as Dion could never explain his carbon tax to the average Canadian, Harper will find it increasingly difficult to explain what exactly it is that he stands for, other than clasping and grasping for the only high-paying job he's ever had in his life.

Ignatieff knows that bringing down the government now could backfire on him. He's far wiser to allow Harper to continue to self-destruct before he finally pulls the plug.

Harper had his chance of a lifetime in October when he campaigned against Dion. Now he will face Ignatieff and the weak leader ads won't work. Instead, he'll need to rely on "too urbane", "too intellectual", "too-out-of-touch", "too elitist", "too-long-outside-Canada", ad nauseam. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "weak".

Now that Ignatieff has Harper on a leash, perhaps we'll finally see Liberal ads decrying the weak CPC leader.

CPC's only hope now of winning a majority next time is dumping Harper for someone like Charest, Lord, etc.

Or maybe Harper will do the honourable thing, if he actually cares about his party more than himself, and resign.

[DrGreenthumb]

"Progressive Tory" is like Jack Layton whereas he only believes his own words as truths and rejects any outside info as disinformation coming from the desk of PM Harper. Or so it would seem.

Progressive Tory is a SHE, I think SHE has repeatedly made this CLEAR. I swear you purposely call her "he" just to be a dickhead.

Edited January 28, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

[Argus]

A PhD at Harvard. Vast International experience. Taught at schools that most University professors only dream of. Film Maker. Author. Political Commentator. It's time for smart. Long overdue, in fact.

Bill Clinton was a highly educated, highly intelligent man - and a fool without the restraint or common sense God gave monkeys.

[madmax]

The Green Party have a great deal to say as a legal, registered, political party.

They have no role in the coalition document. Neither does the Animal Rights Party, Animal Alliance Party, Marijuana Party, nor any other fringe party.

The coalition does not represent a Unit the Left movement either. Many on the "left" such as the Communist, and Marxist Leninists, and such believe that the coalition is a Movement to the Centre Right.

Infact, based upon the Current CPC budget, the Marxist might have more in common with the CPC (Conservatives) then the other CPC (the Communists)

The only role the Green Party had, was to prove to the LPC that if they adopt Green Party Policy, they would receive their biggest shallacking in their parties history.

If you mean that you wish to see the GP surrender their candidates in a federal election, an easier way to achieve this goal would be to retract the public handout to political parties. They would fold their tents up in numerous ridings.

In the meantime, look to the Liberals to support this budget. It represents the best economic policy of the Trudeau era (The last time Iggy knew what Canada looked like in a recession), and Mulroney Era.

Fortin..... show me your budget

[madmax]

Bill Clinton was a highly educated, highly intelligent man - and a fool without the restraint or common sense God gave monkeys.

Your absolutely right.

Bill Clinton was followed by Curious George.

[Riverwind]

A fair system of representation is one where the government can't shut down parliment because they are having a bad week.

I don't understand this obession with the prorogation - given the consequences for the county a timeout was certainly called for and the prorogation does not prevent the coalition from voting down the budget and trying to form a government. In fact, Paul Martin resorted to similar parlimentary rule games to delay a confidence vote in 2006 - were you complaining then? Whether you like it or not the parlimentary system has a myriad of rules and traditions which are designed to ensure due process and stability. Prorogation is just another one of those rules and there is nothing unfair about it. Edited January 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[madmax]

Prorogation is just another one of those rules and there is nothing unfair about it.

Government should not have the right to suspend parliment to avoid a confidence vote. As for delays, the PM delayed the vote once, then retracted most of the content in the confidence meaure.

I have every reason to believe that had Prime Minister Harper had the courage to face the vote, it would have passed. The reason being Dion was heading the coalition and making a mockery of it.

Today Harper has become just another Liberal dressed in Blue.

[Mr.Canada]

Government should not have the right to suspend parliment to avoid a confidence vote. As for delays, the PM delayed the vote once, then retracted most of the content in the confidence meaure.

I have every reason to believe that had Prime Minister Harper had the courage to face the vote, it would have passed. The reason being Dion was heading the coalition and making a mockery of it.

Today Harper has become just another Liberal dressed in Blue.

I see, so in your mind a Coalition seizing power that wasn't elected to sit in the PMO is fine but prorogation isn't?