Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Although, I guess it's more like scraping the bottom of the barrel. However, I got an email from him asking for my input. And before you say it, I know it was a mass mail out, but this is my dream so don't pinch me yet. Dear Friends, During my January economic listening tour – and by way of thousands of emails – you provided me with a litmus test for the upcoming budget, and I shared your views with Mr. Harper. I told him that in order for his budget to earn the support of the Liberal Party, it must do three things: 1) protect the most vulnerable Canadians – those hardest hit by these difficult times, 2) protect the jobs of today, in every region of the country, and 3) create the jobs of tomorrow, strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and productivity without leaving our children to inherit a legacy of debt and deficit. Later today, when the government releases its budget we will be looking to see if it meets this test and whether Stephen Harper is serious about addressing the economic challenges we face after failing to act for so long. In order to make the right decision for Canada, I will be taking some time to review the contents of the budget, and will return with our Party’s decision on Wednesday. In the meantime, I want to hear from you. Please let me know if you think the budget meets your test by clicking here: As I’ve said before, we are in this crisis together and we will get out of it together. I look forward to hearing from you. Michael I'm pretty sure mine was the only one he signed that way. We're on a first name basis now. I clicked and responded: The overall budget seemed OK. I'm concerned about two things. 1. The accuracy of the figures and five year projection. 2. Tax cuts that could extend the deficit. As a grandmother I worry about my grandchildren's future. The Baby Boomers are now retiring so we'll be losing a vital segment of our economic base as they begin to tap into services they once propped up. Not all their jobs will be filled during this economic instability, and I'm not sure this budget takes that into account. It's definitely a different approach for the Liberals. He's taking a page from Preston Manning's book by engaging the grassroots. It worked for me. Just sent them another $ 20.00; but we've got to stop meeting like this. I'm gonna' be broke. Just wish he didn't remind me so much of my dad, because I could very easily fall in love. Edited January 28, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
madmax Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 It's definitely a different approach for the Liberals. He's taking a page from Preston Manning's book by engaging the grassroots. It worked for me. Just sent them another $ 20.00; but we've got to stop meeting like this. I'm gonna' be broke. Another Lottery Winning? You make a great case for ending public funding. Quote
Topaz Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Iggy, really has a problem with his budget. I think the deficit is too large, although 15 Billion was created right off by the Tories. There's not enough on the EI, the infrastructure is asking too much from people, the 1/3,1/3,1/3 hits cities or towns who may not have the money and then the Tories come back and say we you can get a low interest loan. He's charging tax payers money on their money??? The retraining part,I like to know what jobs would be there to retrain and then what happens to the people that do get retraining but can't find a job. This budget needs a lot of amends. Down the road the Tories need to go for the 15 Billion deficit, that's the12+3 Billion they had in surplus. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Posted January 28, 2009 Another Lottery Winning? You make a great case for ending public funding. Nope. No lottery winnings this time. My point is that the new approach of engaging the grassroots could very well inspire people to donate because nowhere in the email did he ask for a donation. In the past, I was always turned off by any letter that included the words 'Donate Here'. For no logical reason on earth, the email made me feel good...connected. Like I was a part of this. Despite what many people may think here, I'm not an idiot. The chance of his ever reading my response are slim to none. I just like that I was able to respond anyway. It was worth the 20 bucks. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
85RZ500 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Your man Michael! what a laugh. The arrogant sot is now saying the Tories will have to make accomodating changes, but in the game of politics that's anticipated and planned for. He ought not to send an e-mail to me, I'll tell him how I really feel. Did you sign your love letter "Progressive Tory"? Edited January 28, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Posted January 28, 2009 Iggy, really has a problem with his budget. I think the deficit is too large, although 15 Billion was created right off by the Tories. There's not enough on the EI, the infrastructure is asking too much from people, the 1/3,1/3,1/3 hits cities or towns who may not have the money and then the Tories come back and say we you can get a low interest loan. He's charging tax payers money on their money??? The retraining part,I like to know what jobs would be there to retrain and then what happens to the people that do get retraining but can't find a job. This budget needs a lot of amends. Down the road the Tories need to go for the 15 Billion deficit, that's the12+3 Billion they had in surplus. I know he's wrestling with it. His head is telling him these cuts are not the way to go, but how does he say 'no tax cuts' or 'fewer tax cuts'. I wish that the Conservatives had acted ...well...more conservatively. Stimulate the economy while promising Canadians that if the stimulus works, we'll look at tax cuts next year, or sometime in the near future. Simple logic tells us that you can't increase spending and reduce revenue. It's insane. We don't know if either of these measures will work. If both fail we're in a heap of doodoo. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Posted January 28, 2009 Your man Michael! what a laugh.The arrogant sot is now saying the Tories will have to make accomodating changes, but in the game of politics that's anticipated and planned for. He ought not to send an e-mail to me, I'll tell him how I really feel. Did you sign your love letter "Progressive Tory"? Good I'm glad he's giving it more thought and asking for changes. I spent about an hour this morning reading newspapers, but paying attention to the comments. The word 'deficit' is the boogey man and if we're going to go down that road, we have to go slowly. I can't accept more spending and less revenue. Not the Conservative approach and as a Red Tory, it makes no sense. Thank gawd Iggy is paying attention. He the man. But no I signed my email 'your loyal and faithful servant' with a PS. Could I get a sample of your DNA? You look like my dad and I could use a new brother. The two I have are broke. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 There's plenty wrong with it, Topaz-- not the least of which is the expectation that there will likely be all sorts of red-tape obstruction on the spending side of it.... but it's not all horrible, and frankly, SOME action is darned well urgent. The employment sitution right here is visibly even worse today than it was two weeks ago, and there's a 'tumble' effect that isn't slowing down. This employer fails, therefore that one is on the way out fast, and that ends the next.... not pretty at all. From a state of 'anyone who was willing to show up semi-regularly can be working TODAY' to scrounge and pray and call in markers, and then if you are really lucky.... all in a matter of 3 or 4 months. I want this one passed, not because I particularly like it-- it holds some of the worst elements of all ideologies-- but because we don't have time to wait 'til it's perfected. We are just going to have to bite the bullet, and prepare to pay the piper if and when we have the capacity to do so. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 I know he's wrestling with it. His head is telling him these cuts are not the way to go, but how does he say 'no tax cuts' or 'fewer tax cuts'. I wish that the Conservatives had acted ...well...more conservatively. Stimulate the economy while promising Canadians that if the stimulus works, we'll look at tax cuts next year, or sometime in the near future. Simple logic tells us that you can't increase spending and reduce revenue. It's insane. We don't know if either of these measures will work. If both fail we're in a heap of doodoo. Well, anyone in business knows that if you REDUCE taxes to make more businesses healthier you will INCREASE revenues! When businesses are over-taxed revenues tend to fall. This is because businesses tend to suffer and also to simply pick up and leave! I live in Hamilton, Ontario. I've been watching the results of our silly-assed municipal councillors taxing and killing off business for years! Now we reap the whirlwind. When your major industrial tax base is gone you have no choice but to raise residential taxes! It seems to me that what Iggy is doing is just the usual smoke and mirrors. Not that I'm criticizing! It seems that's what you have to do to please your choir. Our lowest common denominator strikes me as pretty low indeed. I think he decided weeks ago that he would not bring down the government. That being said, he would be stupid not to try for some brownie points! He will say that for the most part he's happy with the budget but that's only because the Opposition had successfully forced Harper to be reasonable. Then he might try to get a couple of amendments, in order to claim that the Liberals had a more direct hand in making it 'better for all Canadians'. It's 10:30 in the morning as I type this. Give it another half hour and we'll all find out! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Posted January 28, 2009 I want this one passed, not because I particularly like it-- it holds some of the worst elements of all ideologies-- but because we don't have time to wait 'til it's perfected. We are just going to have to bite the bullet, and prepare to pay the piper if and when we have the capacity to do so. It goes against everything I believe in as well, but like you, know that we need immediate stimulus. I just don't like the revenue reducing side. However, bear in mind that the Opposition do have an alternative budget, which they are prepared to present if this one is voted down. Liberals drafting shadow budget We won't have to wait weeks. If the Tories can't meet the Opposition in the middle, they can meet them on the other side of the room. It's their choice, and since they're not ready for an election right now, I think they'll pay attention. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Wilber Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Simple logic tells us that you can't increase spending and reduce revenue. It's insane. We don't know if either of these measures will work. If both fail we're in a heap of doodoo. Well what is it you want to do? From a bottom line point of view reducing revenue is the same as increasing spending. You want to get money into the economy in order to stimulate it. Which is the better way to go, give it to the people directly through tax cuts so they can spend or give it to a bunch of bureaucrats to spread around as they are so much better at it. The issue is one of dogma not finance, whether it is spent according to the governments priorities or individual Canadians priorities, there will be a deficit either way. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 give it to a bunch of bureaucrats to spread around as they are so much better at it. That's not what the stimulus spending is for. It is used to give people who have lost their jobs potential employment. That way, they can have money to spend. For those people, tax cuts would do next to nothing. Quote
Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 SOME tax cuts can be quite directly stimulative. I don't think an income tax cut is effective on that front, but the ones to do with housing likely are. Just like some spending is just urinating money against the wall (bigger cabinet, for instance) while infrastructure spending- assuming the money actually gets out there- directly and immediately creates both employment AND physical assets that we will benefit from for decades to come. How it's cut, and how it's spent is more meaningful than just that either has been done. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 However... Iggy is performing rather well just now. Harpers future, and that of the Conservatives, is in bigger trouble than the economy! Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Topaz Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 It seems the only job creation that Harper has done is making government bigger and costing more to run. I've never seen so more members packed on one side of the Commons. Harper will have to be the Libs servant or he'll have to call another election and sooner or late Harper is going to be gone! Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Looks like I was right! Iggy did as predicted! Wish I was that good with lottery tickets... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
madmax Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Nope. No lottery winnings this time. My point is that the new approach of engaging the grassroots could very well inspire people to donate because nowhere in the email did he ask for a donation. In the past, I was always turned off by any letter that included the words 'Donate Here'. For no logical reason on earth, the email made me feel good...connected. Like I was a part of this. Despite what many people may think here, I'm not an idiot. The chance of his ever reading my response are slim to none. I just like that I was able to respond anyway. It was worth the 20 bucks. How much does it cost to be a member of the LPC? Quote
Wilber Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 That's not what the stimulus spending is for. It is used to give people who have lost their jobs potential employment. That way, they can have money to spend. For those people, tax cuts would do next to nothing. So we just give money to the unemployed? That's it? The income tax cut is for the bottom bracket as it should be. People trying to eke out a living on minimum wage should not be paying income tax in a graduated system. They are paying largely because of the de-indexing done by Martin if you want to get partisan about it but no matter, we are where we are. The government has taken a shotgun approach to this budget. They have hit pretty much everything, hoping that some or all of it will do some good and that maybe each action will have a positive effect on the others. Who knows if that is the right approach because no one really knows what if anything will work. Disagreement on the appropriate stimulus is based at least as much on ideology as reality. Our government can only do so much a the best of times and as long as the economy of our biggest trading partner is in the tank and that of the rest isn't much better, it's influence is even more limited. We'll see. I was watching Amanda Lang interview Jim Pattison on BNN last night. He was one of the ones brought in to give advice. While he wouldn't discuss details of the discussions, he said he was impressed with the conduct of Flaherty, saying he listened to everyone, asked lots of questions and took lots of notes. Did he take the advice? Don't know because I believe the interview was done before the budget was announced as he didn't discuss specifics. This is from a guy who rose from nothing to build what is probably the biggest private company in the country and has a reputation for integrity and public service that anyone would envy. His opinion carries a lot of weight with me compared to partisan politicians from any side. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
85RZ500 Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Ignatief has given the Tories instructions to deliver three report cards on specific dates during this year. Ever the professor, arrogant and aloof. If I was Harper I'd roll the dice, Go ahead lead the country with the socialist and the separatist, I'll sit back and watch the implosion. Quote
Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 ... and then explain to taxpayers why it was important for them to recieve no assurance that his word was worth anything? Explain why his budget was no good, if anyone could actually check up on whether he was following it? Even the Tory spinmeisters couldn't put a good face on that one. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Rue Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 There's plenty wrong with it, Topaz-- not the least of which is the expectation that there will likely be all sorts of red-tape obstruction on the spending side of it.... but it's not all horrible, and frankly, SOME action is darned well urgent. The employment sitution right here is visibly even worse today than it was two weeks ago, and there's a 'tumble' effect that isn't slowing down. This employer fails, therefore that one is on the way out fast, and that ends the next.... not pretty at all. From a state of 'anyone who was willing to show up semi-regularly can be working TODAY' to scrounge and pray and call in markers, and then if you are really lucky.... all in a matter of 3 or 4 months. I want this one passed, not because I particularly like it-- it holds some of the worst elements of all ideologies-- but because we don't have time to wait 'til it's perfected. We are just going to have to bite the bullet, and prepare to pay the piper if and when we have the capacity to do so. Stop talking common sense and sounding reasonable. Before you know it, it may spread on this forum. Quote
madmax Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 The employment sitution right here is visibly even worse today than it was two weeks ago, and there's a 'tumble' effect that isn't slowing down. This employer fails, therefore that one is on the way out fast, and that ends the next.... not pretty at all. I like the rest of your comments....but I singled out this piece. It is an accurate portrayal of how rapidly the dominoes are tipping. However, there is nothing in the budget that is going to change the direction of profitable companies from leaving. They are not going broke, or bankrupt, they are leaving. Thus plant closures are being mistaken for a bankrupt operation. However, there are many many suppliers who are affected by these larger companies leaving for greener pastures and they do risk bankruptcy. On the other front, those companies that are heading towards insolvency may have no reprieve. Those companies not making a profit are not going to benefit from a tax break. I do not like this budget because it takes alot of money and does very little with it. It feels like a compromise budget, partially sound in intent but using poor tools to achieve the intended goal. In the end the taxpayer is going to be holding the bag and no further off in 6 months or 1 year. However, I understand your thoughts, of lets get on with it.... Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 I like the rest of your comments....but I singled out this piece. It is an accurate portrayal of how rapidly the dominoes are tipping. However, there is nothing in the budget that is going to change the direction of profitable companies from leaving. They are not going broke, or bankrupt, they are leaving. Thus plant closures are being mistaken for a bankrupt operation. However, there are many many suppliers who are affected by these larger companies leaving for greener pastures and they do risk bankruptcy.On the other front, those companies that are heading towards insolvency may have no reprieve. Those companies not making a profit are not going to benefit from a tax break. I do not like this budget because it takes alot of money and does very little with it. It feels like a compromise budget, partially sound in intent but using poor tools to achieve the intended goal. In the end the taxpayer is going to be holding the bag and no further off in 6 months or 1 year. However, I understand your thoughts, of lets get on with it.... Somehow, it seems to me like Harper is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Iggy is in the catbird seat. Harper is first accused of being ideologically rigid by refusing to go into deficit. The Coalitionistas force him to run a huge 'stimulus deficit' or wear the name of being inflexible and uncaring. Later on of course if things don't improve fast enough they can accuse him of hurting us with an unnecessarily BIG deficit! Harper can't refuse to play Iggy's game or he'll get whacked by the Coalition Stick! It just seems so typically Canadian! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Posted January 28, 2009 Sauce for the goose... Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Progressive Tory Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Posted January 28, 2009 Well what is it you want to do? From a bottom line point of view reducing revenue is the same as increasing spending. You want to get money into the economy in order to stimulate it. Which is the better way to go, give it to the people directly through tax cuts so they can spend or give it to a bunch of bureaucrats to spread around as they are so much better at it. The issue is one of dogma not finance, whether it is spent according to the governments priorities or individual Canadians priorities, there will be a deficit either way. I don't get your logic. He's doing both and I posted links here before about the myth that tax cuts are good for the economy. With the threat of job losses the extra money will go in the bank or to pay down exisiting debt. For those out of work, how will a cut to their (lack of) income tax help? It's dangerous ground, but at least the Cons will wear it. Mr. "I'l never run a deficit', 'I won't be forced into a deficit', is a woose. Stephen Harper is not a leader. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.