Ignatieff says stimulus, "Not working..."

Oleg Bach · February 10, 2009

I don't think he said that exactly, but your comment did make me chuckle. In a good way.

I do remember Harper telling MacLeans' Magazine that he was for 'Alberta First and Canada a Distant second', so at least we were kinda' like a close second here.

Province like family should come first - but with the demise of the family - the provincial family suffers - and that suffering spreads to the national family - a healthy and stable home (province) is a must. Of course Canada the national mansion is important - but the rooms of that house must be maintained first...No point in having a centralized government if the rest of the body is weak - centralization is usually a thing wanted for power and powers sake alone..that's not good enough to guarentee sustainable prosperity and stablity...The provinces are the arms and legs of Ottawa - much like a nuclear power faclity has no power or purpose standing alone without leads going out to light the towns...Power must not be horderd - Power is the granting of power as is respect the transphere of power that is mutual.

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

I just can't help thinking this is all planned out for the creation of the NAU and before any of you ask about the toaster, just stop and think what is REALLY happening.

You know what? My microwave told me today that the Commies are behind the whole damn thing. LOL.

Just kidding. I don't like the idea of a North American dollar. The U.S. dollar is backed by trillions of dollars in debt. We've got natural resources up the wazoo. And what is Mexico contributing? I think we're getting the shaft.

Obama is not as eager as Bush/Harper for this to happen, so time will tell. Keep listening to your toaster though. Sometimes our appliances make a lot of sense, though I only let my dog choose my lottery numbers or tell me who to kill.

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

If we give in - there will be no guiding light for Mexico and America. We must hold our ground - It's our duty!

Exactly. I like who we are.

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

Sure...hold your ground...and keep peeking over the fence to see what else you can't control!

We'll take all our comedians back. Then who'll have the last laugh?

Oleg Bach · February 10, 2009

We'll take all our comedians back. Then who'll have the last laugh?

We can leave them with only one - that aging and lost Rich Little who will do stand up imitations of Nixon - dated comedy but they don't deserve more than that - the rest we bring home ---- and leave the Americans in an eternal damnational loop of a voice repeating over and over again "I am not a crook" :lol:

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2009

We'll take all our comedians back. Then who'll have the last laugh?

Richard Pryor was not Canadian.....too "black" ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

The first thing the budget should have done was to build confidence in the markets. It has failed to do that and so Ignatieff says "its not working". It is an accurate observation.

I read the whole thing (not just the Globe and Mail), and there were many concerns raised, and not just by Ignatieff. First off, it was the conflicting reports. Harper saying no more deficit spending, and Flaherty saying more could come. Which is it?

The fact is that I don't think anyone knows for sure what's going to happen. However, with consistently more bad news, we can't be rigid with this at all.

Another problem is Flaherty's figures have many people questioning their validity. Econonomists may have conflicting predictions, but most seem to agree that the numbers just don't add up.

Flaherty needs to take the advice of the constipated accountant and work it out with a pencil.

Oleg Bach · February 10, 2009

Most "markets" these days are the trading or air. These are the first markets that the public has lost faith in. Rightfully so - if the market is a concoctional scheme then it deserves to fall - our markets like our fiat currencey are based on belief and faith just like a religion..the first religions to fall are the false ones..that are engineered by fraudists...good buy to what we don't need - It's not so bad - Markets that are real and offer real value that sustains the world physically will stand and continue to be bought and sold. Tech products are useless and have an inbuilt addictive quality ----get a pen and some paper - real low tech and no batteries - BUT our young can not communicate with a pen..they are conditioned and addicted to high tech --- just like the useless cashier with the computer --- takes twice as long to process you at the super market than the mathematically adept individual.

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

One must admit that you have to be fully and cruely indoctrinated in the ideas of social economic Darwinism to fit into this group. If Conservative bankers assist in the installment of conservative governments you most certainly will get a bit of over entitlement and contempt for human nature and justifying your negative actions against the people though the misplaced concept that humanity is base and animalistic and not to be sympathized with.

You do have a point, only I don't really think this has much to do with social Darwinism or the Divine Right of Kings. I used the glutton analogy more to describe the obscene nature of the act. Harper is dishing out money to his caucus on silver platters, while Canadians are losing their jobs, their homes and I just read that bankrupties are on the rise. How can he justify that to Canadians?

But back to the base and animalisitic. It has been said that a man (sexist? Who, me?) will buy a big car to compensate for the size of his.... hmmm .... portfolio.

Since the election, Harper has continually claimed that Canadians gave him a stronger mandate, and that rhetoric has been picked up by supporters and mainstream media. However, I've posted the numbers many times. He drove 850,000 votes from the Liberals last election, but kept none of those for himself. In fact, the Cons were also down by 170,000 from 2006. Harper is not a stupid man. He knows what those numbers mean and that only vote splitting gave him more seats.

This crowd surrounding him, gives the illusion of a stronger mandate, and sends an 'in your face' to the Opposition. However, this country is in financial turmoil, so the message is having more of an effect on the Canadian people. I've read that complaint on message boards across the country. They don't care if it's more women or chimpanzees. They just don't like paying for such excess.

Your economic and social Darwinism comes into play with party subsidies, though. While I don't for even a nano-second believe that he ever had any intention of going through with it; the posturing put him in an elitist position. Our Party can afford to lose 10 million dollars - your's can't. Then we read that although they garnered roughly 1/3 of the popular vote, the Conservatives racked up 400% of political contributions. Another 'in your face' to the Opposition, but a feeling to the public that this is a Party for the wealthy.

One political commentator on election night (can't remember his name, though I should); suggested that the low voter turnout could work in favour of the Conservatives, because their supporters were mostly older and richer. Do the unemployed believe that old rich guys care what happens to them?

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

Province like family should come first

That's OK for a premier to make comments like that, not the Prime Minister. However, in his defense, he wasn't PM then. Ignatieff's remark is that while he is a Liberal, there are times when partisanship has to be set aside. This is one of those times.

National unity is also important. We need to find Canadian solutions to Canadian problems; and engage all provinces and territories.

I would actually like to see a 30 day ceasefire in Parliament. For one month, all Parties agree not to attack each other, but focus on the business at hand. Do you think they could do it?

Edited February 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

We can leave them with only one - that aging and lost Rich Little who will do stand up imitations of Nixon - dated comedy but they don't deserve more than that - the rest we bring home ---- and leave the Americans in an eternal damnational loop of a voice repeating over and over again "I am not a crook"

:lol:

Is Rich Little still alive? I haven't heard from him in ages. He was passing through Kingston years ago, and was stranded somewhere. A passing motorist helped him out not knowing who he was. Mr. Little got his name and address and a few days later a huge colour TV was delivered as a thank you note. That was quite a status symbol in those days, when most of us still had black & white. I thought that was quite nice.

Topaz · February 10, 2009

I just wished the politicians could get the package passed! I bet if they had to pass it BEFORE they got their pay cheques if would have been done by now. Welfare is up for those who can't get EI or is waiting for it and I can see that Canada's economic getting worse just of the slowness of Ottawa. Where's the very rich or the rich for that matter, THEY are the ones that can afford to go out and buy and not worry were there next dollar is going to come from. They need to donate to the food banks because the middle-comers are just trying to survive this recession/depression era. To the rich, remember you can't take it with you when your times comes and how much is enough??

Progressive Tory · February 10, 2009

I just wished the politicians could get the package passed!

I agree, however, these things rarely just get rubber stamped. There were 317 pages to digest.

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2009

If Harper was serious about ending the subsidy, he should have been interested in ending the personal tax deduction for all political donations. That would include personal taxes.
What do you think of that?

Excellent idea and I support it fully.

But you have dodged my question. Why is that? I know you are committed to saving taxpayer money and treating all parties in a fair, and unpartisan fashion.

Does the Prime Minister enjoy your support for this simple, easily implemented cut?

Or not?

Moonbox · February 10, 2009

I'm curious as well. Care to answer the ACTUAL question?

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2009

jdobbin appears to have nodded off again.

I'll try for the third time.

Another easily implementeed idea that would save a few million would be to end taxpayer subsidy of all political parties.
What do you think?

jdobbin · February 10, 2009

Excellent idea and I support it fully.
But you have dodged my question. Why is that? I know you are committed to saving taxpayer money and treating all parties in a fair, and unpartisan fashion.

I didn't support the economic statement because it was a dodge on doing anything on economic stimulus. All the while, it was an attempt to hamstring the other parties and call an election before May.

In other words, Harper was not to be trusted. He wasn't interested in saving money, he was looking to call a $300 million election before Ignatieff took over.

Does the Prime Minister enjoy your support for this simple, easily implemented cut?
Or not?

I have no problem cutting it now because Harper put up his stimulus plan and Ignatieff is in place.

However, his plan for ending the subsidy better include ending personal deductions, spending limits for party functions and polling, an end to advertising outside of election periods and the like.

If he is *really* interested in ending subsidies, he will think of ending the tax deductions for churches who just use the money to prop themselves up rather than charitable works.

Edited February 10, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · February 10, 2009

jdobbin appears to have nodded off again.
I'll try for the third time.

I'm not on every hour of the day.

Answered the question already. End the subsidy now if you like.

My personal view of what Harper did with the economic statement was play games and that it was his attempt at getting ready for an election while Dion was still at the helm.

The majority of polling seems to agree with that view that it was gameplaying even if they didn't approve of the coalition as an alternative.

So do you agree that the economic statement was an attempt for advantage for Harper?

Edited February 10, 2009 by jdobbin

Moonbox · February 10, 2009

So do you agree that the economic statement was an attempt for advantage for Harper?

I'll agree it was done primarily to further weaken the opposition's finances yes. As far as the budget is concerned it was pretty much a drop of water in an ocean.

Even so it's difficult to justify the subsidy in the first place.

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2009

So do you agree that the economic statement was an attempt for advantage for Harper?

No.

I would agree that the part of the economic statement that referred to party financing was an attempt to kick the Liberals and Bloc where it would hurt them most. It was stupid and inappropriate. It is easy to see how he'd make it, he had just spent 18 months feeding the insatiable Liberal appetite for s**t sandwiches. But, it was stil a major overplay and an attempt to gain political advantage at the wrong time.

Of course, the 'Opposition' responded disproportionately to that with threats of coalition six weeks after an election.....and they have yet to actually feel the backlash from that poor decision. Ignatieff knows this and is acting accordingly. Duceppe knows this and does not care, his voter demographic is unique and almost stupidproof. Layton is alone in apparently failing to not see the danger that awaits him next campaign. He needs to get as far away from any coaltion idea as possible, at least temporarily.

and like the man said, it is difficult to justify the subsidy in any case......

Edited February 10, 2009 by fellowtraveller

fellowtraveller · February 10, 2009

I'm not on every hour of the day.

yet you still had time to ignore it and answer with your own question.

I aplaud your time management skills.

Oleg Bach · February 10, 2009

yet you still had time to ignore it and answer with your own question.
I aplaud your time management skills.

I hope that compliment makes the back of his hand sore!

jdobbin · February 10, 2009

yet you still had time to ignore it and answer with your own question.

I didn't ignore it. I wanted to know if you were playing the same game playing that the Tory brass were.

Edited February 10, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · February 10, 2009

No.

So you think it is inconceivable that Harper would have called an election while Dion was still in place?

My thinking is that is exactly what we were looking at. The Tories did not want to go a few years at the helm producing deficits with the threat of an election under a new Liberal leader. Given today's polls, I think you can see why. Harper wanted to make sure that the budget in 2009 faced no challenges from a Liberal party that was struggling under the new rules for financing amidst a leadership race and helmed in the interim by Dion.

It was the perfect storm and Harper thought there was going to be no problem seeing through a hyperpartisan document and reap the rewards later on.

I would agree that the part of the economic statement that referred to party financing was an attempt to kick the Liberals and Bloc where it would hurt them most. It was stupid and inappropriate. It is easy to see how he'd make it, he had just spent 18 months feeding the insatiable Liberal appetite for s**t sandwiches. But, it was stil a major overplay and an attempt to gain political advantage at the wrong time.

And now he is seeing polls where the Liberals are passing his party in popularity. He is seeing a party that turfed Dion, ended a prolonged Liberal race and distanced itself from the coalition.

This couldn't have been what he was thinking about when he decided to politicize the economic statement just days after saying he was going to work with the Opposition.

Of course, the 'Opposition' responded disproportionately to that with threats of coalition six weeks after an election.....and they have yet to actually feel the backlash from that poor decision. Ignatieff knows this and is acting accordingly. Duceppe knows this and does not care, his voter demographic is unique and almost stupidproof. Layton is alone in apparently failing to not see the danger that awaits him next campaign. He needs to get as far away from any coaltion idea as possible, at least temporarily.

The backlash ended the moment the coalition possibility ended according to most poll results.

and like the man said, it is difficult to justify the subsidy in any case......

Perhaps next time Harper will actually run on the idea in an election instead of introducing it as he did in a matter of confidence while thumbing his nose at the promise not to act like a horse's ass.

jdobbin · February 10, 2009

I'll agree it was done primarily to further weaken the opposition's finances yes. As far as the budget is concerned it was pretty much a drop of water in an ocean.

And as a part of the initial package on economic stimulus, it was going to hard for the Opposition to support if all it was going to be was a hyperpartisan document set up to spring an election a few months later. It is no wonder that the Opposition said "let's get it over now if this is the way the next months are going to be."

My personal feeling is that Dion should have simply said the Liberals were going to vote against the document and didn't talk about the coalition. They then should have proposed amendments such as limiting party spending to see how serious the Tories were about party financing.

They should have tossed a few amendments the Tories way.