The Liberal leader says a Liberal government is going to raise taxes&#

Alta4ever · April 15, 2009

And I will argue what Harper has said in the past. He said no deficits and we have a deficit. He has said no new taxes and that is a promise he can't make.
This thread is about anything we want to talk about that is on the subject of taxes.

Yet I kep telling you this thread is not about what you are speculating will come from the Conservaitve party or about Harper, it is about what Ignatieff actually said.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

Yet I kep telling you this thread is not about what you are speculating will come from the Conservaitve party or about Harper, it is about what Ignatieff actually said.

I am not speculating. I am telling you what Harper actually said and it was that he was not going to run a deficit. If he was wrong about that, what else is he wrong about?

I'd rather have someone not rule out the possibility of a tax increase that to blatantly say it won't happen in light of a deficit.

And since you have made it clear that no taxes is where your vote is going to go, I hope that you don't turn around and vote Tory and find some contorted reason to do so if they do raise taxes.

Edited April 16, 2009 by jdobbin

capricorn · April 16, 2009

And if Harper raises taxes I'll be sure to remind you of this conversation.

Be my guest.

Canadians don't want deficits from here to eternity.

Also, I doubt Canadians want spending on new social programs requiring tax increases to fund them. In addition to a carbon tax, the Liberals are entertaining:

- A national, publicly funded child care program

- Increased maternity and parental leave benefits, which would be extended to part-time and self-employed workers.

- Expanded medicare to include publicly funded home care, dental and vision and mental health care.

- Endorsement of the principles of the $5-billion Kelowna Accord to improve the lot of aboriginal peoples.

- Development of a national electrical power grid.

- Enforceable national clean water standards and binding legislation prohibiting bulk water exports.

- An "aggressive" affordable housing program.

- Expansion of passenger rail "in every possible way across Canada."

- A guaranteed living standard for all full-time adult workers, above the poverty line in each region.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

It's no wonder Ignatieff foresees raising taxes.

Hydraboss · April 16, 2009

The current deficit is easy to counteract. Just take the money from the EI fund.

Paul Martin stole $60 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money from the fund and miraculously made the deficit disappear. All Harper has to do is follow in Liberal Party footsteps.

And Dobbin, if there were any way true conservatives could vote for a more right wing party (social and fiscal) without allowing the Liberals to come up the middle again and plunk Canada into another Dark Ages, you would see huge numbers of people scram from the Cons.

Right now, though, better the devil you know than a Liberal angel.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

The current deficit is easy to counteract. Just take the money from the EI fund.

There isn't all that much money to take

Paul Martin stole $60 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money from the fund and miraculously made the deficit disappear.

Let's ask the supreme court about that. They raised the rates when they shouldn't have, but spending the money where they did was not illegal.

if there were any way true conservatives could vote for a more right wing party (social and fiscal)

Shudder

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

Also, I doubt Canadians want spending on new social programs requiring tax increases to fund them. In addition to a carbon tax, the Liberals are entertaining:

Ignatieff has already said that a carbon tax is not in the cards. For better or for worse, the cap and trade is where we are headed.

It's no wonder Ignatieff foresees raising taxes.

Resolutions are not the same thing as a policy platform in an election.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

Paul Martin stole $60 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money from the fund and miraculously made the deficit disappear. All Harper has to do is follow in Liberal Party footsteps.

Since Harper can't cut spending, it is doubtful that he will be able to cut the deficit. Martin actually cut spending and held the line on it.

And Dobbin, if there were any way true conservatives could vote for a more right wing party (social and fiscal) without allowing the Liberals to come up the middle again and plunk Canada into another Dark Ages, you would see huge numbers of people scram from the Cons.

In other words, you will vote Tory no matter how many Liberal bad policies from the past they adopt.

Right now, though, better the devil you know than a Liberal angel.

And look where it has gotten you?

capricorn · April 16, 2009

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is calling on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to clarify publicly and unambiguously whether, as Prime Minister, he would raise taxes to help deal with the growing federal deficit and debt.
CTF Federal Director, Kevin Gaudet said, “Canadian familes already give 45% of their incomes to government each year, so they have the right to know whether Mr. Ignatief, if elected Prime Minister, would increase that burden.”

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record is reporting (at www.therecord.com) that yesterday at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast in Cambridge, Ontario, Mr. Ignatieff responded to an audience member question about reducing the federal debt by stating, “We will have to raise taxes.” Subsequent to his interview Liberal staff are stating that Mr. Ignatieff has no plans and no desire to raise taxes.

Gaudet concluded, “Balancing the federal budget and reducing our federal debt must be accomplished through reduced spending, not through tax hikes. This was the Liberal approach in the 1990s. Mr. Ignatieff should publicly, clearly, unambiguously, and quickly commit to this approach and disavow the possibility of tax hikes.”

http://lakesuperiornews.info/Columnists/CT...92/Default.aspx

CBC's Don Newman interviewed Kevin Gaudet tonight. It can be seen at the 17:00 minute mark in the following video of Politics:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?http://...olitics_wed.wmv

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

I am not speculating. I am telling you what Harper actually said and it was that he was not going to run a deficit. If he was wrong about that, what else is he wrong about?
I'd rather have someone not rule out the possibility of a tax increase that to blatantly say it won't happen in light of a deficit.

And since you have made it clear that no taxes is where your vote is going to go, I hope that you don't turn around and vote Tory and find some contorted reason to do so if they do raise taxes.

Quit trying to steer off topic Ignatief said that he wants to raise taxes......If he wants to eliminate debt, there are better ways of doing it. One is to reduce the federal civil service, the second i to go back to funding only core federal jurdistction programs, criminal courts, military, ect. The third way is to make the provinces clean house, and fix thier problems themselves instead of thinking the ROC should fix it for them.

Rasing taxes is the woarst asnwer to any problem because it says to everyone we are going to just throw more and more of your money at a problem and hope that it will go away.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Quit trying to steer off topic Ignatief said that he wants to raise taxes.

Actually, he didn't. He was asked a hypothetical question and he gave a hypothetical answer.

He was reported to have said "we will have to raise taxes."
"I said no such thing," Ignatieff insisted Wednesday.

Ignatieff said he simply explained to a questioner that there are various options to eliminate the $80 billion in deficits that the Harper government intends to rack up over the next two years — including spending cuts, spending reallocations and economic stimulus to spur economic growth.

Ignatieff said he only mentioned tax increases as a possibility when the questioner "asked a hypothetical question: What if none of that works?"

Ignatieff backpedals on possibility of tax rise

Smallc · April 16, 2009

One is to reduce the federal civil service, the second i to go back to funding only core federal jurisdiction programs, criminal courts, military, ect.

Did you forget which country this is again? The provinces in Canada already have more power than regional governments in almost any other country. Many of the jurisdictions are shared...for a reason.

Raising taxes is the worst answer to any problem because it says to everyone we are going to just throw more and more of your money at a problem and hope that it will go away.

Funny thing about deficits, when you throw money at them, they disappear.

waldo · April 16, 2009

...the Liberals are entertaining:
.

.

.

.

as convention resolutions subject to debate... subject to approval... and, of course, convention approved resolutions may - or may not - end up as official platform policy.

but carry on... continue with your weak cut/paste attempt to define the Liberal party platform - based on unapproved convention resolution agenda items.

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Actually, he didn't. He was asked a hypothetical question and he gave a hypothetical answer.

He gave the answer of what he would hypothetically do if he was hypothetically elected PM.

His answer was "we will raise taxes"

Even your link says one word plain as day Backpedal

Smallc · April 16, 2009

He gave the answer of what he would hypothetically do if he was hypothetically elected PM.
His answer was "we will raise taxes"

Even your link says one word plain as day Backpedal

No, he says he didn't. I will believe him just as I would believe any person who I had no reason to think was lying. The CBC used a title like that because they have to look at both sides and consider them truth until they know otherwise. You, of course, choose to believe the worst about ignatieff.

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

No, he says he didn't. I will believe him just as I would believe any person who I had no reason to think was lying. The CBC used a title like that because they have to look at both sides and consider them truth until they know otherwise. You, of course, choose to believe the worst about ignatieff.

I agree with you I don't beleive he was lying when he said "we will raise taxes".

waldo · April 16, 2009

Quit trying to steer off topic Ignatief said that he wants to raise taxes......
Actually, he didn't. He was asked a hypothetical question and he gave a hypothetical answer.

oh! now you've done it... there goes his entire premise for this ill-conceived thread.

perhaps we can get him to back pedal and change the thread title (once again) - and, as before, the edited title incorrectly quoted Ignatieff. A pattern is developing!

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Funny thing about deficits, when you throw money at them, they disappear.

Funny thing about Liberal governments when they throw money around it disappears.

Like EI monies.

Oh I guess we did find some of our tax money the liberals spent, we found it in the liberal party.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Alta4ever

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Funny thing about Liberal governments when they throw money around it dissapears.
Like EI monies.

Yeah, like when the threw the Conservatives that massive surplus we used to have. I used to believe Harper too, you know. I even voted for him. Boy, was I wrong that time.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Yeah, like when the threw the Conservatives that massive surplus we used to have. I used to believe Harper too, you know. I even voted for him. Boy, was I wrong that time.

Yes that massive (over taxation) surplus went back to tax payers as what, reduced taxes.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Yes that massive (over taxation) surplus went back to tax payers as what, reduced taxes.

And now we have a massive (under taxation) deficit....pretty neat hey?

lictor616 · April 16, 2009

http://news.therecord.com/News/BreakingNews/article/520203

lol! liberals!? raise taxes--- my what a surprise!

Something tells me that it will be business as usual, and that many lefty drones will ignore this latest tightening of the noose about our necks. Perhaps we (the world's beasts of burden) are so used to our servitude and the yoke about our necks that we realize it would be futile to complain when we are goaded.

But hey, why the hell not? We contemptible canadian serfs have long consented to be taxed for "foreign aid," and to provide prosperity for Israel and for Wabenzis in "emerging" nations, such as Ethiopia and other assorted fetid pestholes... if canadians consent to being tax for safe injection sites, ruinous affirmative action programs, and outrageous gun registry acts they'll accept anything.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

Rasing taxes is the woarst asnwer to any problem because it says to everyone we are going to just throw more and more of your money at a problem and hope that it will go away.

So if Harper raises taxes, you'll be gone then.

Molly · April 16, 2009

What a stunningly rediculous conversation!

As a nation, we're throwing $85B on the credit cards. We can hope like heck that we get some more work/income, or can cut enough discretionery spending to cover that bill, but it's a whopper of a number, and one (in particular) of our big, big money-making industries has taken a staggering blow from which it won't recover any time soon.

Anyone who guarantees they can make that bill go away without raising taxes is blowing smoke. Anyone who would believe such an assertion is a fool.

Hydraboss · April 16, 2009

Cutting $85B is not as hard as you make it out to be. Just depends on what you are willing to give up.

Billions and billions on "official languages" - gone

Billions on long gun registry - gone

Billions on foriegn aid - gone

Billions on immigrant services - gone

Billions on "arts and culture" - gone

Billions on "environmental initiatives" - gone

See? It's simple. But for every cut there will be a group, large or small, that will defend that particular one as a sacred cow. The alternative that some of you are looking at as the only option is to increase taxes and make absolutely no cuts. If your family runs up a ton of credit card debt going to movies and out to dinner, your only option is to cut spending on "niceties". Unless you're the government. In which case you take even more from the masses (that actually work) to pay for the pet projects of the few.

waldo · April 16, 2009

Cutting $85B is not as hard as you make it out to be. Just depends on what you are willing to give up.
Billions and billions on "official languages" - gone

Billions on long gun registry - gone

Billions on foriegn aid - gone

Billions on immigrant services - gone

Billions on "arts and culture" - gone

Billions on "environmental initiatives" - gone

See? It's simple. But for every cut there will be a group, large or small, that will defend that particular one as a sacred cow. The alternative that some of you are looking at as the only option is to increase taxes and make absolutely no cuts. If your family runs up a ton of credit card debt going to movies and out to dinner, your only option is to cut spending on "niceties". Unless you're the government. In which case you take even more from the masses (that actually work) to pay for the pet projects of the few.

since you appear particularly adept at budgetary reform, I would be most interested to realize the actual figures - the "billions (and billions)" - you attribute to each of those targets... and just how close you think you are to the (multi-year) $80-$100 billion deficit projections.

can we start with the gun registry (please)... can you substantiate the "billions" saved by cutting the current operational management of the gun registry - thanks in advance.