Spending in prime minister's 'department' soars

[nicky10013]

Canada's revenues were sinking well before the stimulus spending. We went into deficit originally because our tax revenues disappeared. You didn't shoot down anything. A little more thought into the issue might have helped.

You can like the idea all you want. We have about a decade of proof to show it doesn't work and just costs crazy amounts of money.

What Ignatieff wants to do is garbage. If someone can't show they worked a decent amount before they claim EI they shouldn't get it. If you've been out of work for the better part of a year, that's too bad. EI was not designed as a recession fighting tool. It was designed a short-term solution for hard working people to keep their houses while they look for new jobs. Economic paradigm shifts were never really what it was meant to protect against.

Hey good question! Why DO most people in the country qualify for EI after only a few months of work? The solution shouldn't be to offer blanket coverage of absolutely bullshit EI eligibility, but rather turn EI back into what it was meant to be. NOBODY should get EI after a 9 week work year. NOBODY.

The presence and intentions of Canada's leader in and of itself is a step in formalizing our claim over the Arctic. Sure, more could be done, but it's more likely to get done under Harper than under Ignatieff.

Oh, and nice rant btw.

Yeah, Canada's revenue's were shrinking because he was handing out ridiculous tax cuts. You can't bleed the bank dry and go whoops, wasn't out fault, it was the RECESSION. Doesn't work that way.

Whether you think the people "deserve it" or not, they deserve it all the same equally, a point which you never addressed and is probably a point you won't address because god forbid Harper be wrong. As to whether people should qualify? Yes, yes they should qualify. If they're in a full time job and were let go, why shouldn't they be allowed access to the system. It's not as though they weren't paying into it before. All people in this country earning a legal pay cheque pays into the system and are entitled to said funds. The reason why we have it is so people can have a supplementary income while searching for another job. It isn't unending income, it isn't "welfare" as conservatives like to describe. It's collective responsibility. If you find yourself out of work I'd like to see you if you change your tune or not. Most people do. It's like people down in the states in regards to Health Care. "Well, it's alright if it improves my services, I just don't want to pay for anyone else." Suck it up, it's called helping the community. If you haven't noticed, American society is doing SO much better with their outlook on these types of issues.

As for the arctic, both Liberal and Conservative governments have ALWAYS maintained sovereignty over the arctic. This according to a Colin Powell speech in Toronto. It's been an ongoing debate for 2 decades now between Liberals and Conservatives and Democrats and Republicans. The Americans (and the rest of the world) declares that there are no northern islands. You can't tell because they're buried in ice or so the argument goes. And since there are no islands, this makes disputed regions in question in international waters. Everyone knows its a stupid argument but hey, its the argument that is always made. IF you think Harper going there once every 6 months is going to do anything but escalate the situation further and risk a possible crisis (not with the Americans but with the Russians [lest we forget as proof of this Peter Mackay's attempt to brandish a Russian bomber in international airspace a threat and sent CF-18s to intercept all because he wanted to look tough towards his NATO buddies when he was touted as the next Sec. Gen.]) is the complete wrong way to go about this. You now have the Russians saying they're going to drop paratroopers onto the North Pole. Coincidence? From Day 1 the Conservatives have been a complete farce in terms of foreign affairs. I've got friends inside the department and they say its to the point where they're told to claim the sky is green and they've got to do it, and when conducting smart foreign diplomacy there has to be a bureaucratic check that says hey, wait, this might be a stupid idea.

As for the gun registry, sure that may be the case. However, you can say the same about general conservative crime policy. Lock em up and throw away the key. They're evil and can't be fixed, but it'll show the other slimeballs that we're not to be trifled with! Which is idiotic in of itself because if the notion that all criminals are evil, that's yet more proof deterrence doesn't work and we need new ways to fight crime. But nuts to that, the sound we get when locking the door is so satisfying.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Mr. or Ms. as it were Nicky, you need to make the distinction between your opinion and facts, this problem is not exclusive to you but many readers of, and the editorial staff of the Toronto Star, but I digress.

See this is a fact: The IMF reports that Canada’s debt-to-gdp ratio dropped from 72.36 in 2004 to a projected 58.45 in 2009.

Your economic statements are just that your economic statements. Not much to it really. Stimulating the economy through tax reductions and other savings thereby increasing economic activity and hence government revenues is actually a proven ecomonic theory. Taxing the piss out of everyone is Liberal economic theory and usually means there is more federal revenue to steal over the short term. There I go digressing again.

Unemployment insurance (I use this term purposely) was always meant to be just that an insurance policy against the possibility of being unemployed, it was not meant to be a source of guaranteed income for those who work at temporary or seasonal jobs, if that were the case those people would pay substantially higher premiums. To do otherwise you are being dishonest because it is just another Liberal wealth redistribution program.

Sure every government has claimed the Artic, not many did much, this one is different and they have made their intentions known, all your other comments are really just more mush. The basic arguements are quite simple really, first determine where the continental shelf ends and there be the end of our rightful ownership plus half the distance to the opposing shelf. Second is the use it or loose it concept which we should be able to enforce ie. an arctic presence.

As for that incredible waste of my money the gun registry, using information from your squishy left wing friend Michael Moore, there are many more guns per capita in Canada yet gun crime is substantially lower than the US. Long guns are responsible for little crime, the urban crime issues with guns are gangbangers with already fully illegal unregistered hand guns, all the paper and data bases in the world isn't going to make the slightest difference to those statistics. Owning a long gun for hunting is not a crime and should remain so. Revolving door justice likewise isn't working, too many of these urban crimes are undertaken by repeat offenders often on bail or other court ordered babysitting arrangements, they are far less dangerous in a federal cubical. I'm not for holding their hands and singing Cum bi ya to them.

Tonight on The Agenda, on TVO they did a whole show on the medical isotope issue, see if you can look up the transcript, this problem is not isolated to Canada, and most certainly cannot be pinned on the Tories. The Tories fired the person in charge because she shot her mouth off and she was wrong, very wrong she had her statistics off by a factor of 100, she should be embarassed, she politicized the issue and the egg is on her face.

You may not agree with the governments position on Afganistan, and Khadr, however the Liberals followed much the same tact as the Tories so there is no high ground to be claimed here. The family are supporters of the enemy, that is what Al Qaida(sp) are the enemy, what they have said and done is treason and should be dealt with as such. As for this young man in particular he is being tried by the US government, until there is a verdict we make no action to repatriate him, simple as that, if the shoe were on the other foot and the Americans came howling for one of their own in our justice system I suspect you would be outraged.

It would appear you need a history lesson on free trade, I'm old enough to remember the election where the Tories were for free trade and the Liberals against, Mr. Mulroney won another majority in that election and subsequently signed the agreement with Ronald Reagan. Less typing more reading is in order here.

This government as hardly been perfect, but on balance they've done a good job in bad times and haven't stolen our money. There have been a few very minor scandals and they have been opposed by three highly partisan parties and a significant amount of liberal media who have attempted to though much mud, to little avail. In the time they have been in power they have not demonstrated any of the baby eating, kitten mauling traits they have been accused of.

You may indeed have ideological differences with conservatives in general, but that does not excuse your lack of facts.