Flip Flop Iggy Flips again

[Evening Star]

Man, I was so let down by Dosanjh and Kennedy for not even fucking SHOWING UP to vote on McKay's private member's bill.

(And where did G&M reader = NDPer thing even come from??)

[Shakeyhands]

(And where did G&M reader = NDPer thing even come from??)

I've associated the G&M with the NDP for a while now, probably the last 4-5 years. No, there is really nothing to back it up other than anecdotal evidence based on who I know that reads it. Hence I said I believe in my previous post.

In fact here is a thread discussing it from back in 2006:

The Globe & Mail right or left wing?

[Evening Star]

Oh, that's interesting. I actually didn't know that anyone saw the G&M as left of centre in the context of mainstream Canadian media.

[punked]

He was for it before he was against it before he was for it right?

Corporate tax cuts this time. Have the Liberals ever kept a position they have taken?

http://www.ndp.ca/press/reality-check-ignatieff-attacks-his-own-corporate-tax-cuts

[Esq]

Corporate Tax cuts at this stage playing by the rules they are playing by only make sense if it generates personal income taxes or GST/HST revenues equal or greater than the loss from the reduction.

So with the 30 billion in corporate taxes the government can play with

10% is 3 billion

1% is 300 million - in retained corporate revenues. *about 6 [a 1% drop is really a 6% reduction)

so 1.8 billion (multiply the 300 million by 6 for everything)

1. Will this money kick back to generate more than 300 million + debt interest on debt paydown on that amount (since a deficit is stilll being run - to the extent of the deficit debt being paid down? Say at 3% debt interest that is 9 million / year for say 10 to 15 years or about 90 to 100 million

So we need to generate around 400 million from that 300 million to break even on the tax cut?

If say 1/3rd of that goes to personal imcome taxes we may see it go from a 17% bracket to a 22% bracket or something like that.

meaning 5% gain on 33% of it or about 5% of 300 million recoverd or 15 million

so we are sitting at about making 385 million from $200 million over 15 years?

that is a return of almost 50%.

I'm all for abolishing corporate and personal income taxes but the debt has to be removed/dealt with first to give the government an equal footing.

Also a new structure to pay for corporate use fees for federal services and plans need to be established.

I want to know if that 300 million dollar deduction of the 1% drop will pay for itself.

Harper could have cut corporate taxes by 3% or reduced the GST an extra.

I'm all for corporate tax cuts but it has to be backed up with

1. A balanced or surplus budget.

2. Gaurenteed return on whatever cuts back into government revenue for any unmet costs.

3. A lower personal income tax threshold than corporate taxes - so that people retain more of their income than corporations. (this however based on a more direct tax outline on where different types of taxes go - corporate taxes to corporate needs, personal taxes to personal needs -- and no federal taxes for provincial services - let provinces set up fees or taxes for provincil domain)

The money has to come from somewhere, if giving 10$ can make more by letting someone else have it, that makes sense, as long as the earnings come back to you over the period more than it would upfront. That is good business.

I want to see the federal government explain how more money is coming back to Canada as a result of this.

I want to see how this will create $1.2 billion in new revenue...

where is the flow chart on this?

Corporate taxes cannot be dropped unilaterallly unless they make up for themselves in new intake.

It is possible in other ways but unilaterially the government just adding 2 billion in the debt collumn is bad fiscal management.

If there is a grand design here I think subsidies/ or credits would be a better go to targetted tax breaks instead of an overall drop unless the tax/fee structure is changing also.

Across the board is just dead weight, targetted subsidies can actually direct managed growth -

this cut to me so far only shows itself as buying corporate votes - and nothing else.

With more figures and rationality to the cuts it might make more sense. But to date nada, just vote buying.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Esq

[Shakeyhands]

He was for it before he was against it before he was for it right?

Corporate tax cuts this time. Have the Liberals ever kept a position they have taken?

http://www.ndp.ca/press/reality-check-ignatieff-attacks-his-own-corporate-tax-cuts

The NDP would eliminate all the low taxes that businesses enjoy and the majority would leave for lower tax havens. Correct?

Maybe it's time to get on board with one of the two real partys?

[M.Dancer]

The NDP would eliminate all the low taxes that businesses enjoy and the majority would leave for lower tax havens. Correct?

Maybe it's time to get on board with one of the two real partys?

No..it is a standard in comic opera that the clowns remain on stage left.

[punked]

The NDP would eliminate all the low taxes that businesses enjoy and the majority would leave for lower tax havens. Correct?

Maybe it's time to get on board with one of the two real partys?

No the NDP has a plan it is lower the tax on Small businesses to 0 because they are the ones who create many of the jobs in this country and roll back/freeze the tax cuts on larger ones. Although I am glade you speak about things you know nothing about.

[nicky10013]

No the NDP has a plan it is lower the tax on Small businesses to 0 because they are the ones who create many of the jobs in this country and roll back/freeze the tax cuts on larger ones. Although I am glade you speak about things you know nothing about.

Hahahaha. Right.

Anyhow I'll keep this thread in mind a month and a half from now when Jack Layton has his "lay back and think of England" moment when he'll do anything to cut a deal with Harper to avoid an election.

Edited January 27, 2011 by nicky10013

[madmax]

The NDP would eliminate all the low taxes that businesses enjoy and the majority would leave for lower tax havens. Correct?

Maybe it's time to get on board with one of the two real partys?

Corporate Tax cuts haven't prevented a single Operation from relocating operations to China, Vietnam, Mexico or anywhere else. It often helps the company move.

Regardless of that fact, and lots of other BS that people spew about corporate tax cuts.

The Bottom line is corporations will pay less tax.

Someone will have to pick up the slack.

With regards to local business and local economies.

The NDP Government in Manitoba is the First and only Province to have zero per cent small business tax rate.

This from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/30/c8938.html

Never get trapped in 1 or 2 parties propoganda. The public always has to reach out for alternatives to move the ball forward.

It may not be the NDP or it may who implement good policy, but often the chimpanzees bang the drum for tweedle dee and tweedle dum regardless of their actions or the net benefit to Canadians.

Edited January 27, 2011 by madmax

[madmax]

Hahahaha. Right.

Anyhow I'll keep this thread in mind a month and a half from now when Jack Layton has his "lay back and think of England" moment when he'll do anything to cut a deal with Harper to avoid an election.

If I recall correctly the LPC voted with Harper some 150 times in row and received NADA for Canadians. They aided and abetted some really bad policies because they were afraid of an election. In the End Harper Pulled the Plug anyways. Iggy hasn't performed much better, infact its been poorer then Harper and Layton.

I believe when Jack Layton was put in the Squeeze play of 2009, he received something for those being hit the hardest in the recession. For the Conservatives to put monies back into EI that they had Diverted away. While its was impossible to get back the $8billion the Conservatives took, just like its impossible to get back the $46Billion the Liberals gave to their corporate friends in Tax cuts, which was monies diverted from EI to give these cuts, the fact is, the NDP didn't have alot of leverage and they got something and the public got something. Something that benefited those in need nationwide and what they had already paid into and created the surpluss. Those Canadians didn't steal/divert those monies.

The Liberals and COnservatives did, and while it was "Legal" it was morally wrong. If anyone should have received $56Billion in tax breaks it should have been the Average Canadian, not the Corporations who then through those same Canadians out of work and the Government sat there looking like jackasses with no money in the EI fund cause they gave it away.

Iggys been around 2 years. He has flipped flopped and really hasn't a clue what to do. Its more electioneering then policy. And if you can change positions this many times in such a short run, I wouldn't put any faith in the LPC on how they are going to govern.

I believe the balls in Harpers court.

He will decide if he wants to continue governing or go to the polls.

If he wants to go to the polls, there will be nothing on offer to the NDP Conservatives will orchestrate this election date. Other parties will have to wait and see what the Conservatives want to do.

Edited January 27, 2011 by madmax

[nicky10013]

If I recall correctly the LPC voted with Harper some 150 times in row and received NADA for Canadians. They aided and abetted some really bad policies because they were afraid of an election. In the End Harper Pulled the Plug anyways. Iggy hasn't performed much better, infact its been poorer then Harper and Layton.

I believe when Jack Layton was put in the Squeeze play of 2009, he received something for those being hit the hardest in the recession. For the Conservatives to put monies back into EI that they had Diverted away. While its was impossible to get back the $8billion the Conservatives took, just like its impossible to get back the $46Billion the Liberals gave to their corporate friends in Tax cuts, which was monies diverted from EI to give these cuts, the fact is, the NDP didn't have alot of leverage and they got something and the public got something. Something that benefited those in need nationwide and what they had already paid into and created the surpluss. Those Canadians didn't steal/divert those monies.

The Liberals and COnservatives did, and while it was "Legal" it was morally wrong. If anyone should have received $56Billion in tax breaks it should have been the Average Canadian, not the Corporations who then through those same Canadians out of work and the Government sat there looking like jackasses with no money in the EI fund cause they gave it away.

Iggys been around 2 years. He has flipped flopped and really hasn't a clue what to do. Its more electioneering then policy. And if you can change positions this many times in such a short run, I wouldn't put any faith in the LPC on how they are going to govern.

I believe the balls in Harpers court.

He will decide if he wants to continue governing or go to the polls.

If he wants to go to the polls, there will be nothing on offer to the NDP Conservatives will orchestrate this election date. Other parties will have to wait and see what the Conservatives want to do.

I think there's a difference. The Liberals have never shied away from the responsibility of keeping parliament going. When you have a government that makes every piece of legislation a confidence issue and 9 times out of 10 refuses to negotiate with the opposition on legislation, there's either an election after every vote or one party has to be reasonable to make sure it doesn't happen. Would you honestly like to spend 300 million every 8 weeks on elections that would change nothing? Because when you accuse the Liberals of flip flopping because they don't want an election, that's exactly what you're saying.

It's people like Punked and Conservatives that take glee in seeing the Liberals support the government and lambaste them for not taking a stand, but when they do take a stand on something mock them for being reckless and without principle. So when parties like the NDP and the CPC who claim to stand on principle and mock others for their complete lack of principle whore themselves out, it's fitting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-takes-wait-and-see-approach-on-conservative-budget/article1884899/

Edited January 27, 2011 by nicky10013

[punked]

I think there's a difference. The Liberals have never shied away from the responsibility of keeping parliament going. When you have a government that makes every piece of legislation a confidence issue and 9 times out of 10 refuses to negotiate with the opposition on legislation, there's either an election after every vote or one party has to be reasonable to make sure it doesn't happen. Would you honestly like to spend 300 million every 8 weeks on elections that would change nothing? Because when you accuse the Liberals of flip flopping because they don't want an election, that's exactly what you're saying.

It's people like Punked and Conservatives that take glee in seeing the Liberals support the government and lambaste them for not taking a stand, but when they do take a stand on something mock them for being reckless and without principle. So when parties like the NDP and the CPC who claim to stand on principle and mock others for their complete lack of principle whore themselves out, it's fitting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-takes-wait-and-see-approach-on-conservative-budget/article1884899/

It is not good enough to only be an opposition party when you have the funds when you think you have the poll numbers. You have to be an opposition party in the tough times to if you believe what you say. These tax cuts were passed a long time ago when the Liberals decided they did not want to be an opposition party.

That is the problem it isn't that the Liberals want to make parliament work, it is that they let the Conservatives pass whatever they want until they have the money for an election so the Conservatives have a majority. When the NDP step in and say "we want this we want that" they get that and yet make parliament work. I agree there has to be compromise and we can't have an election every 2 months however the Liberals lay down for 2 years because they don't have the money you might as well just send a Con majority into parliament because that is what you get in that situation.

Sometimes you have to stand on what you believe in not have it change every 5 minutes like the Liberals and their Leader.

[Oleg Bach]

Iggy attempts to be animated of late. He makes a poor show of having substance..on the other hand Harper is a little more shrewd..He stays quiet and does not let it be known that he is as much of a light weight as Iggy..Harper reminds my of my old friend Frank..the chicks thought he was sexy and mysterious..because he kept quiet...and he used to get the hot girls...Problem was when Frank got drunk he was a walking horror show of ignorance and brutality...I suppose in politics it is best to look important and not say much.

[Shakeyhands]

It is not good enough to only be an opposition party when you have the funds when you think you have the poll numbers. You have to be an opposition party in the tough times to if you believe what you say. These tax cuts were passed a long time ago when the Liberals decided they did not want to be an opposition party.

That is the problem it isn't that the Liberals want to make parliament work, it is that they let the Conservatives pass whatever they want until they have the money for an election so the Conservatives have a majority. When the NDP step in and say "we want this we want that" they get that and yet make parliament work. I agree there has to be compromise and we can't have an election every 2 months however the Liberals lay down for 2 years because they don't have the money you might as well just send a Con majority into parliament because that is what you get in that situation.

Sometimes you have to stand on what you believe in not have it change every 5 minutes like the Liberals and their Leader.

1) it's not difficult to stand on principles when you have no reasonable chance of leading, then you can be a party of "no".... Please do enjoy that.

2) trying to find enough common ground so as to not have an election every whip stitch is reasonable. If it wasn't this way, the NDP and Cons would be whining the other way.

[punked]

1) it's not difficult to stand on principles when you have no reasonable chance of leading, then you can be a party of "no".... Please do enjoy that.

2) trying to find enough common ground so as to not have an election every whip stitch is reasonable. If it wasn't this way, the NDP and Cons would be whining the other way.

That doesn't even make sense. Parties should stand for, as the best they can, the things they promised the voter. So when the Liberals said in 2008

“We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012.”

And voted for the current Corporate tax cuts while the NDP said it was the wrong choice I assumed that was their principles.

When the Liberal leader said:

“We will cut corporate taxes again” - Michael Ignatieff, Liberal.ca, May 16, 2010

Not even a year ago I assumed those were their principles. BTW the NDP at the time was saying this was the wrong direction those were their principles.

Now the Liberals are flipping and flopping after supporting these tax cuts every step of the way and that has nothing to do if they will win or not because right now the Liberals have as much of a chance as the NDP of betting the Cons. Which is 0 but the NDP have been ready to go to that election time and time again.

STOP GIVING THE CONSERVATIVES A MAJORITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLES. That is my beef with the Liberals they swing from left to right depending on which side of the bed they get up on.

Edited January 27, 2011 by punked

[nicky10013]

It is not good enough to only be an opposition party when you have the funds when you think you have the poll numbers. You have to be an opposition party in the tough times to if you believe what you say. These tax cuts were passed a long time ago when the Liberals decided they did not want to be an opposition party.

That is the problem it isn't that the Liberals want to make parliament work, it is that they let the Conservatives pass whatever they want until they have the money for an election so the Conservatives have a majority. When the NDP step in and say "we want this we want that" they get that and yet make parliament work. I agree there has to be compromise and we can't have an election every 2 months however the Liberals lay down for 2 years because they don't have the money you might as well just send a Con majority into parliament because that is what you get in that situation.

The Liberals have had the money for over a year so that can't be it.

Sometimes you have to stand on what you believe in not have it change every 5 minutes like the Liberals and their Leader.

Oh, so Jack in 2009 doing a deal with the Conservatives just isn't the same. Nor will it be the same when he does it in late Feb. early March.

[nicky10013]

That doesn't even make sense. Parties should stand for, as the best they can, the things they promised the voter. So when the Liberals said in 2008

“We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012.”

And voted for the current Corporate tax cuts while the NDP said it was the wrong choice I assumed that was their principles.

When the Liberal leader said:

“We will cut corporate taxes again” - Michael Ignatieff, Liberal.ca, May 16, 2010

Not even a year ago I assumed those were their principles. BTW the NDP at the time was saying this was the wrong direction those were their principles.

They still are going to cut corporate tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts are still on the Liberal Agenda. Just not until the deficit is brought under control. So is that Ignatieff flip flopping or adapting to a developing situation?

What would you rather have? A guy who will change course due to circumstance or an ideologue who in his own circumstance can say no on "principle" all he wants for his own political expediency with absolutely no reprocussions.

Now that there will be reprocussions for the NDP, Jack and the rest of his lackies will fold like a house of cards. So please, don't talk about principles.

Now the Liberals are flipping and flopping after supporting these tax cuts every step of the way and that has nothing to do if they will win or not because right now the Liberals have as much of a chance as the NDP of betting the Cons. Which is 0 but the NDP have been ready to go to that election time and time again.

Are the NDP really ready? If they were, would they be floating possibilities of a deal?

STOP GIVING THE CONSERVATIVES A MAJORITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLES. That is my beef with the Liberals they swing from left to right depending on which side of the bed they get up on.

Shall I post the article where Jack whored himself in 2009 to avert an election? Shall I repost the one from above that says he's willing to do it again?

Step down from your soapbox, the hypocrisy must be dizzying from up there.

Edited January 27, 2011 by nicky10013

[punked]

The Liberals have had the money for over a year so that can't be it.

Oh, so Jack in 2009 doing a deal with the Conservatives just isn't the same. Nor will it be the same when he does it in late Feb. early March.

No the Liberals paid off their Debts a year ago and had enough Cash to run their day to day that is hardly "had money for over a year" you might want to actually check on their finances.

It was different in 2009 because like I said before Jack got something. You might forget this because you are a Liberal and you aren't use to having Harper actually compromise on something but Jack got EI extended for 200,000 workers. Maybe you were ok with those people going hungry as they feel off the EI rolls in one of the worst recession in History I wasn't. See that is making parliament work getting the Prime Minster to do something you think is right, and compromise not bending over or not showing up to vote because you are not flush with cash. I clear difference.

It is called being a Opposition party.

[nicky10013]

No the Liberals paid off their Debts a year ago and had enough Cash to run their day to day that is hardly "had money for over a year" you might want to actually check on their finances.

Nope, they had enough money to run a debt free campaign as of last December. Trust me, I was at the AGM. Something tells me you weren't.

It was different in 2009 because like I said before Jack got something. You might forget this because you are a Liberal and you aren't use to having Harper actually compromise on something but Jack got EI extended for 200,000 workers. Maybe you were ok with those people going hungry as they feel off the EI rolls in one of the worst recession in History I wasn't. See that is making parliament work getting the Prime Minster to do something you think is right, and compromise not bending over or not showing up to vote because you are not flush with cash. I clear difference.

It is called being a Opposition party.

So, here is where you contradict yourself. You claim that the Liberal Party doesn't have enough cash to run a campaign which is the only reason we're not at the polls becuase as we all know the Liberals have absolutely no principle. Fine.

Now, why is it that Jack had to step up and "get something" for Canadians to begin with? OH wait, that's right, because the Liberals were going to force an election. An election that was going to be over far more for EI benefits than what Jack spread his legs for. So, by your own admission that must mean the Liberals had money (they didn't, they were going to force it over principle, ironically) However, the NDP wasn't ready for the writ so you guys cut a deal and now pretend to be the saviour of EI when Harper still got pretty much exactly what he wanted.

For someone who claims to stand on principles, you gave up a lot to get nothing in the long run.

Edited January 27, 2011 by nicky10013

[punked]

They still are going to cut corporate tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts are still on the Liberal Agenda. Just not until the deficit is brought under control. So is that Ignatieff flip flopping or adapting to a developing situation?

What would you rather have? A guy who will change course due to circumstance or an ideologue who in his own circumstance can say no on "principle" all he wants for his own political expediency with absolutely no reprocussions.

There is a whole thread addressing the Liberal leaders flip flops here. In fact I think he had another one today on bill S-10. He is tough on crime, no wait he isn't, no wait only drug crime, no wait it isn't a crime. I would love to have someone who stands for what they say they stand not for what the polls of the day say. That is my point the Liberals decide policy based on what side of the bed they get up on, not on a set of beliefs.

Now that there will be reprocussions for the NDP, Jack and the rest of his lackies will fold like a house of cards. So please, don't talk about principles.

Are the NDP really ready? If they were, would they be floating possibilities of a deal?

They NDP are a third party who has an agenda which you may not have noticed but has been slowly implemented by striking deals with the Liberals or the Conservatives over the last 50 years. They will always float the possibility of a deal if they think they can forward that progressive agenda because they know that once they get the thing they ask for Canadians will be so impressed those parties will never be able to roll it back. Examples, OAS, CPP, Medicare, the Charter of rights and so on. If they think they get rid of the Senate by striking a deal they will do it. You know why? Because they know the if the Liberals win they will just do what the Conservatives would so might as well push another large NDP policy forward. However if they do not get it they will go an election. The NDP has never been scared of losing, it has happened so much why would they care?

Shall I post the article where Jack whored himself in 2009 to avert an election? Shall I repost the one from above that says he's willing to do it again?

Step down from your soapbox, the hypocrisy must be dizzying from up there.

I would love for you to post that article I will post the one for the summer before that where the Liberals couldn't get the deal Jack got. Yes one party knows how to make parliament work for the people and the other plays politics. So please go a head show us the time when Jack won EI extensions for 200,000 families and how the Liberals got a "blue ribbon panel" than met for 2 hours. That would highlight just what I am speaking of.

[punked]

Nope, they had enough money to run a debt free campaign as of last December. Trust me, I was at the AGM. Something tells me you weren't.

Seriously you have no clue what you are talking about and if your party told you that they are lying to you. Debt free I haven't herd such a ridiculous thing in my life. You might have had 10-14 million on hand at the end of last year. That is what Dion spent. How well did that turn out for him? The Conservatives are going to spend their limit which will be 20-25 million this time around and you guys have to match to have a hope. Everyone in the party knows that except you I guess.

So, here is where you contradict yourself. You claim that the Liberal Party doesn't have enough cash to run a campaign which is the only reason we're not at the polls becuase as we all know the Liberals have absolutely no principle. Fine.

Now, why is it that Jack had to step up and "get something" for Canadians to begin with? OH wait, that's right, because the Liberals were going to force an election. An election that was going to be over far more for EI benefits than what Jack spread his legs for. So, by your own admission that must mean the Liberals had money (they didn't, they were going to force it over principle, ironically) However, the NDP wasn't ready for the writ so you guys cut a deal and now pretend to be the saviour of EI when Harper still got pretty much exactly what he wanted.

For someone who claims to stand on principles, you gave up a lot to get nothing in the long run.

No it is because as we have seen in the past Jack can get something. He plays the game he will go right down to the wire not like the Liberal leader who huffs and puffs and then 5 days before a vote declares all the Liberals have the flue. You put what you want on the table and see if the Conservatives are willing to compromise this is how a minority government is suppose to work. Liberals don't get that. They think that you shout at the top of your lungs something is wrong then vote for it anyway. There is an opposition party in the house it just isn't the Liberals.

"Your time up Mister Harper...............In a year or two maybe"- Liberal leader

Edited January 27, 2011 by punked

[nicky10013]

Seriously you have no clue what you are talking about and if your party told you that they are lying to you. Debt free I haven't herd such a ridiculous thing in my life. You might have had 10-14 million on hand at the end of last year. That is what Dion spent. How well did that turn out for him? The Conservatives are going to spend their limit which will be 20-25 million this time around and you guys have to match to have a hope. Everyone in the party knows that except you I guess.

Since when is the NDP experts on Liberal finances?

No it is because as we have seen in the past Jack can get something.

Nothing substantive.

[punked]

Since when is the NDP experts on Liberal finances?

Nothing substantive.

Since it is all openly reported. You brought in 9 million in 2009 and have a 7 million in your rebates if you think at the end of 2009 you could have run an election then your party got a bunch of clowns running it. You probably had 10 million in the bank if you went to an election you could raise 3 million more you would still have to borrow 7 million. BTW that is assuming you would not have transfer a bunch into ridings. Seriously I know when my party says at a convention "they are ready to go to an election" it means they can run it does not mean they are 100%. Get a clue.

BTW I was wrong you guys weren't even debt free until halfway through 09. You must have only had 7 million in the bank at the end. A bold face lie to the Liberals in the room from the Liberal party. "Debt free campaign" at the end of 09 wow I have heard some tall tails. But seriously they must think you guys are stupid to say that one.

Yah I know when Jack got that deal for 200,000 to avoid an election after the Liberals couldn't even sit in a room and talk about an EI deal it would kill Liberals. I didn't think you guys would act like the samething your leader asked for to avoid an election a month earlier would be considered "Nothing substantive". Party of flip floppers thanks for proving my point.

Edited January 27, 2011 by punked

[nicky10013]

Since it is all openly reported. You brought in 9 million in 2009 and have a 7 million in your rebates if you think at the end of 2009 you could have run an election then your party got a bunch of clowns running it. You probably had 10 million in the bank if you went to an election you could raise 3 million more you would still have to borrow 7 million. BTW that is assuming you would not have transfer a bunch into ridings. Seriously I know when my party says at a convention "they are ready to go to an election" it means they can run it does not mean they are 100%. Get a clue.

BTW I was wrong you guys weren't even debt free until halfway through 09. You must have only had 7 million in the bank at the end. A bold face lie to the Liberals in the room from the Liberal party. "Debt free campaign" at the end of 09 wow I have heard some tall tails. But seriously they must think you guys are stupid to say that one.

Yah I know when Jack got that deal for 200,000 to avoid an election after the Liberals couldn't even sit in a room and talk about an EI deal it would kill Liberals. I didn't think you guys would act like the samething your leader asked for to avoid an election a month earlier would be considered "Nothing substantive". Party of flip floppers thanks for proving my point.

Wow. So angry.