It really, REALLY is about time that the proliferation of Conservative

[dre]

How could the government tolerate a scam that is so obvious? Their mandate is justice but perhaps they haven't noticed this scam.

You should mention it to them and see what they say.

Does the stock market serve any other purpose?

I dont think the market itself is a scam really, its just packed full of scams and scammers.

And sure it serves other purposes.

[Pliny]

Not sure why someone with access to a calculator would applaud reducing taxes without reducing spending. Thats really no different than buying something you cant afford on a credit card.

I agree. He should reduce spending. Unfortunately, he wants a majority after the next election.

[Pliny]

I dont think the market itself is a scam really, its just packed full of scams and scammers.

I wonder how they survive. Do investors just leave everything in their hands? I know that Bernie Madoff had a great ponzi scheme going. You know, as far as ponzi schemes go our government runs several. No wonder it is so easy to get scammed on the stock market. We are just too trusting, I guess. Maybe we should learn how to avoid these scams first.

And sure it serves other purposes.

Are they honest purposes? Charter.rights needs to know.

[dre]

I wonder how they survive. Do investors just leave everything in their hands? I know that Bernie Madoff had a great ponzi scheme going. You know, as far as ponzi schemes go our government runs several. No wonder it is so easy to get scammed on the stock market. We are just too trusting, I guess. Maybe we should learn how to avoid these scams first.

Are they honest purposes? Charter.rights needs to know.

Yup the core purpose is honest. I mean its really just a different way to raise venture capital. The big difference is that investors are willing to share in the risk, whereas if you borrow venture capital from a bank they arent so much. A lot of usefull ventures have happened, that probably would not have happened with the traditional bank financing model. And lots of economic growth has resulted. Of course a lot of risky activity has happened for that same reason.

[August1991]

Why not? What good did cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes do for middle and lower income earners? Canada is among the developed nations that have seen growth in income inequalityover the last 20 years, in spite of inceases in GDP:

WIP, your link to the OECD stats (thanks) deserves better but this response to "income inequality" comes to mind:

Edited July 7, 2010 by August1991

[William Ashley]

A final point...Harper's decision to hold the G20 conference in downtown TO is incredibly stupid. There is not one locale in the entire country that could have generated protests of the size that TO could. With that being said, the 1.2 billion dollar price tag on security is completely inexcusable. The 20,000 armed personnel deployed in downtown TO was almost twice the size of the US force used to occupy Afghanistan between 2001-2007. THAT'S RIGHT, TWICE THE SIZE OF A FORCE USED TO OCCUPY A HOSTILE MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRY(note that I do not think that the small force the US deployed in Afghanistan was sufficient for containing the isurgency)...a few burnt cop cars(that were suspiciously parked within easy access of the protestors) and a few thrown projectiles do not constitute an insurgency, and thus do not justify the placement of an army(that still could somehow fail to prevent the wanton destruction of shops for hours in downtown TO strange no?) in the downtown of our largest city. I will go on record as saying the job could have easily been done by 1/2-1/4 the men.

But maybe I have it all wrong and Harper is our economic/fiscal saviour...please let me know your thoughts.

There are some things that arn't public knowledge about Toronto for whatever reason, but I tend to agree the location, proportion, and other items, were designed to be poison pills.

It is lesser so how much you spend, and more what are the benefits of spending.

Sadly much of the spending has been questionable or waste spending, or of only temporary benefit, that is the real issue - quality of spending.

Edited July 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[canadiantothecore]

To begin I want to make something very clear. The reason I directed the focus of this post on fiscal policy is because it is a realm that is completely under the control of the federal government. I agree that maintaining stable economic growth is, and should be, a key priority of the federal govt. but this is not completely within their control. Thus I focused on what is.

Well, here's a premise. The Federal government has taken upon itself to control wages and prices and that is it's prime concern as regards the economy. Surpluses and deficits are not of importance. It is important to have a stable economy, as a stable economy is a guarantee of government revenues and deficits can be avoided.

Riiiiight, deficits and surpluses, and hence the growth or shrinkage of the national debt, are not of importance. We should'nt learn anything from the large number of states that had massive fiscal issues and defaulted on their loans throughtout the twentieth century. The possibility that we could not attain sufficient purchasers of our governmental bonds, which was a real concern in 1993(before the "miser" took over), is not something that should be taken lightly(esp. with a govt that likes to spend in power). I think that any resident of the UK or Greece(or any Euopean state for that matter) right now would laugh if your face if you were to make this claim to them.

However, I do fully agree that a chief role of the govt. is the maintenance of a stable economy that continually grows at a sustainable rate. That is why I, or any other informed reader for that matter, would find your next comments incredibly puzzling...

The surpluses created by the Liberals were not because of increased economic activity that brought them greater revenues at the same level of taxation. They were due to transfer cuts to the provincial governments plus increased taxation. This would have a tendency to reduce economic activity or minimally stifle growth. I recall there being some grumbling about the economy at the time.

This is possibly the most partisan and misinformed comment I have EVER read on this forum. The deficit was actually almost entirely eliminated via decreased federal government spending across the board and increased governmental revenue due to increased economic activity. If you honestly believe that it was via taxation and reduced transfer payments, as all Martin's critics for some reason do, please explain how. Can you name a single note-worthy tax he created as finance minister? What was the grand total of the reduced transfer payments(aka was it nearly enough to cover even a notable portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to reduce our national debt from 75 to 25%)?

But the strangest part of your argument regards your commentary on economic growth. You claim that a government's ability to control economic growth is their chief economic responsibility. You then claim that the liberals somehow stifled economic growth via massively increased taxation(that didn't exist in reality).

However, as you ought to know, the largest economic growth rates in Canada SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR were achieved under the liberals during the late 1990s. I believe the country's GDP(correct me if Im wrong) grew at an average of 5% a year between 1996-2000. Here's the best link I could readily find on this, scroll down to get to the numbers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Canada

Looks like economic growth actually decreased in both 2006 and 2007, the first two years in which our current government was in power. And this does not even take into account the recession years of 2008, 2009, 2010 so there's no need to use that as an excuse for poor economic growth in your reply to this post. So according to your own argument the liberal government's economic policies in the 1990s were UNDENIABLY superior to the conservative's since 2006.

This is using your definition of sound economic policy...I have to ask, did you just make all these claims up in the hopes I would not know any better?

Waittt...that's right, you claim that you recall "hearing some grumbling on the economy at the time". I also recall hearing some grumbling from leftists that Steven Harper is a fascist that is bent on abolishing the parlimanet of Canada. Do you recommend that employ this as evidence in a future informed debate? lay off the conservative kool-aid bro

If I had a word to describe Martin as Minister of Finance I would think "miser" would fit.

OOOh the horror of a frugal finance minister! If I had two words to describe Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister I think that "idiot" and "arrogant" apply even more to him than yours does to Martin. Is this productive?

I think your vision is of a strong Federal government with Liberal ideology. Economically, that means that spending takes a back seat to social concerns.

That's why I dedicated this post to fiscal policy and have constantly expressed my opposition to unnecessary spending. In fact I am one of the most outspoken critics of the current crime legislation(which are "social" bills) in parliament. Is this comment intended to be taken seriously?

Your understanding of economics indicates that you believe the federal government, or governments in general, are entirely responsible for the economy.

I never said, or even hinted at, this. I have no idea why you would think this. This is simply a mistaken conclusion you have drawn from the previous mistaken conclusion.

Increased regulation in the economy, which I believe is your proclivity, is more of a fascistic leaning.

Bravo, you were able to paint me with both the socialist and fascist brush in the same paragraph. I would have to think that your apparent support for the crime bill s-10 would place you in the latter camp to a greater extent than me.

As an aside, does this not sound just like Michael Savage desribing US democrats, particularly Obama, as both marxists and fascists?

I would put forth the premise that lower crime statistics were due to an apathy on the part of victims to even bother with reporting them because of the response of police authorities which is poor and prioritized and even neglected.

Is this the same intuition that lead you to conclude that we had negative economic growth under the previous liberal government?

The Liberal concept of compassion misses the mark with criminals who, because of their nature, will use any opportunity to gain their freedom and Liberals are more willing to listen to them and give them a chance. If anything a proper rehabilitative technology is missing.

So you would submit that the harsher penalties in the united states have resulted in the establishment of a safer, more crime-free society?

I take it that you are not aware that the current crime bills will abolish the prison farms and halfway houses that are proven to be effective "rehabilitative technologies"?

I see your prime interest is politics and liberal government which taints your economic sense.

Actually my prime interest in this post is to expose that the current government has been blatantly lying to the Canadian people and the international community regarding its fiscal and economic histories. Why does any criticism of Harper, or legitimate recognition of our greatest fiscal conservative, have to be viewed by the conservative fan club as being made from the position of being in bed with the liberal party? I do genuinely want for there to exist a Canadian conservative party that actually practises fiscal conservatism! I think my interest in fiscal policy would make that self-explanatory.

And how can you say I have a tainted economic sense when it is you who clearly, clearly has little to no knowledge of economic growth and fiscal policy(and their histories in the canadian context) and the implications of each. Your economic arguments have been far more partisan and misinformed that mine...

I applaud Mr. Harper for at least attempting to reduce the tax burden on the economy and not grow government bureaucracy to any great extent.

If you are not a die hard conservative the logical implication of this statement is that you gave Paul Martin an hour long standing ovation for cutting the size of the PMO, every ministerial department staff, and the bureaucracy of every ministry.

Are you a government employee, perhaps?

Actually I'm a fourth year poli-sci/history student at one of the top research universities in Canada. I have extensively studied the economic history of Canada over the past few decades. I am deeply passionate about maintaining Canada's strong position in the world and the living standards of all Canadians throughout the twenty-first century.

[Pliny]

To begin I want to make something very clear. The reason I directed the focus of this post on fiscal policy is because it is a realm that is completely under the control of the federal government. I agree that maintaining stable economic growth is, and should be, a key priority of the federal govt. but this is not completely within their control. Thus I focused on what is.

And the Liberals are far better than the conservatives. Depends on what Leader I guess.

Riiiiight, deficits and surpluses, and hence the growth or shrinkage of the national debt, are not of importance. We should'nt learn anything from the large number of states that had massive fiscal issues and defaulted on their loans throughtout the twentieth century. The possibility that we could not attain sufficient purchasers of our governmental bonds, which was a real concern in 1993(before the "miser" took over), is not something that should be taken lightly(esp. with a govt that likes to spend in power). I think that any resident of the UK or Greece(or any Euopean state for that matter) right now would laugh if your face if you were to make this claim to them.

Even after their bailouts?

However, I do fully agree that a chief role of the govt. is the maintenance of a stable economy that continually grows at a sustainable rate. That is why I, or any other informed reader for that matter, would find your next comments incredibly puzzling...

[/Quote]

It is a chief role but disagree that it should be. Their chief role should be justice and defence.

This is possibly the most partisan and misinformed comment I have EVER read on this forum. The deficit was actually almost entirely eliminated via decreased federal government spending across the board and increased governmental revenue due to increased economic activity. If you honestly believe that it was via taxation and reduced transfer payments, as all Martin's critics for some reason do, please explain how. Can you name a single note-worthy tax he created as finance minister? What was the grand total of the reduced transfer payments(aka was it nearly enough to cover even a notable portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to reduce our national debt from 75 to 25%)?

I can't utterly condemn Martin. He did some things I liked. One of them was eliminating the deficit.

stealth taxation

But the strangest part of your argument regards your commentary on economic growth. You claim that a government's ability to control economic growth is their chief economic responsibility. You then claim that the liberals somehow stifled economic growth via massively increased taxation(that didn't exist in reality).

Government does like to control economic growth. I didn't say it should be that way.

Actually, I was wrong here on Economic growth. It did occur when Martin was Finance Minister.

However, as you ought to know, the largest economic growth rates in Canada SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR were achieved under the liberals during the late 1990s. I believe the country's GDP(correct me if Im wrong) grew at an average of 5% a year between 1996-2000. Here's the best link I could readily find on this, scroll down to get to the numbers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Canada

Economic growth occurs when taxation is not excessive or is reduced. This must be the case. Good for Martin.

Looks like economic growth actually decreased in both 2006 and 2007, the first two years in which our current government was in power. And this does not even take into account the recession years of 2008, 2009, 2010 so there's no need to use that as an excuse for poor economic growth in your reply to this post. So according to your own argument the liberal government's economic policies in the 1990s were UNDENIABLY superior to the conservative's since 2006.

This is using your definition of sound economic policy...I have to ask, did you just make all these claims up in the hopes I would not know any better?

It decreased but there was still growth. I think they probably spent more being a minority government.

But they decreased the tax level and that means economic growth is possible.

Waittt...that's right, you claim that you recall "hearing some grumbling on the economy at the time". I also recall hearing some grumbling from leftists that Steven Harper is a fascist that is bent on abolishing the parlimanet of Canada. Do you recommend that employ this as evidence in a future informed debate? lay off the conservative kool-aid bro

Were you living in BC in 1999? things were pretty bad even with the growing Chinese market. Must have been the NDP policies that made us a have not province for the first time. Not anything to do with cutting transfer payments though.

OOOh the horror of a frugal finance minister! If I had two words to describe Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister I think that "idiot" and "arrogant" apply even more to him than yours does to Martin. Is this productive?

He was frugal. I think I prefer a miser. The current global economic scene and the minority status of the Conservatives must be considered in assessing their fiscal policy though. Dion, in my opinion, would have decimated the economy and I am not sure about Ignatieff's policies.

That's why I dedicated this post to fiscal policy and have constantly expressed my opposition to unnecessary spending. In fact I am one of the most outspoken critics of the current crime legislation(which are "social" bills) in parliament. Is this comment intended to be taken seriously?

How can the Conservatives not spend? They need to buy votes to get a majority. Sheesh! where's your sense of priorities?

I would like to see effective crime legislation. I do have some reservations about the Government being effective when it thinks justice is making things equal, society has been unfair to criminals and all they need is a break.

Bravo, you were able to paint me with both the socialist and fascist brush in the same paragraph. I would have to think that your apparent support for the crime bill s-10 would place you in the latter camp to a greater extent than me.

As an aside, does this not sound just like Michael Savage desribing US democrats, particularly Obama, as both marxists and fascists?

I am not a proponent of big government. You are going to tell me there is a big difference between Marxism and Fascism. They are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum so are entirely opposites.

They are both different models of the total state, in my view.

Is this the same intuition that lead you to conclude that we had negative economic growth under the previous liberal government?

Yeah. I was wrong.

So you would submit that the harsher penalties in the united states have resulted in the establishment of a safer, more crime-free society?

No. They need to end the drug war. There need to be stiff penalties for actual "crimes".

I take it that you are not aware that the current crime bills will abolish the prison farms and halfway houses that are proven to be effective "rehabilitative technologies"?

I would question the term "effective". Especially when the same people turn up in courtrooms again and again.

Actually my prime interest in this post is to expose that the current government has been blatantly lying to the Canadian people and the international community regarding its fiscal and economic histories. Why does any criticism of Harper, or legitimate recognition of our greatest fiscal conservative, have to be viewed by the conservative fan club as being made from the position of being in bed with the liberal party? I do genuinely want for there to exist a Canadian conservative party that actually practises fiscal conservatism! I think my interest in fiscal policy would make that self-explanatory.

Martin was fiscally conservative. I agree. What do you think he would have done in the 2008 crash?

And how can you say I have a tainted economic sense when it is you who clearly, clearly has little to no knowledge of economic growth and fiscal policy(and their histories in the canadian context) and the implications of each. Your economic arguments have been far more partisan and misinformed that mine...

My position appears "more" partisan? I originally replied because you were so partisan. I never said I agreed totally with Harper's policies.

I'll agree my Canadian history is lacking regarding fiscal policy.

If you are not a die hard conservative the logical implication of this statement is that you gave Paul Martin an hour long standing ovation for cutting the size of the PMO, every ministerial department staff, and the bureaucracy of every ministry.

Kudos to Martin. I would approve wholeheartedly of all those actions.

Actually I'm a fourth year poli-sci/history student at one of the top research universities in Canada. I have extensively studied the economic history of Canada over the past few decades. I am deeply passionate about maintaining Canada's strong position in the world and the living standards of all Canadians throughout the twenty-first century.

Then you'll leave the economy alone?

I really did think you were just a political lib-left blowhard. You need to be less obvious with the partisanship and just say you don't like Harper and his economic policies. I do like him for a few reasons but not many. He hasn't shown any real leadership other than what he might think is what the people elected him for.

In conclusion, I will be a little more respectful of your knowledge in further arguments.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Yesterday]

I wonder how they survive. Do investors just leave everything in their hands? I know that Bernie Madoff had a great ponzi scheme going. You know, as far as ponzi schemes go our government runs several. No wonder it is so easy to get scammed on the stock market. We are just too trusting, I guess. Maybe we should learn how to avoid these scams first.

Are they honest purposes? Charter.rights needs to know.

Hi, I think its called 'Naked short'. A term which the SEC and most of the world would not even acknowledge a few years ago but which has grown in understanding since then and now it is one of the biggest known market fraud situations. One which the European's have said they will not condone or allow anymore. I should look for some links...a fascinating situation to me. I'm glad you guys have touched on the subject.

I need to do some refreshing to have better facts, perhaps a different thread would be a good thing for a Naked Short/market fraud discussion...

Edited July 8, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

However, as you ought to know, the largest economic growth rates in Canada SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR were achieved under the liberals during the late 1990s. I believe the country's GDP(correct me if Im wrong) grew at an average of 5% a year between 1996-2000. Here's the best link I could readily find on this, scroll down to get to the numbers...

That isn't born out by this study of the three decades up to 1999.

Stats Can

Canadians suffered a loss of real wealth under his performance and real savings plunged to -2.

Did Martin really do that well? Coming out of a recession from the horrendous spending of the Turdeau/Mulroney era was perhaps not too difficult.

CONCLUSION

The period from 1969 to 1999 was dominated by declining economic performance and poor financial health, particularly in the public sector. This poor overall performance translated over the long term into a decline in Canadians’ standard of living and productivity.

The way you painted the Liberals with Martin as Finance Minister made it sound like he was a god. Some of these statistics don't show the greatness you proclaim.

He did keep inflation down though which means he wasn't pumping the economy.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Pliny

[justme]

In fact, these "historically high" deficits were initiated by Pierre Trudeau, who doubled federal program spending in his first term in office, then doubled it again in his second term in office, running up a huge budget deficit which, by the end of his term, and with the aid of high interest rates required between $30 and $40billion per year to service. Most of the additional billions added to the federal debt during Mulroney's years were because of this huge debt servicing cost.

One of the many reasons why Trudeau was the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history. In his youth, Trudeau admired Hitler and Mussolini, was an anti-Semite and a separatist. He carried these views well into his twenties as documented in the biography Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada, 1919-1944. Father of Canada my ass. He continued to show poor judgment throughout his life - be it alienating the west, his invasion immigration policy, using martial law (something the Conservatives are accused of, yet only a Liberal is guilty of), his ridiculous spending, etc. Nobody has done more damage to this country. We're still feeling the negative effects of decisions he made.

Edited July 10, 2010 by justme

[bloodyminded]

One of the many reasons why Trudeau was the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history. In his youth, Trudeau admired Hitler and Mussolini, was an anti-Semite and a separatist.

Hitler and (even moreso) Mussolini were broadly admired by Western elites before the war...particularly by political elites; that was normal.

As for anti-semitism...please. An easier question would be to ask how many were not antisemites?

[canadiantothecore]

Even after their bailouts?

Well yes, I would have to say that the governments of Germany/France still view the fiscal policy of their European neighbours as an important issue seeing as they are essentially donating thousands of dollars per citizen to these financially inept states. As for the Greeks, They have had to undergo a variety of undesirable austerity measures in order to procure this aid so i would assume that they are going to take their fiscal policy much more seriously from now on. Additionally, The UK has had to introduce a 20% GST due to their out of control deficits and debt accumulation. I doubt anyone in Britain views their deficit as a matter of little significance either.

Dion, in my opinion, would have decimated the economy and I am not sure about Ignatieff's policies.

While the outcome of DIon's carbon tax is definitely debatable, I would have to say that Ignatieff is far more committed to the development of an advanced, high-tech, high-profit economy that will be sustainable throughout the twenty-first century than is Harper. The only "anti-corporate" move he is hinting at is freezing the corporate tax rate at 18%(it was 30 in the late 90s when growth was higher) rather than cutting it to 15%(Harper's plan) so that the excess funds will got to getting more young canadians in universities and trade schools(which would probably benefit corporate Canada in the long run anyway).

No. They need to end the drug war. There need to be stiff penalties for actual "crimes".

I think that the vast majority of Canadians, myself included, agree with you on this one. That is why I cannot understand why Harper is escalating the war on drugs on our own soil. How can he possibly think that S-10, the bill that imposes a 18 month minimum jail term for the posession of four or more weed plants or hash(a refined form of weed), is sound legislation? That we can possibly afford to spend billions of dollars imprisoning recreational drug users at a time of great financial need? I think Harper must be submitting himself to far-right ideologues of the party on this one, but his own statements concerning weed have been hopelessly inept as well. For this reason alone its obvious he's out of touch with the sentiments held by the majority of Canadians and IMO should not be our PM.

Martin was fiscally conservative. I agree. What do you think he would have done in the 2008 crash?

He would have introduced a stimulus package before christmas in 2008 without needing the opposition to force him too. BUTTT, he would have carefully explained to the Canadian people that the funds, that would have totalled around 25-45 billion IMO, were an extraordinary measure for that year(possibly 2009 as well) and that he would do everything in his power to balance the budget by 2009...at the latest 2010(aka he would not introduce a bunch of crime bills with massive hidden costs without finding a way to pay for them...at risk of the debt sprirallign out of control).

THe stimulus package he introduced would have emphasized the creation of sustainable high-tech jobs to a much greater extent than Harper's. The funds would also have been issues in a much more transparent process that would not have been characterized by blatant pork-barrelling in conservative ridings. He would not have just built a bunch of hockey rinks etc. in Liberal ridings in ontario IMO.

Ultimately though, the key difference would have been the extent to which he prioritized getting our fiscal policy under control after the recession had passed. I don't think Harper and Flaherty care in the slightest how much our debt escalates while they are in control.

I really did think you were just a political lib-left blowhard. You need to be less obvious with the partisanship and just say you don't like Harper and his economic policies. I do like him for a few reasons but not many. He hasn't shown any real leadership other than what he might think is what the people elected him for.

I included info concerning the fiscal policy of the previous govt. so that readers could contrast it with Harper's record although I will freely admit that I did not include every critique of Martin's policies that could be made.

[Pliny]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this, I've been away for a few days.

While the outcome of DIon's carbon tax is definitely debatable, I would have to say that Ignatieff is far more committed to the development of an advanced, high-tech, high-profit economy that will be sustainable throughout the twenty-first century than is Harper. The only "anti-corporate" move he is hinting at is freezing the corporate tax rate at 18%(it was 30 in the late 90s when growth was higher) rather than cutting it to 15%(Harper's plan) so that the excess funds will got to getting more young canadians in universities and trade schools(which would probably benefit corporate Canada in the long run anyway).

What's debatable about a carbon tax? Whether one should name their pet Kyoto? The outcome would be that it would cost us a whole lot and not change the environment much.

How does one get a high-profit economy? Over-pricing it's production?

Most governments and economists are steeped in Keynesian theory and the banking tools used to influence aggregate economies.

Harper, an Economist himself, is probably well-versed in Keynesian economic theory. He knows the tools used to influence an economy.

He doesn't appear to have as much interest in planning an economy as say, yourself or Ignatieff. Your claim is that Ignatieff can plan an economy better than Harper and your point of view is that an economy planned by government is better than an economy left to individuals to plan among themselves.

The government on the advice of the Canadian Medical Association sets the quotas for doctors and nurses so as far as that goes no one is going to get into university or trade schools in those professions above the quota. It is not extra money from government that is going to create more positions in those fields.

Should everyone go to university or a trade school? While I agree that no one should be denied the opportunity or restricted unnecessarily or in such an arbitrary manner as "quotas", I don't believe that everyone should enter university solely because it is deemed socially just or because racial or gender quotas must be representative of the population base or, shall I say "politically correct" policies dictate it.

I think that the vast majority of Canadians, myself included, agree with you on this one. That is why I cannot understand why Harper is escalating the war on drugs on our own soil. How can he possibly think that S-10, the bill that imposes a 18 month minimum jail term for the posession of four or more weed plants or hash(a refined form of weed), is sound legislation?

The vast majority of Canadians don't agree with me on this one.

I know the drug culture likes to think of itself as being the "vast majority" but they are not.

The thing about bill S-10 is that possession of three or less weed plants is not an indictable offense and the "majority" believe this reasonable. Who needs more than that for personal use? Anyone else is probably just trying to hide his income.

I am not for government legalizing marijuana so that they can become the drug-pushers they previously put in jail and just enjoy the privileges of a monopoly industry, they being the only legal drug pushers. It is just another on a long list of things that they legalize for themselves and grant privilege to a few, such as counterfeiting, gambling and running stills for example.

That we can possibly afford to spend billions of dollars imprisoning recreational drug users at a time of great financial need?

Recreational drug users are allowed and will not be imprisoned.

I think Harper must be submitting himself to far-right ideologues of the party on this one, but his own statements concerning weed have been hopelessly inept as well. For this reason alone its obvious he's out of touch with the sentiments held by the majority of Canadians and IMO should not be our PM.

Well, I'm certain that most people feel the occasional use of marijuana is not an abuse of the drug. however I don't think you would like to work with a stoned dude all day long every day just because he feels it is his right to ingest what ever substance he so chooses.

I've been in these arguments and until science properly defines an addiction there will be an abuse of drugs of all sorts.

Essentially, there is use and there is abuse. The line is different for every drug.

He would have introduced a stimulus package before christmas in 2008 without needing the opposition to force him too. BUTTT, he would have carefully explained to the Canadian people that the funds, that would have totalled around 25-45 billion IMO, were an extraordinary measure for that year(possibly 2009 as well) and that he would do everything in his power to balance the budget by 2009...at the latest 2010(aka he would not introduce a bunch of crime bills with massive hidden costs without finding a way to pay for them...at risk of the debt sprirallign out of control).

Mr. Harper believes, I think, that cutting taxes and leaving money in the hands of those who produce the GDP will create more government revenues and act more like a stimulus than taking that money out of the economy and those that produce the GDP.

I think because of GM he had to go along with the stimulus spending that Obama was promoting. GM would have closed plants in Ontario if he hadn't done so. I call that blackmail really.

Of course, on the spending side of government, he is not in a position to do much about cuts. With a majority government I think he would be a little braver and would put more social psending on the chopping block.

I will say that I disagreed with his underhanded flip-flop on taxing trust corporations. He said he wouldn't and he did. However the left shouldn't be complaining about this as it is more equal under the new legislation.

I think that if he wanted to make it more equal he should have cut the taxes on dividends instead.

THe stimulus package he introduced would have emphasized the creation of sustainable high-tech jobs to a much greater extent than Harper's. The funds would also have been issues in a much more transparent process that would not have been characterized by blatant pork-barrelling in conservative ridings. He would not have just built a bunch of hockey rinks etc. in Liberal ridings in ontario IMO.

An opposition government has to make promises, most of which they won't keep. The very reason the Liberals lost the election was not because of fiscal responsibility. It was because of fiscal irresponsibility. The sponsorship scandal, the loss of a billion dollars in HR, the gun registry boondoggle, Shawinigate, pork and privilege.

Ignatieff may very well run a fiscally tight ship. But if he is planning the economy it means he is affecting the economy by overriding someones economic plans and granting preference to someone else's plans.

Ultimately though, the key difference would have been the extent to which he prioritized getting our fiscal policy under control after the recession had passed. I don't think Harper and Flaherty care in the slightest how much our debt escalates while they are in control.

I think they do. I think they were bullied into a stimulus plan they didn't want.

I included info concerning the fiscal policy of the previous govt. so that readers could contrast it with Harper's record although I will freely admit that I did not include every critique of Martin's policies that could be made.

I don't agree with Harper 100% but I think his direction is good.

As I said I think some of his fiscal actions were goaded on by the Obama administration.

[msdogfood]

Mark (Holland) or Paul (Dewar) or whomever you are...

I like your take on things...

so do i!!!