Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[Argus]

Still this bizarre anti-intellectualism always amazes me. People really do believe that all academics are ivory tower types.

They ARE ivory tower types, at least until they get out into the world and get their feet dirty.

I compare them to officers in the military. You put these elite young men through West Point, say, for years of intensive training in the military sciences. Then when they finally graduate, and go out into the field and get assigned to a platoon. What happens? Their officer will introduce them to their experienced sergeants and say something along the lines of "Do what these guys tell you until you can learn to find your ass without a seventeen page instruction book"

[Smallc]

Still this bizarre anti-intellectualism always amazes me. People really do believe that all academics are ivory tower types. Strikes me that this is just the plebs demonstrating their jealousy of the patricians.

That's exactly what it is - an irrational fear of people who have learned more about a variety of subjects.

[nicky10013]

They might or might not. What is indisputable is they would be mistaken.

Canadians are NOT fiscally conservative. They just think they are. What they really mean is, presuming the government continues to fund all these huge social programs, and continues to offer fat subsidies to all major industries, and continues to offer fat grants and subsidies to every artistic, ethnic, cultural and sporting enterprise in existence, and continues to keep everyone happy - then they would be pleased if it did it all for less money so they can have all that and still have tax cuts.

Oh, and save the environment too please.

Well, there's no such thing as the radical fiscal conservatism that you're seemingly promoting. So, what would you rather have. A party that funds these responsibly (IE budget surpluses, paying down the debt) or a party who claims to be the most fiscally responsible but yet turns out to be the highest spending government in history.

[nicky10013]

They ARE ivory tower types, at least until they get out into the world and get their feet dirty.

I compare them to officers in the military. You put these elite young men through West Point, say, for years of intensive training in the military sciences. Then when they finally graduate, and go out into the field and get assigned to a platoon. What happens? Their officer will introduce them to their experienced sergeants and say something along the lines of "Do what these guys tell you until you can learn to find your ass without a seventeen page instruction book"

That's a terrible analogy. Don't think for a minute that running a country isn't as abstract as the stuff they teach about. Who would you rather have as PM? A person who actually understands what the abstract is, or someone who has been in politics all these years as a hack who says "gee, people say they want this so that's where I'll go." Keep in mind that the right course of action isn't always what the people want.

[nicky10013]

It tends to be the liberal arts types who see it as their mission to save mankind despite what mankind might think, to prove to us the errors of our narrow minded ways and force us to accept the wisdom and purity of thought and nobility only they can envision.

There are a few of those types on University campuses. Don't think for a minute they are all Liberal. I had a lot of professors who thought and did the exact same thing. Except for the fact that they opined for the conservative option.

What you essentially just described is a political party. You certainly don't have a problem with certain parties. If this is really what you dislike, then I guess the CPC must be on your shitlist too.

[Handsome Rob]

Well, there's no such thing as the radical fiscal conservatism that you're seemingly promoting. So, what would you rather have. A party that funds these responsibly (IE budget surpluses, paying down the debt) or a party who claims to be the most fiscally responsible but yet turns out to be the highest spending government in history.

What? Is he up to 10% of Trudeau total deficits? I guess he's got a few years to catch up.

[Handsome Rob]

I think the majority of Canadians would classify themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal....

Do whatever it is you want, so long as it doesn't harm anybody, and you don't expect me to pay for it.

-Canadian.

[nicky10013]

What? Is he up to 10% of Trudeau total deficits? I guess he's got a few years to catch up.

What does Trudeau have to do with anything? This is what I love about CPC partisans. Point out something the CPC lies about being and all of a sudden it becomes about Trudeau. What Trudeau did or didn't do absolutely doesn't matter one bit as to whether or not Harper is a fiscal conservative or not. Fact is, he's run up gigantic deficits yet still claims to be the fiscally responsible choice. And people still eat it up.

Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average voter. This forum is proof positive that he was right.

He also said democracy is the worst form of government there is except for all the rest of them. He was right about that, too.

[Handsome Rob]

What does Trudeau have to do with anything? This is what I love about CPC partisans. Point out something the CPC lies about being and all of a sudden it becomes about Trudeau.

Well, there's no such thing as the radical fiscal conservatism that you're seemingly promoting. So, what would you rather have. A party that funds these responsibly (IE budget surpluses, paying down the debt) or a party who claims to be the most fiscally responsible but yet turns out to be the highest spending government in history.

Pretty simple concept, no? Where is the problem?

What Trudeau did or didn't do absolutely doesn't matter one bit as to whether or not Harper is a fiscal conservative or not. Fact is, he's run up gigantic deficits yet still claims to be the fiscally responsible choice. And people still eat it up.

He spends like a drunken sailor, I absolutely do not approve. Guess this make me, "A partisan hack?"

Winston Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average voter. This forum is proof positive that he was right.

He also said democracy is the worst form of government there is except for all the rest of them. He was right about that, too.

Proof positive, and voter ignorance grants us the governments we deserve.

[nicky10013]

Pretty simple concept, no? Where is the problem?

The problem lies in which measure you use to gauge the deficit.

He spends like a drunken sailor, I absolutely do not approve. Guess this make me, "A partisan hack?"

Most who bring out Trudea probably are.

Proof positive, and voter ignorance grants us the governments we deserve.

Yep. As terrible as it sounds, it makes me yearn for a poll test. Fail and sorry you don't get to vote.

[Handsome Rob]

The problem lies in which measure you use to gauge the deficit.

Most who bring out Trudea probably are.

As an individual who claims, "The highest spending government in history," I'm sorry, you haven't sold me.

[nicky10013]

As an individual who claims, "The highest spending government in history," I'm sorry, you haven't sold me.

In dollar terms he has. Plain and simple. You can come up with deficit as a proportion of GDP which might be a better yardstick, but this is a yardstick as well. I don't really care whether or not you buy it, I'm not selling anything.

[bloodyminded]

Do whatever it is you want, so long as it doesn't harm anybody, and you don't expect me to pay for it.

-Canadian.

Unless it's going to war for confused and contradictory reasons. Then we'll get behind it, and question the patriotism of everyone who disagrees.

-Canadian

Edited July 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

In dollar terms he has. Plain and simple.

If you ignore the effect of inflation you are peddling nonsense.

[Smallc]

In dollar terms he has. Plain and simple. You can come up with deficit as a proportion of GDP which might be a better yardstick, but this is a yardstick as well.

But it's not a yardstick. It's a meaningless number.

[nicky10013]

But it's not a yardstick. It's a meaningless number.

So close to 60 billion is meaningless? Right...

[TimG]

In 2006 Hugo Chavez said:

"I can still smell the sulfur," he said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier, Bush had given his own address

In 2010 Iggy said:

“You know you smell the whiff of sulfur coming off the guy (Harper) — we know how right wing these guys really are.”

[nicky10013]

If you ignore the effect of inflation you are peddling nonsense.

I said it before and I'll say it again. How does Trudeau matter? Just because the Trudeau ran up deficits makes it ok for Harper to do it as well? You guys are the people who want government to be smaller yet still line up en masse to vote for a guy who has run up, whether they're the largest or not, massive deficits.

You can trot out every Liberal leader you want, it only a distraction from the hypocrisy, it doesn't get rid of it altogether.

[nicky10013]

In 2006 Hugo Chavez said:

In 2010 Iggy said:

Let me guess. Since they used similar terminology related, though not related anything remotely resembling the economy, that means Ignatieff is a socialist.

[TimG]

Let me guess. Since they used similar terminology related, though not related anything remotely resembling the economy, that means Ignatieff is a socialist.

His choice of imagery is telling.

[nicky10013]

His choice of imagery is telling.

If it fits, it fits. Trust me, a lot of people think it fits haha.

[bloodyminded]

In 2006 Hugo Chavez said:

In 2010 Iggy said:

And the comparison is unfair. Chavez is far more democratically popular than Iggy, and Bush a far greater thug than Harper.

Edited July 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Handsome Rob]

In dollar terms he has. Plain and simple. You can come up with deficit as a proportion of GDP which might be a better yardstick, but this is a yardstick as well. I don't really care whether or not you buy it, I'm not selling anything.

Trudeau debt, $20 Bn (1970) -> $208 Bn (1984) Net Change - $188 Bn

Harper debt, $458 Bn (2007) -> $543 Bn (Forecasted 2012) Net Change - $85 Bn

Can't think of a better yardstick than that.

Not defending Harper, or his spending ways, it needs to stop, but the statement is propaganda.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[nicky10013]

Trudeau debt, $20 Bn (1970) -> $208 Bn (1984) Net Change - $188 Bn

Harper debt, $458 Bn (2007) -> $543 Bn (Forecasted 2012) Net Change - $85 Bn

Can't think of a better yardstick than that.

Not defending Harper, or his spending ways, it needs to stop, but the statement is propaganda.

So is this. The net results look terrible, but Harper has accrued nearly half the debt in dollars as Trudeau in a 1/3rd of the time.

[TimG]

So is this. The net results look terrible, but Harper has accrued nearly half the debt in dollars as Trudeau in a 1/3rd of the time.

More like 17% of the debt in 1/3 the time.

After adjusting for inflation:

Trudeau debt 70-84: 287 billion in 2010 dollars

Harper debt 07-12: 48 billion in 2010 dollars

Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG