Jump to content

Harper Doing a Good Job At Handling The Economy


Recommended Posts

Hard to believe this came from the Red Star, but for once I agree with them.

excerpted.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/876344--persichilli-obsession-with-liberals-is-hurting-harper

Harper is doing a good job at handling our economy and also representing Canada abroad, but the fact that Conservative support has not been able to break through the mid-30s in public opinion polls means the party has made some mistakes.

One of the biggest is their obsession with fighting the Liberal party. It seems to me that Stephen Harper is one of the few Canadians to take the present Liberal party seriously.

---------------------------------------

Despite the Liberal rhetoric, Canadians know whom they believe they can trust when it comes to their jobs, savings and the economy in general. Canadians also know that the Harper government has an approach to safety and the fight against crime that many of them agree with and don’t need other proof.

But what most Canadians still want to know from Harper’s government is its approach to social issues. Until now, the government and Harper himself have been perceived as competent, definitely more competent than the alternative. But they have also been perceived — in my opinion, wrongly — as insensitive.

The only sector they have started to tackle with some conviction and a different mentality is immigration. There are many huge problems still to solve, but Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is taking a different approach: namely cooperation with the opposition instead of confrontation — and it has worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason Canada weathered the economic storm so well is thanks to the solid footing the Liberal Party placed Canada in under Paul Martin who built his successes in part upon the GST, free trade and severe deficit fighting that occurred under Mulroney and his ilk.

Sure each party did it poorly. Mulroney brought in free trade, closed overseas bases, slashed military personnel and the civil service and created the GST all in the face of overwhelming opposition by Canadians. Meanwhile, Martin slashed healthcare transfers, decimated military funding, carried on Mulroney's bank reforms and outright lied about the GST being scrapped but in the end, all the things Canadians hated over the past 20 years did help put us on fairly solid ground when the worst economic downturn arrived.

So just as I think it is completely unfair to hold the Conservatives accountable for downturns right now, I also don't think they deserve too much credit for upswings either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The once powerful party of Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau has been reduced to the meagre support of core Liberal voters, namely those who would vote for the party even if its leader were a donkey with a nice pair of glasses.

Thankfully the same is every bit as true of MacDonald, Diefenbaker and Mulroney's party, and the similarly emaciated looking core of supporters who would vote for Harper's.

Harper even has a pair of glasses too.

I just wish someone like Keith Martin would run for PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully the same is every bit as true of MacDonald, Diefenbaker and Mulroney's party

Ah, but they are dead party. Last two Mohicans were Orchard and Clark :)

I just wish someone like Keith Martin would run for PM.

Me too. It would be as much fun as Stephane Dion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just as I think it is completely unfair to hold the Conservatives accountable for downturns right now, I also don't think they deserve too much credit for upswings either.

In actuality, a major contributing factor to the economic survival of many Canadians -thus far- can be attributed to the Bank Act, which has been around since about 1870. It has survived many regimes of all political stripe. It has two outcomes: limiting the ability of Canucks to bankrupt themselves via ultra high ratio subprime loans, and limiting the banks from helping people bankrupt themselves and then the bank itself, which the banks would cheerfully do if a nickel was to be gained.

If America had the equivalent to our Bank Act and regulation via CMHC, their lemtdown woiuld not be nearly do dramatic because the subprime risk would be much smaller.

I find it astonishing that the US has yet to implement any real change to residential mortgage lending since the calamity began. There is every reason to belive the next crisis is simply a matter of time.

And I say 'thus far' above because it is very possible and quite likely that the economic problems down south - and by heavy osmosis on our side of the border- are far from over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully the same is every bit as true of MacDonald, Diefenbaker and Mulroney's party, and the similarly emaciated looking core of supporters who would vote for Harper's.

Harper even has a pair of glasses too.

I just wish someone like Keith Martin would run for PM.

For which party LOL

Why does it matter if Harper wears glasses, I wear them is that somehow wrong ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, a major contributing factor to the economic survival of many Canadians -thus far- can be attributed to the Bank Act, which has been around since about 1870. It has survived many regimes of all political stripe. It has two outcomes: limiting the ability of Canucks to bankrupt themselves via ultra high ratio subprime loans, and limiting the banks from helping people bankrupt themselves and then the bank itself, which the banks would cheerfully do if a nickel was to be gained.

If America had the equivalent to our Bank Act and regulation via CMHC, their lemtdown woiuld not be nearly do dramatic because the subprime risk would be much smaller.

I find it astonishing that the US has yet to implement any real change to residential mortgage lending since the calamity began. There is every reason to belive the next crisis is simply a matter of time.

And I say 'thus far' above because it is very possible and quite likely that the economic problems down south - and by heavy osmosis on our side of the border- are far from over.

Well said.

The problems are more accurately begun instead of over, that would be my only point of contention with your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....It has survived many regimes of all political stripe. It has two outcomes: limiting the ability of Canucks to bankrupt themselves via ultra high ratio subprime loans, and limiting the banks from helping people bankrupt themselves and then the bank itself, which the banks would cheerfully do if a nickel was to be gained.

There was also a third outcome....lack of access to domestic capital, requiring aggressive and continuing invitation for foreign investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to believe this came from the Red Star, but for once I agree with them.

excerpted.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/876344--persichilli-obsession-with-liberals-is-hurting-harper

As opposed to?

I'd say that sure when you have a choice between terribly damaging the federal government or only slightly doing so.. only slightly doing so could be seen as good, while terribly might be seen as bad. If you skew this yet a little more you might see between benefiting the federal government or rather doing it as to where benefiting it is good and doing it harm is bad. But I guess everyone draws their line in a different place.

Flying around on expensive jets and staying in expensive hotels generally does not have a large economic benefit to the one paying the bill - however if that is bringing in deals - show em.. I havn't seen em, they may be there, where are they? I'm sure they are somewhere.. Mr. Harper, where are the deals that bring economic benefit to Canada? I'm sure they are there somewhere...

The queen cancels her by anual christmas party and Harper is jet setting for....? for?? isn't that the Governor General's Job? Or the reason we have diplomatic missions?

Since when are state vistis done by interior ministers? The PM is not a state official they administer the government.

Is suddently Harper the only man to be able to do things in Canada - the only person of capacity - why is that? Is Harper the deal broker for Canada? Why is this..

Why is it that suddently missions are unable to fullfill state duties?

I can understand making visits as a guest, however on the public dime without taking leave is issued.

If you want a vacation to visit friends do it, but if it isn't official government business do it on your own time and your own dime. There are deputy PM's for a reason.

I however seriously question that he is doing his job... at managing the government - the PM really isn't suppose to be a state official and doing so is negligence of their duties as PM.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason Canada weathered the economic storm so well is thanks to the solid footing the Liberal Party placed Canada in under Paul Martin who built his successes in part upon the GST, free trade and severe deficit fighting that occurred under Mulroney and his ilk.

Sure each party did it poorly. Mulroney brought in free trade, closed overseas bases, slashed military personnel and the civil service and created the GST all in the face of overwhelming opposition by Canadians. Meanwhile, Martin slashed healthcare transfers, decimated military funding, carried on Mulroney's bank reforms and outright lied about the GST being scrapped but in the end, all the things Canadians hated over the past 20 years did help put us on fairly solid ground when the worst economic downturn arrived.

So just as I think it is completely unfair to hold the Conservatives accountable for downturns right now, I also don't think they deserve too much credit for upswings either.

And if martin was still PM and he went ahead with the 5 billion kelowa accord and how many billions into goverment babysitting programs,how would be right now,IMO alot worse off. And speaking of his severe deficit fighting he did, well the PS union are still fighting for the up to 60 billion taken from the pensions, and taking all that money from UI is hurting right now, I understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason Canada weathered the economic storm so well is thanks to the solid footing the Liberal Party placed Canada in under Paul Martin who built his successes in part upon the GST, free trade and severe deficit fighting that occurred under Mulroney and his ilk.

Sure each party did it poorly. Mulroney brought in free trade, closed overseas bases, slashed military personnel and the civil service and created the GST all in the face of overwhelming opposition by Canadians. Meanwhile, Martin slashed healthcare transfers, decimated military funding, carried on Mulroney's bank reforms and outright lied about the GST being scrapped but in the end, all the things Canadians hated over the past 20 years did help put us on fairly solid ground when the worst economic downturn arrived.

So just as I think it is completely unfair to hold the Conservatives accountable for downturns right now, I also don't think they deserve too much credit for upswings either.

I think thats pretty much right as far laying (or not laying) blame, and praise.

The real reason the recession never hit us very hard though, is really just that we have a more sound financial system, and less dangerous credit products in our market. I think the rules were put in place during the 70's and then the system was further strenthened by a series of bank mergers in the 80's that resulted in most investment banking activity being run by banks with traditional branch commericial banking wings to fall back on.

So in some way both Martin and Harper just inheritied a better system than they have in the US and some other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was also a third outcome....lack of access to domestic capital, requiring aggressive and continuing invitation for foreign investment.

Not true of Canada, since all the chartered banks here offer large pools of capital since there are so few of them. On the other hand, rates are not as good when there is less competition. However, we have seen closeup in our neighbours what unregulated - and still unregulated- corporate subprime greed/insanity results in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.

The problems are more accurately begun instead of over, that would be my only point of contention with your post.

You may the right, in the US the next tsunami of real estae woes is underway in America now. One of the ways that really hurts us is that means even fewer new homes built there, which has a direct and immediate impact on our lumber industry.

As much as we dislike it, we are inextricably bound to US economic fortunes.

One of the ways we have domestic trouble ahead is tied to the timing of our own subprime mortages. In 2005-2007 a fair number of Canadians toook out zero down, 40 year amortization mortgages(actually negative equity deals when CMHC premiums are added) with five year terms.

Those laons are now up for renewal, and they cannot be renewed on CMHC approved zero down payment, and the 40 year terms are gobne. Sevcral major markets have stagnated or gone backwards in that time.

It means they have no equity, and no longer qualify for their own homes- even if they have faithfully serviced the loan.

They will either lose the house, or the federal govt will have to find a way through different CMHC standards to allow them to stay.

It is a time bomb and the fuse is getting shorter all the time.

Note to add: one way we differ dramatically from the US is that the people who got 'subprime' loans in Canada -Zero down, long amortizations- all have excellent credit, better than average scores. They had to be that way then to qualify.

Edited by fellowtraveller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Martin's success was on the backs of the taxpayer, major cutbacks in transfer payments to health and education, then there was the EI surplus thrown into general revenue, tax increases, many due to de-indexation and higher payroll taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Martin's success was on the backs of the taxpayer, major cutbacks in transfer payments to health and education, then there was the EI surplus thrown into general revenue, tax increases, many due to de-indexation and higher payroll taxes.

So what you're saying is the Liberals are more Conservative than the CPC. Seems to me we always get the promises to slash budgets and slash taxes from the CPC. Yet, the only party with a proven record on doing both is the Liberals. It seems the only thing we can count on from the CPC over their past 30 years is to slash taxes but go on a spending orgy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Martin's success was on the backs of the taxpayer, major cutbacks in transfer payments to health and education, then there was the EI surplus thrown into general revenue, tax increases, many due to de-indexation and higher payroll taxes.

What are you talking about? The Liberals were the ones who indexed federal income tax to inflation. They're the ones who make CPP sustainable. EI...is a different matter. The Liberals slashed everything, from the civil service to transfers to the provinces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like going on a diet. You lose 30 pounds and then when you realize your pants have an elasticized waistband, you eat like a glutton so you can regain the weight.

Except that we didn't regain the deficit until someone else took over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say that, don't impute words to me that weren't said.

Sure you did. The main conservative claim is that they'll slash and burn government budgets "because we just can't afford it." The only government in the past 30 years to actually meaningfully cut government budgets and lower taxes have been the Chrietien and Martin Liberals.

The fact that you decry the very thing you want your own party to do shows the "conservative" ideal to be what it actually is: a partisan lie. Either that or it's a form of very idiotic, ignorant hypocrisy.

Edited by nicky10013
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...