GWiz Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Harper has only managed to lose a majority, not an election (not since 2004, at least) Two things are most surprising: 1) No matter what the scandal, the Liberals can't make it stick. Even when there are multiple scandals. 2) There is still no heir apparent to Harper. Who will succeed him? Isn't it fascinating to see a leader with 3 elections (2 minorities, 1 loss) under his belt and a third on the way which looks to produce the same results and still, the attention is on the Liberal leader's possible successor? Dave www.youshouldknowbetter.com Is that really all that surprising at this point in TIME? The entire North Africa news, now Libya, dominates the airwaves... The next BUDGET, just weeks away, that will determine whether or not there will be a spring election is the FOCUS of the politically minded in Canada... Harper attack ads are running and have been running for over a year now "just in case" the current government is brought down... Once the writ is dropped things may change very quickly as an apathetic Canadian public starts paying attention to what the "Harper Government" is really like... In the reading I've done on MLW I have a very hard TIME finding anything substantive that the Torys have done or even their POLICIES going forward... This leaves me to conclude that the so called "support" the "Harper Government" has is extremely weak at best... The MEDIA itself WANT an election this spring BADLY and I find a LOT of evidence for that by just watching the NEWS and how said (political) NEWS is presented on the CBC, CTV, 24 hour NEWS CHANNELS as well as the "nightly news" on ALL Canadian channels... So you can see that it's not really that surprising that Canadians, for the most part, have simply "tuned out" and are doing their "social networking" thing or listening to music on their ipods... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 People may not like PM Harper as many people do not but the same people will also admit that he's doing a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 People may not like PM Harper as many people do not but the same people will also admit that he's doing a good job. "Good job" as opposed to what? Running up the HIGHEST deficit in Canadian history, spending a BILLION dollars on 1 weekend, being SUBSTANTIALLY WRONG on EVERY budget or update since Harper's been in power, having a total disrespect for the workings of the Canadian Government, taking "credit" for all the "safeguards" the Liberals put in place that ensured the recession didn't hit Canada as hard as other countries, buying (as opposed to option to buy) planes that even the US Navy is having second thoughts about at more than DOUBLE the projected price, you call that a "good job"? I call that a TOTAL FAILURE as a Government... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 I call that a TOTAL FAILURE as a Government... Geez, as hard and as often as we try, we just can't seem to get this "good government" right. They all seem to screw up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Geez, as hard and as often as we try, we just can't seem to get this "good government" right. They all seem to screw up. To a certain extent that is quite true... ALL Governments are far from perfect and tend to screw up to some degree... But when you look at the REALITY of Canada's Governments, beginning with DiefenBaker (scraping the Avro Arrow +++), MORONey (Free Trade/NAFTA sellout to the US - "revenue neutral" GST - Air Bus - etc., etc., etc., - even SUING Canada and then ADMITTING he screwed Canada), and NOW there's MORONey's protege Harper screwing up and screwing Canadians again and again, it just seems that CONSERVATIVES are sooo much better at screwing Canadians than any other political party... I for one will take my chances on a relatively unknown Ignatieff backed by a pretty strong front bench than a corrupt (if not ouright crooked), parliament disrespecting, Canada defacing, BIG SPENDER like HARPER with a bunch of idiots on his bench any TIME... Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Interesting viewpoint. This is Iggy's last kick at the cat, last chance. That would be can. Kicking a cat brings trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Interesting viewpoint. This is Iggy's last kick at the cat, last chance. Would that be the same as ONLY chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 Most Canadians don't know who Bev Oda is, and they rightly don't care. They don't know about In-Out payments (and if they bothered to figure it out, they woudln't care.) Cite your source please. While it might be inaccurate to say most Canadians don't know who Oda is, the number of people who do recognize her (and her errors) is only barely above a majority. In the poll released Friday, 56% of Canadians knew who Oda was, and only 54% could say why she was in trouble. That same poll of 1,002 adult Canadians turned up some interesting responses as to who people think Oda is. Respondents pegged Oda as the Tunisian prime minister, Egypt's president, Libya's president, a premier, the Liberal minister of culture, an NDP MP, the Green Party leader and a minister who wears dark glasses. ... Coletto's poll showed the controversy has had little effect on people's voting intentions. From: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/01/17450666.html Here's what I find ironic... in the U.S., Bush got criticized (and quite rightly I might add) for giving money to religious organizations involved in social work. (After all, they're pretty big on the whole separation of church and state down there.) Yet here in Canada, our own bureaucrats wanted to fund Kairos, who's composed largely of religious groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 "Good job" as opposed to what? The alternatives, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Running up the HIGHEST deficit in Canadian history... Yup, mighty big deficit. Not totally happy about that myself. However, a little context is valuable here. Much of that deficit was due to the global recession and the resulting stimulus.... When it was brought in, both the NDP and Liberal party were both pushing for increased spending, so we would have likely ended up in pretty much the same situation whether the Conservatives increased spending, or they held the line and let the Liberal/NDP coalition get in power. ...spending a BILLION dollars on 1 weekend... Ah yes, the G8/G20 summit. But I'm going to put forward the same challenge to you that I put forward to others... How exactly did they misspend money on the summit? Whenever I've asked that question, I can never get a straight answer. The fact is, summits like that are expensive. Its the cost of doing business in a world with complex global interactions. Unless you can point to something in particular the conservatives wasted money on (something that would have been an executive decision) then the only alternative would have been to withdraw from the G8/G20 (and suffer a decrease in our international influence as a result.) And keep in mind that the last time we hosted a G8 conference when Chretien was P.M., it cost around $200 million, and that was for a conference that was A: shorter, and B: had fewer countries. ...being SUBSTANTIALLY WRONG on EVERY budget or update since Harper's been in power... And the former Liberal government regularly incorrectly stated its budget surpluses for years. It doesn't excuse the Conservatives doing it, but it does put it into context. ....having a total disrespect for the workings of the Canadian Government... Again, sadly, not really significantly different from the actions of other parties. ...taking "credit" for all the "safeguards" the Liberals put in place that ensured the recession didn't hit Canada as hard as other countries... Yup they did. Welcome to politics. The Liberals did it when they were in power too. And I'm sure that whomever gets in power next will take credit for things this government does. ...buying (as opposed to option to buy) planes that even the US Navy is having second thoughts about at more than DOUBLE the projected price Minor note.... The U.S. navy would be purchasing the F35C variant. Canada would be purchasing the F35A variant. Yup, its an expensive plane. Any 'cutting edge' military technology will be. I call that a TOTAL FAILURE as a Government... Its a failure in so much as pretty much every government has been a failure, and every government in the future will be a failure. But when you look at the REALITY of Canada's Governments, beginning with DiefenBaker (scraping the Avro Arrow +++) Ummm... the Arrow was scrapped because it was A: expensive, and B: would not be effective given changes in military strategy at the time (a change from long range bombers to missles would make interceptors less useful.) I find it ironic that you would label the F35 as a sign of 'failure', yet the canceling of another, similarly expensive (and possibly useless) piece of hardware as also a 'failure'. ...MORONey (Free Trade/NAFTA sellout to the US - "revenue neutral" GST... Both of which were continued by the Chretien government. Free trade has given us access to the U.S. markets, where we regularly enjoy huge trade surpluses. Most people think that selling Canadian products is a "good thing". And the GST? May be hated, but it greatly simplified our taxation system. ... - even SUING Canada... Question... if Mulroney was "wrong" to sue Canada, then how come he actually won the lawsuit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) Interesting viewpoint. This is Iggy's last kick at the cat, last chance. If Ignatieff wins seats, he stays. Further, for there to be a last, there had to be a first. Edited March 9, 2011 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 But when you look at the REALITY of Canada's Governments, beginning with DiefenBaker (scraping the Avro Arrow +++), MORONey (Free Trade/NAFTA sellout to the US - "revenue neutral" GST - Air Bus - etc., etc., etc., - even SUING Canada and then ADMITTING he screwed Canada), and NOW there's MORONey's protege Harper screwing up and screwing Canadians again and again, it just seems that CONSERVATIVES are sooo much better at screwing Canadians than any other political party...See (link) for my response to your name calling. Didn't Trudeau, Clark, Chretien and Martin have some rather choice nicknames? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Yup, mighty big deficit. Not totally happy about that myself. However, a little context is valuable here. Agreed, let's put this into FULL context... Budget projected deficit - $30 BILLION - Harper Regime stated deficit - $56 BILLION REAL DEFICIT spending by Harper Regime: $56 BILLION + $9 BILLION wasted and lost revenues (2% GST cut and other tax cuts) + $13 BILLION spending of the Liberal's "rainy day fund" (put in place for exactly the purpose of preventing deficit spending in "hard times") TOTAL HARPER REGIME BUDGETARY DEFICIT SPENDING: $78 BILLION Much of that deficit was due to the global recession and the resulting stimulus... Mostly incorrect... Other than a "glancing blow" caused by our close economic ties to the US, Canada did NOT go into said "Global Recession" thanks to safeguards, although mostly wasted by the Harper Regime as I've just stated, put in place by the previous Chretien/Martin Government... This part deleted as it is totally irrelevent to this discussion... Ah yes, the G8/G20 summit. But I'm going to put forward the same challenge to you that I put forward to others... How exactly did they misspend money on the summit? Easily answered... The Harper Regime chose a totally inapropriate site for the combined G8/G20 summit with it being too small for the G20 portion of the combined summit... But here's a much better, and much more impartial, "explanation" than I can provide - G20: Canada’s billion-dollar summit mystery Excerpt - - Ottawa initially allocated $179 million for the G8 and G20 summits — three days of talks that are now expected to set taxpayers back at least $1.1 billion. Most of the money, about $930 million, is for security. Last September, Pittsburgh hosted a G20 summit that resulted in no great breaches of public order but whose security-related costs totaled only about $12.2 million (U.S.) — less than 1.5 per cent of the projected costs of the summits in Toronto and Huntsville. “How you can get to $930 million is beyond my comprehension,” said Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. “That seems impossibly large.” For the G20 gathering in Pittsburgh, organizers rented the seven-year-old David L. Lawrence Convention Center, located on the banks of the Allegheny River in the city’s business and entertainment district. The Toronto summit will be similarly conducted at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. “They shut down the entire downtown,” Davies said of the Pittsburgh gathering. “It went very well.” - I've deleted the rest due to it's irrelevancy to the question... And the former Liberal government regularly incorrectly stated its budget surpluses for years. It doesn't excuse the Conservatives doing it, but it does put it into context. I love full CONTEXT... Particularily when it was Reform/PC criticism of projected SURPLUS budgets falling slightly short of projections that changed the Liberals way of projecting budgets MORE CONSERVATIVELY to appease that criticism... A practise continued by the Harper Regime when they took power... Unfortunately project, or underestimating a SURPLUS budget is something completely different when it comes to projecting a DEFICIT BUDGET... A 26 BILLION DOLLAR underestimation of the Harper Regime's last "budget, I would say, amounts to, to be as kind as possible, a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of Harper Regime spending both to Parliament and the Canadian Public... I'm sure ANY reasonably intelligent person of ANY political stripe can see that difference... Yup they did. Welcome to politics. Slight correction... Welcome to Harper Regime style politics... The Liberals did it when they were in power too. And I'm sure that whomever gets in power next will take credit for things this government does. Really? Examples please... I have great doubt that there is/will be ANYTHING that ANY future Government will want to take "credit" for... Minor note.... The U.S. navy would be purchasing the F35C variant. Canada would be purchasing the F35A variant. Yup, its an expensive plane. Any 'cutting edge' military technology will be. Major note... There's a rather large thread you may want to spend some TIME reading through to become a bit more credible in regards to this whole issue... Since the F-35c, the far better and far more suitable plane for Canada is even MORE EXPENSIVE than the F-35a you are in effect making my "case" for me since the F-35a is NEITHER suitable nor "cutting edge"... BUT by electing a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT one can ensure one thing, a bigger bang for a LOT less bucks than the current "deal"... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=630722 Its a failure in so much as pretty much every government has been a failure, and every government in the future will be a failure. Silly statement, at best... Saying no Government is infallible or IMPERFECT is true, but NO, not every Government is a failure, but to this point in TIME the Harper Regime IS a failure as a Government... Ummm... the Arrow was scrapped because it was A: expensive, and B: would not be effective given changes in military strategy at the time (a change from long range bombers to missles would make interceptors less useful.) Ummm, NO... One represented Canada's FUTURE in Military Aviation vs being forever FORCED into exactly this kind of debate about every Military Purchase... You obviously have no knowledge of Canadian History and are using the "Diefenbaker Argument" at this point in TIME as a defence FOR buying the UNPROVEN F-35, that's actually quite laughable... You seem to have very little PRIDE in Canada, which is quite the opposite of me, I am an EXTREMELY PROUD Canadian... I have therefore concluded going any further with this post would prove rather pointless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 $56 BILLION + $9 BILLION wasted and lost revenues (2% GST cut and other tax cuts) + $13 BILLION spending of the Liberal's "rainy day fund" (put in place for exactly the purpose of preventing deficit spending in "hard times") TOTAL HARPER REGIME BUDGETARY DEFICIT SPENDING: $78 BILLION :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) You obviously have no knowledge of Canadian History and are using the "Diefenbaker Argument" at this point in TIME as a defence FOR buying the UNPROVEN F-35, that's actually quite laughable... I'm going to ignore your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the budget numbers you posted. You're totally clueless, but explaining it all to you appears hopeless so I'll hone in on your Avro Arrow argument instead. The Avro Arrow was an obsolete design as soon as it came on the market. It was designed as an interceptor. Its intended use was to fly really fast and really straight to catch up to long range Soviet bombers before they had a chance to drop nukes on us. It wasn't agile. It wasn't robust. It was a very fast and very straight flying plane. With the advent of ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles), long range bombers were no longer the main nuclear threat. Nuclear Missiles launched from Russia were. The Avro was useless in countering this threat. Continuing with the Avro would have been a waste of money and continuing to fund a tiny military aerospace industry was equally wasteful. We shared continental defence with the world's biggest military manufacturer and the scale at which they were able to operate, and our common defensive interests, made Avro redundant. You don't seem to have any idea what the Arrow was tbh. Edited March 9, 2011 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 If Ignatieff wins seats, he stays. And if he loses will Dion come back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Iggy's own party or I should say the rae camp are out to get him, I almost feel sorry for the guy. All you see is rae and he is now in charge of the Gadaffi file which is giving him a lot of exposure. They still are not ready for primetime with all this infighting going on. It will be real intertesting if iggy loses his job on what he will have to say after they dump him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) I'm going to ignore your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the budget numbers you posted. You're totally clueless, but explaining it all to you appears hopeless so I'll hone in on your Avro Arrow argument instead. The Avro Arrow was an obsolete design as soon as it came on the market. It was designed as an interceptor. Its intended use was to fly really fast and really straight to catch up to long range Soviet bombers before they had a chance to drop nukes on us. It wasn't agile. It wasn't robust. It was a very fast and very straight flying plane. With the advent of ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles), long range bombers were no longer the main nuclear threat. Nuclear Missiles launched from Russia were. The Avro was useless in countering this threat. Continuing with the Avro would have been a waste of money and continuing to fund a tiny military aerospace industry was equally wasteful. We shared continental defence with the world's biggest military manufacturer and the scale at which they were able to operate, and our common defensive interests, made Avro redundant. You don't seem to have any idea what the Arrow was tbh. The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream - It's the closest thing Canadian industry has to a love story and a murder mystery. The Avro Arrow, a sleek white jet interceptor developed in Malton, Ontario in the 1950s, could have been many things. It might have become the fastest plane in the world, our best defence against Soviet bombers, the catalyst to propel Canada to the forefront of the aviation industry. Instead, it became a $400-million pile of scrap metal, and the stuff of legends. - MORE Nuff said Edited March 9, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Iggy's own party or I should say the rae camp are out to get him, I almost feel sorry for the guy. All you see is rae and he is now in charge of the Gadaffi file which is giving him a lot of exposure. They still are not ready for primetime with all this infighting going on. It will be real intertesting if iggy loses his job on what he will have to say after they dump him. Harper's election to lose? He's trying hard... A not so short list of RECENT events... That's the heading of this thread... Just in case you forgot and want to make this about "Iggy and the Liberals"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Yup, mighty big deficit. Not totally happy about that myself. However, a little context is valuable here. Agreed, let's put this into FULL context... Budget projected deficit - $30 BILLION - Harper Regime stated deficit - $56 BILLION REAL DEFICIT spending by Harper Regime: $56 BILLION + $9 BILLION wasted and lost revenues (2% GST cut and other tax cuts) + $13 BILLION spending of the Liberal's "rainy day fund" (put in place for exactly the purpose of preventing deficit spending in "hard times") Ummm... do you know what the concept of "putting things into context" is? Remember that prior to the government going into deficit, the Conservatives were not going to engage in significant stimulus spending. It was the threat of a takeover by the Liberal/NDP coalition which caused them to do the stimulus spending. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html?ref=rss The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois......the accord's proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy... The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Much of that deficit was due to the global recession and the resulting stimulus... Mostly incorrect... Other than a "glancing blow" caused by our close economic ties to the US, Canada did NOT go into said "Global Recession"... Really? You might want to tell Statscan about that. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/04/15/statscan-mild-recession.html Statistics Canada said Canada did suffer through a technical recession — a 3.3 per cent drop in GDP over three quarters between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2009. Yeah, things may not have been quite as bad here as they were in the U.S. or parts of Europe, but that does not mean that we were totally unaffected. We DID suffer... our exports dropped as foreign markets had less capital, uncertainty affected financial markets. This would have caused a loss of jobs, decrease in tax base, and increased expenditures on things like Unemployment insurance. But hey, what exactly does Statscan know? Ah yes, the G8/G20 summit.But I'm going to put forward the same challenge to you that I put forward to others... How exactly did they misspend money on the summit? Easily answered... Ummm... But you didn't answer the question. All you did was quote someone else who says the don't know why it was so expensive. But here's a much better, and much more impartial, "explanation" than I can provide - G20: Canada’s billion-dollar summit mystery Excerpt - “How you can get to $930 million is beyond my comprehension,” said Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. “That seems impossibly large.” For the G20 gathering in Pittsburgh, organizers rented the seven-year-old David L. Lawrence Convention Center, located on the banks of the Allegheny River in the city’s business and entertainment district. The Toronto summit will be similarly conducted at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. “They shut down the entire downtown,” Davies said of the Pittsburgh gathering. “It went very well.” - I've deleted the rest due to it's irrelevancy to the question... Actually, the rest of the article was very relevant. You just cut it out because it actually disproved your point. Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable...He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada. Here's a suggestion... when you quote an article, you might want to read through the entire article. Oh, and I wonder how well "shutting down the entire downtown" will work if they tried it in Toronto. Oh, and by the way, you never did address the fact that the Chretien government spent hundreds of millions staging a G8 conference that was shorter and had far fewer participants. I love full CONTEXT... Umm... no you don't. You like to nitpick, ignore history, and basically use any trick you can to make your party look good. Oh, and by the way, lying about the projected sizes of surpluses is also dirty pool, since it can facilitate money being diverted into projects without proper parlimentary discussion. The Liberals did it when they were in power too. And I'm sure that whomever gets in power next will take credit for things this government does. Really? Examples please... When Mulroney left power, he left the government with an operating surplus. (i.e. they were taking in more than they were spending. It was only the debt payments that kept it from being a fiscal surplus.) Not only did the Chretien government inherit a government that had done a good job slowing government spending, they ended up taking power at a time when international interest rates were falling (thus reducing debt payment charges) and the global economy was exceptionally robust. Not only that, the free trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives increased exports (thus keeping our economy and government revenue strong), and the GST (which Chretien said he would scrap, but didn't) and other tax measures brought forward by the Conservatives didn't have a great effect until later. So basically, a monkey with half a brain would have ended up with a surplus. From: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=0a98cde7-25e8-4e9d-a34e-f85facbd731f By the time Tory finance minister Michael Wilson and Mulroney left office some nine years later, the federal government had an operating surplus and the deficit as a percentage of GDP had been reduced by one-third, despite the worldwide recession of 1990-91. In other words, were it not for the interest Canada had to pay on the gargantuan debt the Liberals had solely created to that point, Mulroney would have been running a surplus. Re: The F35 fighter...Major note... There's a rather large thread you may want to spend some TIME reading through to become a bit more credible in regards to this whole issue... Actually, I am familiar with the thread. In fact, I've even posted earlier in the thread's existence. I haven't bothered following up on it recently because people who oppose the F35 purchase have been totally unresponsive when questions are posed to them. ...Since the F-35c, the far better and far more suitable plane for Canada is even MORE EXPENSIVE than the F-35a you are in effect making my "case" for me since the F-35a is NEITHER suitable nor "cutting edge"... Ummm... no. The F-35C is designed for Carrier operations. (Enhanced landing gear, folding wing tips, etc.) None of these would be of significant advantage to Canadian operations, thus it is not "far more suitable". BUT by electing a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT one can ensure one thing, a bigger bang for a LOT less bucks than the current "deal"... Actually, electing a liberal government would 'ensure' nothing. We could end up in the same boat as we did when Chretien first canceled the helicopter plan, only to buy the same helicopters they originally purchased. Its a failure in so much as pretty much every government has been a failure, and every government in the future will be a failure. Silly statement, at best... Not really. You've nitpicked, taken facts out of their historical context, and done everything you can to make "your party" look good and "the other guys" look bad. When you do that, anyone can find reasons to label a government as a "failure". Ummm... the Arrow was scrapped because it was A: expensive, and B: would not be effective given changes in military strategy at the time (a change from long range bombers to missles would make interceptors less useful.) Ummm, NO... One represented Canada's FUTURE in Military Aviation vs being forever FORCED into exactly this kind of debate about every Military Purchase... Ummmm... no. The arrow was not the "future in military aviation" because in that time period the "future" was in ICBMs. The Arrow would not have been useful in stopping ICBMS. So, we would have been left with a hundred planes that could fly fast, but were less effective in actual combat roles. You seem to have very little PRIDE in Canada, which is quite the opposite of me, I am an EXTREMELY PROUD Canadian... Actually I have a lot of pride. That's why I favor policies that are libertarian in nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream - It's the closest thing Canadian industry has to a love story and a murder mystery. The Avro Arrow, a sleek white jet interceptor developed in Malton, Ontario in the 1950s, could have been many things. It might have become the fastest plane in the world, our best defence against Soviet bombers, the catalyst to propel Canada to the forefront of the aviation industry. Instead, it became a $400-million pile of scrap metal, and the stuff of legends. - MORE Nuff said Nope, its not "nuff said", because once again, you are totally ignoring the fact that the use of them as the "best defense against soviet bombers" was not an issue anymore since bombers were no longer considered the major threat. Its like Canada building a wall to keep out the hordes of the Mongolian empire, even though Geingis Kahn has been dead for centuries and the threat of horse-riding warriors has long been replaced by tanks and guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Ummm... do you know what the concept of "putting things into context" is? Yes I do... Do you? Remember that prior to the government going into deficit, the Conservatives were not going to engage in significant stimulus spending. It was the threat of a takeover by the Liberal/NDP coalition which caused them to do the stimulus spending. I remember it well, in fact I AGREED that there was NO NEED for Canada to go into US style "stimulous spending" since the previous Liberal Government already had put into place several very beneficial "grant and loan programs" to ordinary Canadians with upgrading home insulation, heating and the like, as well as supports for municipalities to increase infrastructure spending and hikes in transfer payments to the provinces... I also remember that rather than arguing the relative merits of "stimulous spending" with the opposition parties as is the function of parliament the Harper Regime decided to proroque parliament instead... Since I've agreed with why Harper proroqued parliament I've deleted this part of your argument as redundant and irrelevant... Really? You might want to tell Statscan about that. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/04/15/statscan-mild-recession.html Statistics Canada said Canada did suffer through a technical recession — a 3.3 per cent drop in GDP over three quarters between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2009. Where did I say any different? Yeah, things may not have been quite as bad here as they were in the U.S. or parts of Europe, but that does not mean that we were totally unaffected. Again, where did I indicate in any way that Canada was "totally unaffected"? We DID suffer... our exports dropped as foreign markets had less capital, uncertainty affected financial markets. This would have caused a loss of jobs, decrease in tax base, and increased expenditures on things like Unemployment insurance. But hey, what exactly does Statscan know? So? Stating that I said things I didn't say is YOUR argument? NOW, all you have to do is tell ME if YOU were/are FOR or AGAINST the Harper Regime's "stimulous spending"? Seems FAIR to me since I was very clear where I came down on that whole issue... Ummm... But you didn't answer the question. All you did was quote someone else who says the don't know why it was so expensive. Actually, the rest of the article was very relevant. You just cut it out because it actually disproved your point. Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable...He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada. Here's a suggestion... when you quote an article, you might want to read through the entire article. Oh, and I wonder how well "shutting down the entire downtown" will work if they tried it in Toronto. Oh, and by the way, you never did address the fact that the Chretien government spent hundreds of millions staging a G8 conference that was shorter and had far fewer participants. Ummm, sorry, I thought I made it VERY CLEAR indeed... - Ottawa initially allocated $179 million for the G8 and G20 summits — three days of talks that are now expected to set taxpayers back at least $1.1 billion. Most of the money, about $930 million, is for security. To make it CLEARER just for YOU the HARPER REGIME SCREWED UP ROYALLY BY NOT REALIZING that Huntsville was TOO SMALL to HOST A G20 SUMMIT and had to MOVE the G20 summit to DOWNTOWN TORONTO (of all places) which IN TURN produced astronomical security costs because that entire MOVE had not been planned on... The "MOVE" to Toronto was not only the WORST and MOST EXPENSIVE PLACE to move the G20 summit to, it was DONE for PURELY POLITICAL REASONS (or so Harper though by bringing an "economic boost" to Toronto) thereby compounding the Harper Regime's initial mistake by more and more mistakes, making Canada's G20 conference a FARCE in the eyes of the entire world... Umm... no you don't. You like to nitpick, ignore history, and basically use any trick you can to make your party look good. Yup, sounds EXACTLY like you... Talking to yourself? Oh, and by the way, lying about the projected sizes of surpluses is also dirty pool, since it can facilitate money being diverted into projects without proper parlimentary discussion. Lying is lying... Harper is without a doubt the best of the bunch when it comes to that I fully agree... When Mulroney left power, he left the government with an operating surplus. (i.e. they were taking in more than they were spending. It was only the debt payments that kept it from being a fiscal surplus.) Not only did the Chretien government inherit a government that had done a good job slowing government spending, they ended up taking power at a time when international interest rates were falling (thus reducing debt payment charges) and the global economy was exceptionally robust. Not only that, the free trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives increased exports (thus keeping our economy and government revenue strong), and the GST (which Chretien said he would scrap, but didn't) and other tax measures brought forward by the Conservatives didn't have a great effect until later. So basically, a monkey with half a brain would have ended up with a surplus. From: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=0a98cde7-25e8-4e9d-a34e-f85facbd731f By the time Tory finance minister Michael Wilson and Mulroney left office some nine years later, the federal government had an operating surplus and the deficit as a percentage of GDP had been reduced by one-third, despite the worldwide recession of 1990-91. In other words, were it not for the interest Canada had to pay on the gargantuan debt the Liberals had solely created to that point, Mulroney would have been running a surplus. What a COMPLETE LOAD of horse manure that is... You have now lost the last remnants of credibility... - "The worldwide recession of the early 1990s significantly damaged the government's financial situation. Mulroney's inability to improve the government's finances, as well as his use of tax increases to deal with it, were major factors in alienating the western conservative portion of his power base. At the same time, the Bank of Canada began to raise interest rates in order to meet a zero inflation target; the experiment was regarded as a failure that exacerbated the effect of the recession in Canada. Annual budget deficits ballooned to record levels, reaching $42 billion in his last year of office. These deficits grew the national debt dangerously close to the psychological benchmark of 100% of GDP, further weakening the Canadian dollar and damaging Canada's international credit rating." - - "The 1993 election was an unmitigated disaster for the Tories. The oldest party in Canada was reduced from a 151-seat majority to two seats in the worst defeat ever suffered for a governing party at the federal level. The Progressive Conservatives were no longer a party, since the required minimum number of seats for official party status is 12. The 149-seat loss far exceeded the 95-seat loss the Liberals suffered in 1984. As an example of the antipathy toward Mulroney, his former riding fell to the Bloc by a lopsided margin; the Tory candidate finished a distant third, with only 6,800 votes—just a few votes shy of losing his electoral deposit.[34] In her memoirs, Time and Chance, and in her response in the National Post to The Secret Mulroney Tapes, Campbell stated that Mulroney left her with almost no time to salvage the Progressive Conservatives' tattered reputation once the bounce from the leadership convention wore off. Campbell went as far as to claim that Mulroney knew the Tories would be defeated regardless of who led them into the election, and wanted a "scapegoat who would bear the burden of his unpopularity" rather than a true successor." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney Actually I have a lot of pride. That's why I favor policies that are libertarian in nature. You've said enough... Having "pride" (even without any justification thereof) is NOT the same as being a PROUD CANADIAN; as I am... Since you have shown your "true self" there's no point to this "exchange" at all... Have a nice day and thank you for your valueless TIME... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Harper's election to lose? He's trying hard... A not so short list of RECENT events... That's the heading of this thread... Just in case you forgot and want to make this about "Iggy and the Liberals"... Those two are not part of the election? I'm almost inclined to believe you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Iggy's own party or I should say the rae camp are out to get him, I almost feel sorry for the guy. All you see is rae and he is now in charge of the Gadaffi file which is giving him a lot of exposure. They still are not ready for primetime with all this infighting going on. It will be real intertesting if iggy loses his job on what he will have to say after they dump him. It's pretty funny that you actually never hear this from Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Ummm... do you know what the concept of "putting things into context" is? Yes I do... In that case, I must congratulate you on your ability to keep your understanding of "context" well hidden. Remember that prior to the government going into deficit, the Conservatives were not going to engage in significant stimulus spending. It was the threat of a takeover by the Liberal/NDP coalition which caused them to do the stimulus spending. I remember it well, in fact I AGREED that there was NO NEED for Canada to go into US style "stimulous spending"... You see, this is the type of logical disconnect that really illustrates a failure in rational thinking among people like yourself. Earlier on, you claimed things would somehow be 'better' with the Liberals in charge. Yet the Liberals themselves were pushing for that "US style Stimulus spending". You condemn the Conservatives for it, but you give a free pass to the Liberals/NDP. So, do you think the Liberals/NDP were lying? Do you think they were going to get into power and just say "Ha! We lied! No stimulus!" Why is Conservative Stimulus spending "bad", while Liberal/NDP stimulus spending OK? A little consistency might actually make you seem less like a raving fanboy. ...since the previous Liberal Government already had put into place several very beneficial "grant and loan programs" to ordinary Canadians with upgrading home insulation, heating and the like, as well as supports for municipalities to increase infrastructure spending and hikes in transfer payments to the provinces... Once again, you are ignoring the fact that whatever programs were in place before the recession do not matter, as the Liberal/NDP coalition was going to add more spending anyways. Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that the Harper government had already been increasing its payments to the provincial governments long before the global recession and stimulus package. (Equalization payments went up by around 7-8% in the first few years of Harper's government. See: http://www.fin.gc.ca/estimates-evaluations/rpp14_-eng.asp) Since I've agreed with why Harper proroqued parliament I've deleted this part of your argument as redundant and irrelevant... Nope, quite relevant, since you've totally ignored the fact that the Liberals (the party you want to run the country) were also planning on stimulus spending. You might be willing to ignore the hyporicy, but I am not. Really? You might want to tell Statscan about that.From: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-recession.html Statistics Canada said Canada did suffer through a technical recession — a 3.3 per cent drop in GDP over three quarters between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2009. Where did I say any different? First of all, you claimed that we did not "go into said "Global Recession". You never did anything to acknowlege that there was any recession; instead, all you claimed was that it was a 'glancing blow'. Ummm... guess what? With a GDP of between 1 and 1.5 trillion, a 3.3% drop results in a drop of around 40 billion dollars to our economy. Given the amount of money the government collects in taxes, that alone would result in multiple billions of dollars of lost tax revenue, and that's not including increased costs for things like welfare/unemployment insurance. That's hardly a "glancing blow". So? Stating that I said things I didn't say is YOUR argument? NOW, all you have to do is tell ME if YOU were/are FOR or AGAINST the Harper Regime's "stimulous spending"? So? Stating that I said things I didn't say is YOUR argument? NOW, all you have to do is tell ME if YOU were/are FOR or AGAINST the Harper Regime's "stimulous spending"? I've stated it multiple times on this board... I think that it may have been a waste to engage in the stimulus spending. But given the fact that the Liberals/NDP were also pushing for increased spending (and the original plan was to not have any spending) then I view the conservatives as "lesser of 2 evils". Seems FAIR to me since I was very clear where I came down on that whole issue... When does hypocracy count as being "fair and clear"? You criticize the Conservatives for the stimulus spending, but ignore the fact that the Liberals were going to do the exact same thing. Ummm... But you didn't answer the question. All you did was quote someone else who says the don't know why it was so expensive.Actually, the rest of the article was very relevant. You just cut it out because it actually disproved your point. Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable...He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada. ... Oh, and by the way, you never did address the fact that the Chretien government spent hundreds of millions staging a G8 conference that was shorter and had far fewer participants. Ummm, sorry, I thought I made it VERY CLEAR indeed... Nope, you didn't. You gave no figures, not details of what spending was wrong. Basically you said "this spending is wrong" and left it at that. Oh, and once again, you ignored the statements made by Kirton that the summit expenses were reasonable, and you also ignored the fact that a similar summit held by Chretien Cost almost as much on a per-country/per-day basis. - Ottawa initially allocated $179 million for the G8 and G20 summits — three days of talks that are now expected to set taxpayers back at least $1.1 billion. Most of the money, about $930 million, is for security. Still doesn't tell us if/where money was wasted. Oh, and by the way, the article you quoted indicates why security costs in Canada are so much more than for conferences held in the U.S. or U.K. To make it CLEARER just for YOU the HARPER REGIME SCREWED UP ROYALLY BY NOT REALIZING that Huntsville was TOO SMALL to HOST A G20 SUMMIT and had to MOVE the G20 summit to DOWNTOWN TORONTO (of all places) which IN TURN produced astronomical security costs because that entire MOVE had not been planned on... Ummm... first of all, you do realize that there are also advantages in infrastructure in holding it in Toronto? Its a large city (plenty of hotels and other facilities, good airline connections, etc.) Secondly, most of those 'security costs' would be necessary regardless of where the conference was held. Regular military air patrols (one of the security costs) would need to be done in either Toronto, Huntsville, or mudepile, NWT. Same with the need for police. (And when the Chretien government held its G8 summit, they did hold it in a smaller location, but there was still the need for security. I do find it ironic... you criticize the selection of Huntsville for the G8 because its too small, and then Toronto for the G20 because its 'too expensive'. Don't you think that any major city that's big enough to host something like the G20 is going to be expensive? When Mulroney left power, he left the government with an operating surplus. (i.e. they were taking in more than they were spending. It was only the debt payments that kept it from being a fiscal surplus.) Not only did the Chretien government inherit a government that had done a good job slowing government spending, they ended up taking power at a time when international interest rates were falling (thus reducing debt payment charges) and the global economy was exceptionally robust. Not only that, the free trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives increased exports (thus keeping our economy and government revenue strong), and the GST (which Chretien said he would scrap, but didn't) and other tax measures brought forward by the Conservatives didn't have a great effect until later.So basically, a monkey with half a brain would have ended up with a surplus. From: http://www.canada.co...4e-f85facbd731f By the time Tory finance minister Michael Wilson and Mulroney left office some nine years later, the federal government had an operating surplus and the deficit as a percentage of GDP had been reduced by one-third, despite the worldwide recession of 1990-91. In other words, were it not for the interest Canada had to pay on the gargantuan debt the Liberals had solely created to that point, Mulroney would have been running a surplus. What a COMPLETE LOAD of horse manure that is. Here's a little hint... just because you don't understand or agree with a point does not make it 'manure'. You have now lost the last remnants of credibility... Oh my god! How will I ever survive knowing I lost all credibility with a hypocrite Liberal/NDP fan boy who spouts off on things like military technology when he doesn't know what he's talking about, and who can't even bother to read the articles he's posting when the actually contradict the point he's trying to make!!!! Well, i guess that's a difference between you and I... I don't think I ever saw you as ever being credible. - "The worldwide recession of the early 1990s significantly damaged the government's financial situation. ... - "The 1993 election was an unmitigated disaster for the Tories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney Ah, where to begin... First off, a little word of advice... relying on Wikipedia is "proof" is a good way to get laughed at. At most it can serve for some basic background facts, but when you start using opinions stated in articles as evidence to support your statements you make yourself look foolish. Secondly, at no point did you ever contradict any of the points I made, either about Mulroney leaving with an Operating surplus, or Chretien being 'lucky' enough to inherit the conditions necessary to eliminate the deficit even if he did pretty much nothing. I do find your selection of quotes a little bizarre... Why should it matter if the "1993 election was a disaster"? That has nothing to do with whether Mulroney left with an operating surplus. And why bother with the quote regarding the early 1990s? If anything the fact that there was a global recession at the time should make Mulroney look even better, as he was able to end with an operating surplus despite economic problems in other countries (dealing with a longer global recession than Chretien ever did.) Since you have shown your "true self" there's no point to this "exchange" at all... Actually there is a point in me responding. You see, you have illustrated that you are incapable of exhibiting rational thought. I doubt you will ever be able to do so. However, its quite possible that others (unaffected by "liberal fan boy syndrome") will be able to do so. Have a nice day and thank you for your valueless TIME... Might mean more if it wasn't coming from someone who has: - Ignored statements in one of his very own references that contradict your own claims about G8/G20 expenses - Ignored the fact that Chretien ran a summit with almost identical costs (when considering length of conference/participants) - Exhibited either willful ignorance or shameless hypocracy by championing the Liberals "fiscal management" but ignoring the fact that they were planning on the exact same stimulus you seem to have been against - Showed a lack of understanding of the global military situation in the late-50s/early 60s - Illustrated that you don't understand military hardware when you claimed the F35C option was the 'best for Canada' Edited March 10, 2011 by segnosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.