bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Nope, not about "the long form census", I'm talking about an American Company taking over doing CANADA'S CENSUS, all of it, all Canadians' information handed over to an American arms giant, Lockheed Martin... The "long form deal" was simply a way for Harper to make it easier, and cheaper, for LM and it's a way for the CONS to fudge real census figures to their liking... LOL! You might want to put your Harper hate on hold....Canada has awarded Lockheed Martin census contracts going back to at least 2004, before the Grits fell so delightfully from grace. In 2004 LMIT conducted a test census in Canada and has been awarded the contract to administer the upcoming Canada 2006 Census. Edited March 16, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 LOL! You might want to put your Harper hate on hold....Canada has awarded Lockheed Martin census contracts going back to at least 2004, before the Grits fell so delightfully from grace. In 2004 LMIT conducted a test census in Canada and has been awarded the contract to administer the upcoming Canada 2006 Census. Not quite right, the 2006 census was given to LMIT by Harper... http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/about-apropos/faq-eng.cfm If Canadians REALLY knew what was going on all the way back to MORONey/Reagan/Thatcher they'd literally be sick, and there's not a whole lot Canada/Canadians, regardless of party, can do about it as long as Canada is dependant on Canada/US trade... Harper is just a little "friendlier", like MORONey was, than some other Govs, when it comes to Canada/US relations... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Not quite right, the 2006 census was given to LMIT by Harper... http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/about-apropos/faq-eng.cfm Sure it was...after the contract groundwork was laid by the previous governments. Your focus only on Harper is silly if you're really concerned about the big bad American bogeyman getting census data. If Canadians REALLY knew what was going on all the way back to MORONey/Reagan/Thatcher they'd literally be sick, and there's not a whole lot Canada/Canadians, regardless of party, can do about it as long as Canada is dependant on Canada/US trade... And who is to blame for that? Harper sure as hell didn't invent such economic dependence. Stop buying/selling American...LOL!!! Harper is just a little "friendlier", like MORONey was, than some other Govs, when it comes to Canada/US relations... PM Harper knows how Canada's bread gets buttered...you better have a better idea before any of that changes. Edited March 16, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 You may want to "check out" the "state of affairs" Canada was in in 1993 when the Chretien/Martin Government took over Government, you might be VERY surprised at how bad it really was after MORONey left Canada virtually bankrupt with a debt at 104% of GDP and after a record (broken by Harper) deficit of $43 BILLION in lyin' Brian's final year... LoL. You might want to check the "state of affairs" Trudeau left Canada in after 1984. Canada's debt level was around 9% of GDP in 1968. By 1984, when Turdeau finally bailed, he'd turned our debt level to 40% of our GDP. He did that in about 9 years. Not only did he grow our debt level (relative to the size of our economy) faster and more than any PM in history, he also did it at a time when interest rates were higher than ever. The Bank of Canada rate in 1984 was something retarded like 14% (right now it's 1%). The cost of simply SERVICING Pierre Trudeau's debt was about 5.0% of GDP when Mulroney took over. To put that in perspective for you, 5% of GDP today would be about 66 billion dollars. The cost of simply keeping up interest payments on Trudeau's debt when Mulroney took over was the equivalent today of 66 BILLION dollars each year. That's even more than Harper spent on stimulus at the recession's worst. Another interesting fact is that if not for Pierre's debt repayment, Mulroney would have ran operating surpluses from about 1986 on. He spent less on federal programs than he collected in taxes, but about 5% of his GDP was being spent on interest payments thanks to the debt Trudeau saddled on him. I'll agree with you that Mulroney was a bad PM, because he should have recognized the mess Trudeau put us in sooner and he didn't, but GWiz you need to get a freaking clue when it comes to numbers. You don't have a clue. Here's some reference material which I'm sure you'll ignore/not understand: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/03/a_brief_history.html Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ToadBrother Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 I'll agree with you that Mulroney was a bad PM, because he should have recognized the mess Trudeau put us in sooner and he didn't, but GWiz you need to get a freaking clue when it comes to numbers. You don't have a clue. I strenuously disagree with this. I'm not going to argue that Mulroney was a great man, but the kinds of amendments that many felt were necessary were going to be hugely difficult, and it was difficult to imagine a Government attempting anything of the kind during its first term. It was, of course, doomed to failure, as it would be even today. Quote
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Here's some reference material which I'm sure you'll ignore/not understand: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/03/a_brief_history.html I'll take your reference material and raise you this reference material > http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1990/05/robinson.html - By 1986, Mulroney and Reagan's commitment to liberalizing trade had metamorphosed into full-blown talks. Canada's negotiators wanted guaranteed access to the U.S. market and protection from U.S. countervail. The United States wanted secure, permanent access to Canadian energy, free trade in services, an end to restrictions on foreign investment in Canada and the right of U.S. corporations to receive "national treatment" (the same treatment accorded to Canadian companies). When negotiations were completed, it was clear that Canada surrendered what the United States wanted without getting much in return. Instead of guaranteed market access, the Canadian negotiators accepted a dispute-settlement mechanism which did not provide protection from U.S. countervail or anti-dumping laws; it merely created a forum wherein Canada could make sure the United States was obeying its own trade laws. It also became clear that, while the negotiations appeared to occur between two sovereign nations with different interests, they in fact took place between two groups of people whose interests were the same. On both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border, multinational companies pushed to erase that border. Canadian publisher Mel Hurtig, an ardent opponent of the deal, put it bluntly: "What is on the table is Canada itself. We are not talking about sovereignty association with the U.S. What we are talking about is association sovereignty. We get the association and the United States gets the sovereignty." - Edited March 16, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Moonbox Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 I strenuously disagree with this. I'm not going to argue that Mulroney was a great man, but the kinds of amendments that many felt were necessary were going to be hugely difficult, and it was difficult to imagine a Government attempting anything of the kind during its first term. It was, of course, doomed to failure, as it would be even today. I agree with that, but Chretien and Martin axed expenses (granted a lot of it was dumped on the provinces) but it can be done if you stick to your guns. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 I'll give them credit for not blowing their load on and actually paying down Canada's debt, but they certainly didn't do anything special. Maybe Chretien/Martin DID do something "special" considering the mess they inherited from lyin Brian MORONey > $50 Billion Tops Mulroney Era Deficit - This year’s deficit tops the previous record set by Brian Mulroney in 1992-93 of $39 billion. In his January budget Finance Minister Jim Flaherty forecasted a deficit of $34 billion. According to Flaherty the $16 billion increase was due to the recession. In remarks published on ctv.ca he admitted the recession was stronger than anticipated: “We are going through a deeper economic slowdown than anticipated.” - Incidentally Flaherty is full of it... Canada didn't have any "recession" to speak of and outside of the "auto bailout", which saved some jobs, the so called "stimulous" was not only unnecessary but totally WASTED in the way it was "handed out", and even then, NOBODY can get an actual handle on where ALL that money went... Don't forget to include the 2 Harper surpluses and the Liberal "rainy day fund" that the Harper Regime also wasted away... With the upcoming budget being another deficit budget in the $30 BILLION plus bracket where in the hell is the Harper Regime #1 spending that money and #2 getting that money? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Moonbox Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 I'll take your reference material and raise you this reference material > http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1990/05/robinson.html What does that have to do with ANYTHING? My post was about dollars and budgets and PMs' records in respect to that, and you come back with an outdated 20+ year old essay written by a trade protectionist?? What the hell?? You might as well have posted a link to a Hanna Montana website. Not only was it completely unrelated to my post or really the thread in general, it was also a totally balogna essay and has almost been entirely proven WRONG on all counts. Go back to my post and the numbers etc I went over and counter that or admit you can't please. I'd appreciate it. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 ...Canada didn't have any "recession" to speak of and outside of the "auto bailout", which saved some jobs, the so called "stimulous" was not only unnecessary but totally WASTED in the way it was "handed out", and even then, NOBODY can get an actual handle on where ALL that money went... Don't forget to include the 2 Harper surpluses and the Liberal "rainy day fund" that the Harper Regime also wasted away... No, Canada's economy did slip into recession by any measure. It can't be hidden just for political purposes one day, and revealed the next. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 No, Canada's economy did slip into recession by any measure. It can't be hidden just for political purposes one day, and revealed the next. Nope, no recession up here in Canada, a slight (by any standards) "economic slowdown" yes, recession no... In FACT if you were to take Southern Ontario out of the picture Canada might not even have qualified for an "economic slowdown" since the Western Provinces (MB, Sask, and Alberta in particular) actually prospered... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
segnosaur Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Nope, not about "the long form census", I'm talking about an American Company taking over doing CANADA'S CENSUS, all of it Nope, not even close. all Canadians' information handed over to an American arms giant, Lockheed Martin.... Canada's Census outsourced to Lockheed Martin Get it now? You mean you didn't know? Ummmm... here's a question... Why exactly are you getting your information from a conspiracy web site such as "global research"? Remember, this is a site that regularly has "9/11 was an inside job!" articles. Any site that regularly promotes such nonsense should never, ever be used as a reference for anything. Quote
Scotty Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 All this talk and defense of the CPC and the fact remains that the costs were almost double for the same work. Wow... Except it almost certainly wasn't the same work... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Or NOT... I know he'd save a minimum of $20 BILLION in deficit spending by reopening the Jet Fighter contract to competition... That's just for starters... So you're thinking that if it's opened to competition, all those jet fighter manufacturers who like to give their products away for FREE will be able to better catch our attention and give us their jets to use? Oh, and maintain them for free too? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 So you're thinking that if it's opened to competition, all those jet fighter manufacturers who like to give their products away for FREE will be able to better catch our attention and give us their jets to use? Oh, and maintain them for free too? Yup... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Nope, no recession up here in Canada, a slight (by any standards) "economic slowdown" yes, recession no... In FACT if you were to take Southern Ontario out of the picture Canada might not even have qualified for an "economic slowdown" since the Western Provinces (MB, Sask, and Alberta in particular) actually prospered... Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
segnosaur Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Yup... Hey GWiz... Still waiting to hear why you are using conspiracy web sites like "global research" in order to justify your claims. And since you consider them to be such a valuable resource, do you also believe in many of their other fine articles? Like how the twin towers were actually destroyed by a secret conspiracy planting explosives? Quote
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2008/01/09/recession.html Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/money/story.html?id=2c258ca4-7dff-412b-a003-6653424d468f Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2008/01/09/recession.html From your link: No recession in Canada, bank economists say Last Updated: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | 6:01 PM ET CBC News Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=1b8d2c49-663f-4c61-a193-c99f61e26741 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/09/15/canada-harper-recession-idUKOTW00013320080915 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://www.streetside.ca/PlaceJosephRoyal/pdf/Nov7Conference%20Board%20says%20no%20recession%20in%20Canada.pdf Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 Sorry, that isn't how it works. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada say you're wrong: The recession is over, the Bank of Canada said in its quarterly Monetary Policy Report released Thursday. After shrinking since the last quarter of 2008, the Canadian economy will grow by an annualized rate of 1.3 per cent in the current quarter, the bank said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/07/23/bank-canada-economy-recovery.html It's official. We're in a recession. Statistics Canada confirmed yesterday the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 5.4 per cent in the first quarter. That follows a 3.7 per cent drop in the fourth quarter of 2008 – meeting the definition of a recession with two successive quarters of declining real gross domestic product. Still, most Canadians have known it intuitively for months. http://www.thestar.com/business/article/643825 http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Economy/2008-10-24/article-1296767/Flaherty-says-it-again-rough-going-but-no-recession-for-Canada/1 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Posted March 16, 2011 http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Economy/2008-10-24/article-1296767/Flaherty-says-it-again-rough-going-but-no-recession-for-Canada/1 From this old link as well: Flaherty says it again: rough going but no recession for Canada Published on October 24th, 2008 Canada's recession is well documented....stop ignoring the obvious. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.