Tories back off campaign pledge to show a surplus by 2014-15

[Tilter]

Then let us hope that in Flahrety's prudent judgement he discovers it is ludicrous to further lower corporate taxes, and thus lower revenues even more. Keep things as they are, now is not the time to tinker with revenues. I have precious little faith in Flahrety's ability to balance the books without selling crown assets. Ontario is well aware of his fiscal wizardry.

And you are of course the CFO of a company, say GM or Ford?

Edited May 13, 2011 by Tilter

[DrGreenthumb]

Yet I fully anticipate that both the CPC and their supporters will have a litany of excuses prepared when they fail to be fiscally conservative. It's already begun, spending has increased while they've cut taxes, you cannot do both, that's utterly foolish.

I fully expect the throne and mace of parliament to be up on the auction block in the near future to help curtail the shortfall

Also sit tight, if you always wanted to live in Stornaway, I'm certain that will be on the market soon enough now that Flahrety can go all 407 on all crown assets.

I seem to recall crazy Jim musing about selling the CN Tower. I wonder how much he will get for the Rocky Mountains?

[icman]

And you are of course the CFO of a company, say GM or Ford?

P-off, Tilter. So you can weigh in on mandatory minimums without a degree in economics and/or sociology, but no-one can comment on the stupidity of selling crown assets to foreign controlled corporation unless they're a CFO of a multi-billion dollar company? One that would kill to buy crown assets at pennies on the dollar and provide generous kickbacks to the politicians that let it happen? If all you plan to do is piss on other list participants, you can keep your comments to yourself.

Edited May 13, 2011 by icman

[Guest Derek L]

My sister worked for the CBC. And she admitted that they are screwing TV in Canada. They have commercials, but they also get megabucks from the government. And anyone with two bits of brain to rub together realizes that that means from you and me. So because they are subsidized, they charge less for commercial time, which forces CTV, Global et al to have to charge less also. A totally unfair advantage. And this is from a loyal CBC employee.

Thats intresting, for the record, I watched CBC's coverage of the election. To be honest, I found it the most extensive when compared to the other networks. I wonder, if the CBC was sold or received reduced revune, would this help imporve the other networks?

I do watch CBC/Newsworld, and I feel they "present" the news the best, and because of that, I don't think they'd have a problem if they we're sold off. Someone would buy them.

[icman]

Thats intresting, for the record, I watched CBC's coverage of the election. To be honest, I found it the most extensive when compared to the other networks. I wonder, if the CBC was sold or received reduced revune, would this help imporve the other networks?

I do watch CBC/Newsworld, and I feel they "present" the news the best, and because of that, I don't think they'd have a problem if they we're sold off. Someone would buy them.

Yes. Someone would buy them. And then they would not "present" the news the best anymore. They would present as God's truth whatever the owners wanted them to say. If anyone does not believe that ownership of a network or news outlet provides you a soapbox to air your views and manipulate the "news" to best serve your interests, please watch Fox for 10 minutes. That is all it should take for anyone who tries to stay informed using multiple news sources. If you watch Bill O'Reilly, I swear you can see Rupert Murdoch's arm up his ass.

CTV has leaned right hard in the last several years to the point that there should be no need for a Sun News channel.

The only reason you hear people complaining about the CBC's left leanings is because the people complaining think that Fox News and the Toronto Sun are God's truth. Everything looks left to them. The CBC bends over backward to provide both sides of any story, and they criticize stupidity without regard for partisanship. Hell, Rex Murphy is as close to a Canadian Bill O'Reilly as can be, yet he works for the CBC - hardly an endorsement of their leftist leanings, more of an illustration that they work hard to give voice to many different views on issues. The CBC is the most balanced reporting agency in North America in a time when all broadcast companies and their news agencies are moving right as mouthpieces for their corporate owners. And since in our modern world public discourse is defined by the media that puts it in people's homes, I think the CBC, as an independent public broadcaster, is very important to our polity to keep some semblance of balance in the public's eyes and ears.

Edited May 13, 2011 by icman

[RNG]

Thats intresting, for the record, I watched CBC's coverage of the election. To be honest, I found it the most extensive when compared to the other networks. I wonder, if the CBC was sold or received reduced revune, would this help imporve the other networks?

I do watch CBC/Newsworld, and I feel they "present" the news the best, and because of that, I don't think they'd have a problem if they we're sold off. Someone would buy them.

It would increase their revenue. An optimist would say that would allow them todo better news and carry better programs, but it isn't a guarantee.

[guyser]

So because they are subsidized, they charge less for commercial time, which forces CTV, Global et al to have to charge less also. A totally unfair advantage. And this is from a loyal CBC employee.

CBC sports charges market rates for NHL games. If they were charging less than market, CTV et al would have a case at the CRTC.

They dont .

Market conditions are market conditions.

[RNG]

CBC sports charges market rates for NHL games. If they were charging less than market, CTV et al would have a case at the CRTC.

They dont .

Market conditions are market conditions.

Yup, right, the CRTC, who get their paycheques direct from the feds. No conflict of interest there at all.

[Smallc]

Yup, right, the CRTC, who get their paycheques direct from the feds. No conflict of interest there at all.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point, but you failed. Why would the CRTC stick up for CBC just because their money comes from the same place?

[RNG]

I'm sure you're trying to make a point, but you failed. Why would the CRTC stick up for CBC just because their money comes from the same place?

Because that is what their political masters wanted for so long, and to the Libs and NDP the CBC is some sacred cow. Now that Harper has a majority, some badly needed changes may be coming.

Well, except when Trudeau shut down This Hour has Seven Days.

Edited May 13, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

Because that is what their political masters wanted for so long, and to the Libs and NDP the CBC is some sacred cow.

Citation needed. You've shown no evidence that the CRTC is biased.

[RNG]

Citation needed. You've shown no evidence that the CRTC is biased.

CBC Newsworld: The CRTC licensed the CBC on November 30, 1987 to provide a national all-news television network. Its competitor applicant, Alberta-based Allarcom, appealed this decision to the Canadian House of Commons. It was overturned and there were questions of whether federal politicians should meddle in CRTC decisions. Because of this the network launch was delayed from September 1, 1988 to July 31, 1989.

RAI International: In Summer 2004, this Italian government controlled channel was denied permission to broadcast independently in Canada on the grounds that it had acted and was likely to act contrary to established Canadian policies. RAI International's latest politically appointed President (an avowed right wing nationalist and former spokesperson for Giorgio Almirante, the leader of the post-fascist party of Italy) had unilaterally terminated a 20-year-old agreement and stripped all of its 1,500 to 2,000 annual hours of programming from TLN Telelatino, a Canadian-run channel which had devoted 95% of its prime time schedule to RAI programs for 20 years since TLN was founded. All Italian-Canadians were denied RAI programming by RAI International's removal of its programming from the Canadian marketplace, a move intended to create a public outcry and a threat that Canadians would resort to using satellite viewing cards obtained via the US in order to watch RAI, even though these cards were either grey market or black market, according to different analyses (see below). Following unprecedented foreign led and domestic political interference with the CRTC's quasi-judicial independent regulatory process, within 6 months of its original decision, an abrupt CRTC "review" of its policy on third-language foreign services determined to drop virtually all restrictions and adopt a new "open entry" approach to foreign controlled "third language" (non-English, non-French) channels.

2008 Ottawa radio licences: On November 21, 2008, federal Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages James Moore issued a statement calling on the CRTC to review its approval of two new radio stations, Frank Torres' CIDG-FM and Astral Media's CJOT-FM, which it had licensed in August 2008 to serve the Ottawa-Gatineau radio market. Moore asked the commission to assess whether the francophone population of the Ottawa-Gatineau area was sufficiently well-served by existing French radio services, and to consider licensing one or more of the French language applications, which included a Christian music station, a community radio station and a campus radio station for the Université du Québec en Outaouais, in addition to or instead of the approved stations.[12] The review ultimately identified a viable frequency for a third station, and CJFO-FM launched in 2010.

In Thursday's decision, the CRTC rescinded both requirements, thereby giving Bell the go-ahead to implement usage-based billing. This ruling according to Teksavvy handcuffs the competitive market.[13] This has been asked by Stephen Harper and Parliament to have the decision reviewed. According to a tweet by Industry Minister Tony Clement, unless the CRTC reverses this decision, the government will use its override power to reverse the decision.[14]

Edited May 14, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

I'm not seeing proof there at all.

[Dave_ON]

And you are of course the CFO of a company, say GM or Ford?

Your point is what precisely, the corporations and CEO's should set the corporate tax rate? It's a good idea just because you love Harper and he can do no wrong? We already have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, there's not justifiable reason why we should lower it further. Certainly not in lieu of increasing spending. Or is it your position that reducing revenue while increasing spending is in fact a very good idea? What real benefit will lowering corporate taxes further really serve? Do we know for certain that this will be reinvested in the company? Will it magically transform into more jobs? No, at this juncture lowering corporate taxes further will not help the economy in the least.

If you want to make a point please do so, not simple non-sequitor pots shots with no substance whatsoever.