lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 No federal conservative party has balanced the budget since the 1800s. So be careful when throwing around the ability to make the country prosperous along partisan lines. How would the NDP balance the budget? Please explain. Take an economics course and try to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Gotta call a spade a spade. I guess the moderators will keep this in mind when they deal with all the complaints they receive about you. Good luck buddy. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I guess the moderators will keep this in mind when they deal with all the complaints they receive about you. Good luck buddy. WWWTT Will I get banned? Oh no!!! You are such a little sissy. You should be embarrassed. Gotta be a toe-tapping socialist to stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 How would the NDP balance the budget? Please explain. Take an economics course and try to learn. I never said the NDP would (in fact to be honest they have never had their feet on the fire). I am just saying that as much as you can speculate on how the NDP would run the country fiscally the Conservatives and the Liberals both have actual track records that proves they have dropped the ball in the past. And in fact the past shows that it is typically moderates who balance budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 How would the NDP balance the budget? Please explain. Take an economics course and try to learn. They actually understand that you need to raise money to fund your plans. The Conservatives on the other hand slash revenues and keep spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) They actually understand that you need to raise money to fund your plans. The Conservatives on the other hand slash revenues and keep spending. [/quote Maybe all wage earners who make over 50K should have to pay 65% of their earnings in income tax. Imagine the money government would have if that were the case. They realize that there are MANY useless programs that need to be cut. Cut those and you can cut taxes. Edited November 20, 2011 by lukin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I never said the NDP would (in fact to be honest they have never had their feet on the fire). I am just saying that as much as you can speculate on how the NDP would run the country fiscally the Conservatives and the Liberals both have actual track records that proves they have dropped the ball in the past. And in fact the past shows that it is typically moderates who balance budgets. We need more politicians like Nigel Farage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) 1. They've been debating the LGR for years. Now the majority is doing away with the useless, costly LGR. 2. If you are a Conservative, how can you be in favour of a monoply which FORCES all farmers to systematically obey. 3. Said outlandish things??? Who hasn't? How many years are you going to go back? 4. If statscan Nuclear Commission and the GST were important, he wouldn't have received a majority. 5. Bob Rae, Nicole Turmel, Pat Martin,Libby Davis, Mark Holland and the list goes on, aren't partisan?? How dumb of a comment is that. 6. You're a Conservative.....I don't think so. 1. This is fine. Harper has a majority and he would like to pass legislation that gave him the mandate to do so. But that is not a reason to cut debate time short. It also isn't a reason to cut debate because it was debated in the past. If Harper really doesn't like the timeframes established for debate he should seek to amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. If we take his logic to its logical conclusion in that a majority government has a mandate and ability to pass the legislation than why even have a House of Commons? That is a scary thought. 2. I said I was more conservative...not Conservative. What I am also not is ideological. I believe the RCMP and hundreds of other police forces when they say that there is value in the LGR. If I was a Conservative I would have opposed their scrapping it because I am not tied to an ideology. Then again that may also be part of the reason I am not a Conservative. 3. I do not recall any Prime Minister saying that a certain province should build a firewall to protect from the federal government. I do not recall a Prime Minister who has said so many negative things about homosexuals and homosexual marriage even from those who may have opposed it themselves. I have never heard of any politician say that when he would be finished with Canada you wouldn't recognize it. Harper has said some over the top things that I believe in many respects legitimizes a fear of Harper. 4. Bad governments can get re-elected. Pundits have already wrote of the teflon that surrounds Harper and the Conservatives. A lot of governments under other parties would not have lasted through those periods of minority governments with those decisions and those high profile resignations and firings. The man understands politics, he can win majorities. That most certainly does not mean he can run the country properly. There is significant evidence to assert that the Harper government opposes professional opinion especially when it is pitted again their ideological pursuits. 5. There is nothing dumb at all about that comment. Stephen Harper has always been regarded as overly partisan. Even when he was working for Jim Hawkes. Many of his policy decisions as PM have been tailored to have unfavourable political consequences for the opposition particularly the Liberal party. His constant assertion on issues concerning justice and national defence that one is either for or against, black or white is just more proof of how Harper sees the world as us and them and that is exactly what makes him partisan. 6. See number 2. Edited November 20, 2011 by E James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Will I get banned? Oh no!!! You are such a little sissy. You should be embarrassed. Gotta be a toe-tapping socialist to stay. Actually there are several right wingers here that do not feel it is neccessary to call others names and keep the debate civil and fair for others to participate! I personally will not debate with you because of the tone you chose to use! Good luck buddy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 For working Canadians who don't expect big nanny government to control their lives; that's who. Yet "big nanny government" is exactly what the CPC government is. - economic "stimulus" projects to artificially keep unemployment down - a yearly increase in the bureaucracy - corporate welfare for automakers - wanting to increase Parliament by 30 more MPs If it weren't for the extreme right wing lunatics identifying their slavering fealty for the CPC, I would say that this government is more like the NDP than even the Liberals. That is, the CPC is more socialist than the LPC. No wonder the CPC were willing to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc in 2004. It is hard to tell them apart except for their fringe elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Actually there are several right wingers here that do not feel it is neccessary to call others names and keep the debate civil and fair for others to participate! I personally will not debate with you because of the tone you chose to use! Good luck buddy! WWWTT You should practice what you preach. No loss for me. You can't debate as you are a typical hyper-partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Maybe all wage earners who make over 50K should have to pay 65% of their earnings in income tax. Imagine the money government would have if that were the case. They realize that there are MANY useless programs that need to be cut. Cut those and you can cut taxes. Obviously they're doing something wrong if they continue to run huge deficits. They're either not raising enough money or they haven't cut enough programs. Either way, the Conservatives aren't exactly making the country prosperous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 1. This is fine. Harper has a majority and he would like to pass legislation that gave him the mandate to do so. But that is not a reason to cut debate time short. It also isn't a reason to cut debate because it was debated in the past. If Harper really doesn't like the timeframes established for debate he should seek to amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. If we take his logic to its logical conclusion in that a majority government has a mandate and ability to pass the legislation than why even have a House of Commons? That is a scary thought. 2. I said I was more conservative...not Conservative. What I am also not is ideological. I believe the RCMP and hundreds of other police forces when they say that there is value in the LGR. If I was a Conservative I would have opposed their scrapping it because I am not tied to an ideology. Then again that may also be part of the reason I am not a Conservative. 3. I do not recall any Prime Minister saying that a certain province should build a firewall to protect from the federal government. I do not recall a Prime Minister who has said so many negative things about homosexuals and homosexual marriage even from those who may have opposed it themselves. I have never heard of any politician say that when he would be finished with Canada you wouldn't recognize it. Harper has said some over the top things that I believe in many respects legitimizes a fear of Harper. 4. Bad governments can get re-elected. Pundits have already wrote of the teflon that surrounds Harper and the Conservatives. A lot of governments under other parties would not have lasted through those periods of minority governments with those decisions and those high profile resignations and firings. The man understands politics, he can win majorities. That most certainly does not mean he can run the country properly. There is significant evidence to assert that the Harper government opposes professional opinion especially when it is pitted again their ideological pursuits. 5. There is nothing dumb at all about that comment. Stephen Harper has always been regarded as overly partisan. Even when he was working for Jim Hawkes. Many of his policy decisions as PM have been tailored to have unfavourable political consequences for the opposition particularly the Liberal party. His constant assertion on issues concerning justice and national defence that one is either for or against, black or white is just more proof of how Harper sees the world as us and them and that is exactly what makes him partisan. 6. See number 2. I hope I don't recognize the old Canada after harper is finished with it. This country is finally on the right track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Obviously they're doing something wrong if they continue to run huge deficits. They're either not raising enough money or they haven't cut enough programs. Either way, the Conservatives aren't exactly making the country prosperous. It's a little more complicated than that. Countries all around the world are running deficits right now as a result of the financial crisis and now uncertainty in Europe. It is all inter connected. But Harper certainly has not made any wise economic decisions while in government and he will never balance the budget. Especially with Flaherty at the helm in finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Obviously they're doing something wrong if they continue to run huge deficits. They're either not raising enough money or they haven't cut enough programs. Either way, the Conservatives aren't exactly making the country prosperous. It's hard to ween the populous off the government teat. It'll take time. Too many unproductive members of society want too many freedbies....you know, the typical profile of the typical occupier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I hope I don't recognize the old Canada after harper is finished with it. This country is finally on the right track. Reading this and the hyper-partisan comment you made toward WWWTT make me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 It's hard to ween the populous off the government teat. It'll take time. Too many unproductive members of society want too many freedbies....you know, the typical profile of the typical occupier. You are talking about a group nation wide of about 700-800 people. What does occupy have to do with unproductively and how do you back up asserting that the reason we have a deficit is because there are too many people depending on the government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 It's hard to ween the populous off the government teat. It'll take time. Too many unproductive members of society want too many freedbies....you know, the typical profile of the typical occupier. You mean, like the unemployed, the many more public servants the CPC hired, automakers and more MPs? Harper Government - bigger, more expensive and hiring more nannies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 How would the NDP balance the budget? Please explain. Take an economics course and try to learn. pretty sure you don't do it by paying contractors 90,000 a day to tell you how to do your job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 pretty sure you don't do it by paying contractors 90,000 a day to tell you how to do your job Who, what and where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Who, what and where? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hire-90000-a-day-consultant-to-help-cut-federal-spending/article2172390/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Lukin the conservatives have the biggest government in Canadian history... this is what you like to call a nanny state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hire-90000-a-day-consultant-to-help-cut-federal-spending/article2172390/ 90 K to save millions. Good move by the CPC,I must say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Lukin the conservatives have the biggest government in Canadian history... this is what you like to call a nanny state Didn't big government start with Trudeau? Diefenbaker was a wise economic steward. Trudeau decided to destroy canada and form Canuckistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Didn't big government start with Trudeau? Diefenbaker was a wise economic steward. Trudeau decided to destroy canada and form Canuckistan. yes but that was then and this is now, you can't dance around it! the cons have a bigger government than the socialist Trudeaus ouch LOal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.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.