Mulcair vs. Harper

[PIK]

I am getting the sense that the NDP supporters are getting frustrated that no one is noticing them. The NDP had a long leadership campaign that I am sure they hoped would get a lot of coverage - but no one noticed

The robocalls involved the Conservatives and Liberals in Guelph and the NDP quickly jumped into the mix and said us too!, us too!, we NDP had the same thing too!!.

Recently the Conservatives produced some attacks ads directly at the Liberals and Bob Rae. The NDP again must feel left out.

The Conservatives need to play less favorites and need to produce some attack ads for the NDP and Mulcair and make the NDP feel noticed.

And they had computor problems and then tried to blame it on ''outside'' sourses and we know they mean the cons. I think there own people try to hijack it because of mulcair, and I am thinking it could be the same group that tried to make a con scandal out of robo calls.

[Guest Derek L]

Jack should have come clean to canadians about his cancer.

Why is that?

[cybercoma]

And they had computor problems and then tried to blame it on ''outside'' sourses and we know they mean the cons. I think there own people try to hijack it because of mulcair, and I am thinking it could be the same group that tried to make a con scandal out of robo calls.

Show me where the CPC was blamed.

[madmax]

Less jobs would be shipped overseas obviously.

No...

That is wishful thinking, but far from the truth...

One company I dealt with Did $80million in Business, 11.7Million in profit and paid $35,000 in taxes..which they didn't want to pay.

Fact is.. if you dropped that figure to Zilch, they would have left the country regardless.

Other MUCH GREATER Forces are at work to determine location and is not Tax Policy.

[BubberMiley]

Show me where the CPC was blamed.

I believe PIK is the only one so far who blamed the CPC, but I don't think he really knows. After all, he also blamed Layton for his not knowing (like everyone else) about his cancer.

[madmax]

How do you know?

How many less?

Geez, you want to gut regulations (you never said which ones, btw: safety?), decrease taxes to zero, and so on.....without the faintest clue how much, if any, positive net effect it will have?

The people who know and understand this are Industry people.. not governments nor pundits from outside.

I have spoke with a Significant numbers of industry analysts and front line industry reps at KPMG and they do understand what is going on, and whenever we speak with clients.. I can't once recall hearing Tax Policy in the decision process of an industrial relocation in the last 5 years...

Lots of other factors.. but never once taxes as the factual reason to relocate.

Put it another way..

If we opened up our Banking System to the free market we would lose that entire banking system and the security it provides within minutes of the public offering..

There would not be one Canadian Bank left and all the Canadian Banking Aquistions in the United States would be gobbled up.

Currently in Banking we have the advantage because of STRICT Regulations and PROTECTIONISM.

Our banks are not open to lopsided trade aggreements or Offshore Purchasing.. and if it was allowed..

Canada would be in financial peril... and people can see how stupid the whole "Free Market" concept becomes.. And that is why no one in the right mind would ever remove the Protectionism of our banking system like we have done with Industry.

Its a fools game...

Consider it gone and no amount of Tax Reduction is going to change industry location.

But our Well Protected Banking Institutions will benefit greatly from tax policy and continue to post record profits with little to show in investment and growth in Canada...

While Stock SPeculation and Aquistions of foreign Monetary empires is to our advantage.

THus.. if the US were to reduce Taxation , it would not prevent their banking institutions from being gobbled up.

Only Laws protect Banks...

Not taxation or free markets.

[PIK]

Why is that?

Being honest for starters, people voted for jack to be there to lead ,not die a few days later.

[jbg]

Jack should have come clean to canadians about his cancer.

Why is that?

Because in theory of the NDP leader had a shot at becoming PM. Some Canadians, I assume, vote for a party leader rather than their own MP, in practice if not in theory. Thus, Canadians had a right to know if they were voting for a party whose leader was unlikely to be able to take office, or would be likely to die in office in short order.

[Guest Derek L]

Being honest for starters, people voted for jack to be there to lead ,not die a few days later.

Are you suggesting Mr Layton knew he'd lose his battle with Cancer a few months later?

[Guest Derek L]

Because in theory of the NDP leader had a shot at becoming PM. Some Canadians, I assume, vote for a party leader rather than their own MP, in practice if not in theory. Thus, Canadians had a right to know if they were voting for a party whose leader was unlikely to be able to take office, or would be likely to die in office in short order.

Canadians already knew Mr Layton had fought cancer earlier, hence the possibility for it to return…………Are you also suggesting that Mr Layton knew that he’d months later, lose his battle with cancer, or that it had returned during the election campaign?

[jbg]

Are you suggesting Mr Layton knew he'd lose his battle with Cancer a few months later?

Canadians already knew Mr Layton had fought cancer earlier, hence the possibility for it to return…………Are you also suggesting that Mr Layton knew that he’d months later, lose his battle with cancer, or that it had returned during the election campaign?

From my own experience with cancer in my family (father died during 1973, mother probably terminal now) he would have known.

[Guest Derek L]

From my own experience with cancer in my family (father died during 1973, mother probably terminal now) he would have known.

To confirm your assertion, you’re suggesting that he did indeed know that his cancer returned prior to the election?

[jbg]

To confirm your assertion, you’re suggesting that he did indeed know that his cancer returned prior to the election?

If he died in September, almost certainly. There are certain "markers" that are routinely tested with his kind of cancer. Those surge long before spread shows up in a manner visible to scans in body.

Edited March 26, 2012 by jbg

[Guest Derek L]

If he died in September, almost certainly. There are certain "markers" that are routinely tested with his kind of cancer. Those surge long before spread shows up in a manner visible to scans in body.

So that's a yes?

[CPCFTW]

How do you know?

How many less?

Geez, you want to gut regulations (you never said which ones, btw: safety?), decrease taxes to zero, and so on.....without the faintest clue how much, if any, positive net effect it will have?

That's the thing about freedom. You can't force a company to give you jobs, but you can make it as attractive as possible for them to do so.

[PIK]

Are you suggesting Mr Layton knew he'd lose his battle with Cancer a few months later?

Yes I do , he knew and kept it quiet, I can't blame him ,but he was ''honest jack'' he would have said something.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I do , he knew and kept it quiet, I can't blame him ,but he was ''honest jack'' he would have said something.

I don’t suppose you have any evidence?

[PIK]

Show me where the CPC was blamed.

When they say outside sourse ,don't tell me that was not a shot at the cons. That is all the NDP have been screaming about the last month,the evil cons. I justy listen to the new leader, someone should remind him that the majority of the manufactoring job losses was not harper but dalton. And he should also be reminded if he was PM the rest of the manufactoring jobs would be gone.

[stopstaaron]

I think Layton wanted to die a martyr. I think he knew he was going to die before the election and saw this as his last opportunity to put the NDP as high as he could and inspire Canadians nationwide .. hence his letter to Canadians

[capricorn]

I think Layton wanted to die a martyr.

As bizarre statements go, this one takes the cake.

[bleeding heart]

The people who know and understand this are Industry people.. not governments nor pundits from outside.

I have spoke with a Significant numbers of industry analysts and front line industry reps at KPMG and they do understand what is going on, and whenever we speak with clients.. I can't once recall hearing Tax Policy in the decision process of an industrial relocation in the last 5 years...

Lots of other factors.. but never once taxes as the factual reason to relocate.

Put it another way..

If we opened up our Banking System to the free market we would lose that entire banking system and the security it provides within minutes of the public offering..

There would not be one Canadian Bank left and all the Canadian Banking Aquistions in the United States would be gobbled up.

Currently in Banking we have the advantage because of STRICT Regulations and PROTECTIONISM.

Our banks are not open to lopsided trade aggreements or Offshore Purchasing.. and if it was allowed..

Canada would be in financial peril... and people can see how stupid the whole "Free Market" concept becomes.. And that is why no one in the right mind would ever remove the Protectionism of our banking system like we have done with Industry.

Its a fools game...

Consider it gone and no amount of Tax Reduction is going to change industry location.

But our Well Protected Banking Institutions will benefit greatly from tax policy and continue to post record profits with little to show in investment and growth in Canada...

While Stock SPeculation and Aquistions of foreign Monetary empires is to our advantage.

THus.. if the US were to reduce Taxation , it would not prevent their banking institutions from being gobbled up.

Only Laws protect Banks...

Not taxation or free markets.

Thanks for your points, here.

So it would seem the "lower taxes and they'll stay!" fantasy can be put to inglorious rest now.

Edited March 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Jack Weber]

Thanks for your points, here.

So it would seem the "lower taxes and they'll stay!" fantasy can be put to inglorious rest now.

It should have been a long time ago...

[Argus]

What a racist statement!

French is not a race.

[bleeding heart]

That's the thing about freedom. You can't force a company to give you jobs, but you can make it as attractive as possible for them to do so.

But it's moot; as we've pointed out, they'll still leave.

Again: why wouldn't they leave?

Patriotism?

[Argus]

Do you think we shouldn't pursue "green" initiatives at all or do you have a specific problem with the way he pursued them? I suppose this is more a provincial politics subject, so I don't really want to derail the thread. However, I'm curious because I want to know what "green" policies would be acceptable to you at the federal level. I don't live in Ontario anymore, so I'm not familiar with McGuinty's "green" policies.

What McGuinty did was to embrace the idea of green energy despite the economics of it, on the assumption that this was the way the world was turning, and that the economics would all work out in the end. That's the soft headed pie in the sky, dreamy-eyed policy initiative one expects from the Left. Of course, the economics were absurd, and it's already shooting energy prices up and will continue to shoot them higher. All for little or no gain.

I'm a practical person. Show me something works. Show me the benefits. Show me it's economical and I'll certainly go for it. Too often the Left doesn't want to be bothered about the economics of something when it clashes with cherished ideas. Trudeau was like that, and our national debt began with him.