Liberal-New Democrat Alliance to Topple Harper

[jacee]

You are still refusing to read and understand the link provided which explains the nature of the bureaucratic system that is in place. You are wasting bandwidth responding as long as you refuse to look at the issues and simply repeat meaningless talking points.

You mean the same system that has been in place through previous governments that DIDN'T lose track of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money?

So what you're saying is that the Harper government is either:

- waaaaaay more financially incompetent than any Liberal government ever was, or

- is hiding $3.1b in spending on something unknown from the taxpayers who entrusted them with our money??

Neither possibility bodes well for them.

Read your own link:

Ministers can move money around at will and spend it on what they choose.

What the Harper government has missed/misused/abused is the fact that Harper and the Ministers MUST report to the public how our money was spent!

[carepov]

I think most Liberals would prefer the NDP to the Tories and almost all New Democrats would prefer Liberals to the Tories. Some right-leaning Liberals may bleed over to the Tories but a coalition would do better than each party battling it out their own. I don't know why you hate NDP policies so much. They are a centre-left party concerned with social justice. You'd prefer Harper to that?

Well I think that you were wrong - Harper cleaned-up Liberal votes in Ontario.

NDP policies: where do I start... It may be a minor issue but I think it is a sign that a lot of poor policy would follow. One of Layton's first campaign promises was to cap credit card interest rates. Very counterproductive IMO.

Harper is the "devil we know" and honestly he is not too bad - in many ways even better than Chretien, IMO.

By the way, Trudeau has categorically ruled out this possibility, so I think you are wasting your breath on this issue.

[TimG]

You mean the same system that has been in place through previous governments that DIDN'T lose track of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money?

You are wrong to assume that the auditor general checks everything every year (it is impossible - government is too big). If it did it would have found the problems years ago (why would the auditor general NOT report it if he/she knew the problems 5 years ago?). The fact that a similar situation has not been reported in the past is not evidence that it did not happen in the past. It is only evidence that this was the most important issue uncovered by the auditor general in this year's audit. In past audits outright corruption by liberal party was the most important. Edited May 13, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

What the Harper government has missed/misused/abused is the fact that Harper and the Ministers MUST report to the public how our money was spent!

No, the government must report to parliament on how money is spent.

[jacee]

Jacee you want to read about real scandals , google chretien scandals or even better google ont liberal goverment scandals. Thwn you will have a understanding on what a scandal is.

Happy to do that comparison:

Federal Liberals - Chretien - 2004

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal

February 10 Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report reveals up to $100 million of the $250 million sponsorship program was awarded to Liberal-friendly advertising firms and Crown corporations for little or no work.

Ontario McGuinty Liberals 2012

http://m.thespec.com/news-story/2555947-mcguinty-gas-plants-were-in-the-wrong-place/

Former premier Dalton McGuinty says he axed two power plants before the 2011 election with no idea how much it would cost taxpayers, but concedes the $585 million tab is "higher than anyone would have wanted."

Federal Conservatives - Harper 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2013/04/30/anti-terror-auditor-general_n_3185494.html

Auditor General Michael Ferguson found in his spring report that [the Harper government] can't account for $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding.

So let's compare graphically:

Chretien $100m

$

McGuinty $600m

$$$$$$

Harper $3b

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We can't yet prove fraud.

Could be incompetence, but that would be surprising from Harper-the-economist-who-claims-to-be-the-world's-best-money-manager.

Most likely Harper's spending anti-terror money on things he doesn't want us to know about: Black Ops assassination/'regime change/protection or other subversive activities? Security protection or political bribes for Canadian oil/mining companies operating in other countries?

So many possibilities, and more.

We won't know where the money went until Harper tells us, and it appears he has no intention of doing so.

Considering his secrecy, I think imagining the worst is likely the most reasonable thing to do.

[jacee]

No, the government must report to parliament on how money is spent.

So why didn't they?

Parliament is public.

Edited May 13, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

So why didn't they?

Ask your MP. Or, ask Mulclair (assuming he isn't your MP)

[ed.: +]

Edited May 13, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

TimG:

Here is a good article that explains why the mistake happened and how it can be fixed:

http://fullcomment.n...nancial-system/

It also makes it clear that this is a bureaucracy problem and any government in power would have been blindsided by it.

jacee, on 13 May 2013 - 1:41 PM, said:

You mean the same system that has been in place through previous governments that DIDN'T lose track of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money?

You are wrong to assume that the auditor general checks everything every year (it is impossible - government is too big). If it did it would have found the problems years ago (why would the auditor general NOT report it if he/she knew the problems 5 years ago?). The fact that a similar situation has not been reported in the past is not evidence that it did not happen in the past. It is only evidence that this was the most important issue uncovered by the auditor general in this year's audit. In past audits outright corruption by liberal party was the most important.

TimG, now you are just twisting your own words to evade the truth.

You mentioned the problemmatic bureaucratic process (not the auditing process) as the excuse for Harper failing to report on $3.1b in spending.

No other government has ever had such difficulty in negotiating that same 'problemmatic' bureaucratic process and lost track of billions of dollars.

Is Harper that incompetent?

Edited May 13, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

By the way, Trudeau has categorically ruled out this possibility, so I think you are wasting your breath on this issue.

I think so too.

Neither party, nor their members, have ever proposed this seriously.

The proposal displays lack of understanding of what each party stands for.

To be fair, though, the Liberals are never very clear about the fact that they are a big business party that occasionally condescends to handout charity to the inferior classes: Tories in sheep's clothing.

No, I think Harper will go down all by himself, wearing a $3.1b boondoggle.

Edited May 13, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

No other government has ever had such difficulty in negotiating that same 'problemmatic' bureaucratic process and lost track of billions of dollars.

You don't listen do you? As I said, the auditor general does not audit everything. Each year the auditor general zeros in on a problem and reports it. This does not mean the problem did not exist before. In fact, we know that it existed before and a large chunk of that 3 billion was "lost" by the liberals. We are only hearing about it now because the auditor general has not really looked at cross department program spending before.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Edited May 13, 2013 by TimG

[MadX]

The only dangerous people are buffoons like you who are unwilling to accept people who disagree with you as human beings. You feel a need to dehumanize them and turn them into comic book villains so you can feel better about yourself. People who think like you are the people who have started every genocide and war that this planet has seen. I am sure you disavow physical violence yourself but irrational hatred like what you preach is what turns people to violence. If you really believed in the non-violence that you claim you would attempt to understand people that you disagree with instead of engaging in nonsensical smear campaigns.

I'm highly offended by what you say. Comparing me with someone who starts genocide. It's a pathetic argument. I don't irrationally hate Harper. I don't even hate the man personally but I feel his political agenda is radical and dangerous. Buffoon eh, I bet you wouldn't have the guts to say that to my face. Pretty brave, hiding behind a computer screen. Get your head out of Harper's a** and wake up, he's bad for Canada. Either you're a buffoon yourself or you are part of the 1% that benefits from his corrupt regime.

[MadX]

I think so too.

Neither party, nor their members, have ever proposed this seriously.

The proposal displays lack of understanding of what each party stands for.

To be fair, though, the Liberals are never very clear about the fact that they are a big business party that occasionally condescends to handout charity to the inferior classes: Tories in sheep's clothing.

No, I think Harper will go down all by himself, wearing a $3.1b boondoggle.

I tend to agree with you about the Liberals being a party of big business, even the NDP aren't all that left wing. Still I truly think that both the Liberals and the NDP are preferable to the Tories. At least the Liberals didn't gut social programs the way Harper is doing now. Harper is also running the largest deficits that this country has ever seen.

[MadX]

I think so too.

Neither party, nor their members, have ever proposed this seriously.

The proposal displays lack of understanding of what each party stands for.

To be fair, though, the Liberals are never very clear about the fact that they are a big business party that occasionally condescends to handout charity to the inferior classes: Tories in sheep's clothing.

No, I think Harper will go down all by himself, wearing a $3.1b boondoggle.

If the NDP can pull it off by themselves and run Harper out of office, I'm all for it, I just want Harper gone.

[jacee]

You don't listen do you? As I said, the auditor general does not audit everything. Each year the auditor general zeros in on a problem and reports it.

Every year the government must report to us on all financial matters. I guess they've been forgetting some?

It shouldn't take the Auditor General to point out that they've failed to account for $3.1b. They have accountants and auditors.

This does not mean the problem did not exist before. In fact, we know that it existed before and a large chunk of that 3 billion was "lost" by the liberals.

Prove it.

We are only hearing about it now because the auditor general has not really looked at cross department program spending before.

Neither has the government kept track of how they spent it. Pretty incompetent, or fraudulent.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Why does every single one of your posts contain personal attacks? Really tiresome.

Well I guess it's apparent that you're not much concerned about Harper losing $3.1b of our tax dollars, or not caring to report how he spends it.

What did you think about Chretien blowing $100m?

I guess that was ok too?

Trying to understand your reasoning here, but it seems a bit convoluted.

I assume you look forward to Harper finding the money and telling us how he spent it?

If not, why not?

Edited May 14, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

I'm highly offended by what you say. Comparing me with someone who starts genocide. It's a pathetic argument.

If you want pathetic arguments, try reading your own words:

I can answer it. Harper is highly radical and dangerous. He was once associated with the white-power movement

I don't know what this 'association with white-power' crap is but I do know the only reason you stuck that little phrasing in is because you thought it would enhance your argument by associating Harper with people who committed genocide.

So don't lecture me when I turn your own words on you.

Even the choice of words "highly radical and dangerous" is a pretty pathetic ad hom that is designed to inflame hatred and dehumanize the man.

I am sorry you don't like my characterizations but I realize the truth hurts.

If you don't want to be called out then stop using arguments designed to dehumanize people you disagree with.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

If the NDP can pull it off by themselves and run Harper out of office, I'm all for it, I just want Harper gone.

Sounds good to me!

[TimG]

Prove it.

Read the report.

In the blind panic thatfollowed 9/11/2001, the Liberal government of the day drew up a budget heavy with $7.7-billion of public safety and anti-terror measures. The Department of National Defence was allocated $535-million in the budget

..

In this case new anti-terror measures that were estimated to cost $481-million. The only way we know the money was earmarked for the Public Security and Anti-Terrorism Initiative is that this is how it was tagged in the document

This is a concrete example of how the liberals "lost" $54 million in one year. The rest of the losses are exactly the same. Money was allocated to a dept. It was spent on legitimate activities related to operation of the department but there is no record links the spending back to the program used to justify the allocation.

I realize that you are desperate to turn this into a narrative but the only people who care are people already hate Harper.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[MadX]

If you want pathetic arguments, try reading your own words:

I don't know what this 'association with white-power' crap is but I do know the only reason you stuck that little phrasing in is because you thought it would enhance your argument by associating Harper with people who committed genocide.

So don't lecture me when I turn your own words on you.

Even the choice of words "highly radical and dangerous" is a pretty pathetic ad hom that is designed to inflame hatred and dehumanize the man.

I am sorry you don't like my characterizations but I realize the truth hurts.

Harper has been associated with neo-nazis in his past. it's not crap its called the truth but as Bill Maher says you are a conservative and are living the "bubble" where facts can't get in. Here is a link to Harper and the Northern Foundation, a white power group. http://www.stopracism.ca/content/stephen-harper-and-his-northern-foundation-past

[TimG]

Harper has been associated with neo-nazis in his past.

There you go again. Proving that every word I used to describe you is 100% correct.

The only person living in a bubble is you and your fellow travellers that peddle hatred for political gain.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[MadX]

I guess you can't read can you, click the link and read for yourself, Harper has been associated with white power groups in his past. http://www.stopracism.ca/content/stephen-harper-and-his-northern-foundation-past

[MadX]

There you go again. Proving that every word I used to describe you is 100% correct.

The only person living in a bubble is you and your fellow travellers that peddle hatred for political gain.

I guess you can't read can you, click the link and read for yourself, Harper has been associated with white power groups in his past. http://www.stopracism.ca/content/stephen-harper-and-his-northern-foundation-past

[TimG]

Harper has been associated with white power groups in his past.

The link that you keep posting contains completely unsubstantiated allegations. Even if there was some association and the group was actually a 'white-power' group (I bet that is just crap that was made up), why is it relevant today?

The ONLY reason you keep bringing it up TODAY because you are using a page from genocide planners guide book: dehumanize the people that you disagree so you can rationalize any action necessary to take them down.

edit: the only reference i can find this mysterious "Northern Foundation" is the quotes from same anti-Harper book on many different lefty blogs. At this point, I must assume it is either a fiction or a gross exaggeration/misrepresentation of what the group was about. It would not be the first time that people on the left try to demonize their opponents by making up lies.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[MadX]

The link that you keep posting contains completely unsubstantiated allegations. Even if there was some association and the group was actually a 'white-power' group (I bet that is just crap that was made up), why is it relevant today?

The ONLY reason you keep bringing it up because you are using a page from genocide planners guide book: dehumanize the people that you disagree so you can rationalize any action necessary to take them down.

Genocide planners guidebook, are you even for real? I didn't even know those existed. I don't wish for anyone to physically harm Harper or his family. In fact I wish him a long and happy life, out of the public sector where he can't affect the lives of any Canadians any longer. You just can't stand the fact that a 21 year old kid is a better debater than you are. Deal with it, not everyone has to agree with you and its my right as a Canadian citizen to voice my displeasure with the Harper government. I do think that him being associated with a white power group is relevant. It's pretty bad that our PM was once affiliated with a group that promotes racial hatred, and you say I promote genocide. I don't know where you get that from, You got rocks in your head buddy, anyways I'm going to bed, its late here on the east coast and I actually have to get up tommorrow and go to work. I can't sit on my money like you can 1 per center. Be sure to give Harper a kiss tonight before you go to bed.

[TimG]

. You just can't stand the fact that a 21 year old kid is a better debater than you are.

ROTFL.

Here is your argument:

Harper is a racist, Harper is a racist, ..... (repeat ad infinitum).

Better debater!!!!!!

That rich.

Your problem is you are completely unable to comprehend POVs that you disagree with. If someone does not agree with you you assume they are evil and out to destroy society. You cannot accept that Harper promotes policies that he believes will make Canada a better place for everyone. Your fixation with this phony 'white-power' group is proof of this. You want it to be true because you have a psychological need to believe that Harper is evil.

I realize you are young and as you get older you will hopefully grow out of this need to demonize people you disagree with. In any case, my choice of words designed to provoke - just like you try to provoke people by repeating the 'white-power' fiction over and over. I don't think you have any desire for violence.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Read the report.

There's "a lack of clarity" ...

This is a concrete example of how the liberals "lost" $54 million in one year. The rest of the losses are exactly the same. Money was allocated to a dept. It was spent on legitimate activities related to operation of the department but there is no record links the spending back to the program used to justify the allocation.

Ahhh ... so the "anti-terrorism" money is a slush fund to be spent any way a dept chooses with no accountability that it's actually spent on anti-terrorism.

I see.

I'll assume Harper spent it on golfballs.

He's always tried to outdo Chretien.

I realize that you are desperate to turn this into a narrative but the only people who care are people already hate Harper.

I see.

You don't care where $3.1b tax dollars disappeared to.

You didn't care about Chretien misspending either?

You seem to think it's important enough to try to hang a "large chunk" of the blame on the Liberals though.

I guess in your Math, less than 2% is a "large chunk"?

So what do you call the other 98%?

Golf ball fund?

Thanks for clarifying.

Edited May 14, 2013 by jacee