Jim Flaherty has died.

[Michael Hardner]

Annoyed1 - for you especially I post this tribute from Bob Rae:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/farewell-to-jim-flaherty-a-fellow-practitioner/article17922796/

He worked hard and he cared about his work, his province and his country. He also cared about his family, and built networks of friendship and collegiality both in Canada and around the world....

And he deserves to be remembered as one of those in the arena of whom Teddy Roosevelt once so rightly said:

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Stephen Harper also provided tribute to a foe when Jack Layton died:

http://www.straight.com/news/prime-minister-stephen-harpers-statement-ndp-leader-jack-laytons-death

So, Flaherty devoted himself to the citizens of Canada and gave the best years of his life for that. Whether or not you share all his values, you share his predicament in that you only have one life to live, as he did. It's a common touchpoint of decency to acknowledge a man's majesty after his passing, and those of us left- and right- who post here regularly are making an effort to do so.

[Army Guy]

Son, after 50+ years on this mudball, seeing both the best and worst we hairless apes have to offer, I can attest that the only place you will find normal is on the fat end of a bell curve.

I get the fact that we are not to feed the trolls, and i will apologize to the rest of the regular readers on this forum in advance, but the lack of respect from this guy has struck a cord......... you sir are a Limp DICK....Yes i could have used another colorful word to discribe you, but i'll stick with Limp DICK as it seems to discribe you and your cheerful attitude to a T.....

Nobody on this forum has lionize Mr Flaherty to the piont of Sainthood, what they have done is instead commented on some of his highlights, we hairless apes do that when someone passes. It's out of respect for the man and his greiving family....And while he may not of been the best he was far from the worst, and i know i can hardly wait to hear your next poem , when you discribe them...

So Limp Dick i want to thank you for setting the bar so high on your first couple of posts, but then again that is what arm chair critics do, sip lemonade from a sippy cup while sitting in their reclining chair all from the basement of their mothers home.....and comment on things, or people who had the courage to serve their country in some form or other. Well enough time spent on some hairless ape with nothing but disdain for everything and everyone. Good day limp dick.

[Michael Hardner]

Army Guy... please try to hold back from dirtying the thread any more than it has been with personal attacks.

[Army Guy]

Your right Michael, this post should have been reserved as a PM, and i should not of made it out to be about one of our newest members. But rather paying respects to Mr Flaherty.

[WWWTT]

Wait till you read my first (and possibly last depending on the mods here) post....

Nope you can't be penalized for criticizing a politicians actions on this web site!

From what I read so far, that's all you're doing. You didn't call anyone any names and are playing fair ball!

As far as MH goes for posting what Bob Rae said of Flaherty and Harper of Layton, these are well rounded seasoned politicians that know exactly how to capitalize on any/every opportunity to win votes! Also, they were colleagues. So probably in death, after playing politics with each other for so long, they knew when enough is enough.

But I personally wouldn't be attacking a dead mans policies/actions so soon after death

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

The guy was curmudgeonly colourful. These have been tough times for the world. I think history will speak kindly of Jim Flaherty.

[Big Guy]

Some will say the tributes to him are understated while others feel that the coverage is way over the top. We all have different ways of dealing with the unexpected death of someone we are familiar with. I believe that when someone starts a thread about the death of anyone on a public access board, it opens the door to all comments. There are many ways to honour the man if you so wish. One site is;

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/04/jim-flaherty-share-your-condolences.html

Usually, the shock of the unexpected death of a well known individual is immediately followed by accolades until after the funeral. But it is a free country and everyone is entitled their own opinion. Any and every politician is a controversial figure so you can expect many opinions that are not favourable to the potential legacy of the individual.

I did miss a more in depth coverage of other Canadian news during the coverage of this unexpected event.

Personally, I think that he was a good man, just a well educated man who spent most of his life trying to meld our society towards his personal vision. Only time will tell as to how successful he was.

R.I.P.

[guyser]

At the other end of the Annoyed1 spectrum we have this hyperbole....or outright bollocks

Brought honor to the position. The best finance minister this country has ever had by a very wide margin. That he was able to do so much under the conditions he had to do them was absolutely remarkable.

Others will look to emulate his economic management for generations to come.

Please god no!

Edited April 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[Argus]

Like Marc Anthony, I come not to praise Flahtery, but bury him.

And realized how incredibly tasteless your criticism would be, so decided to create a new account to do it. You know you're being gauche, but apparently, don't have the social skills to act any better.

He was not a great Canadian,

As compared to whom? You? What have you accomplished with your life? Anything?

As Mike Harris Finance Minister in Ontario, he generated a massive debt

Um, no he didn't. In fact, Harris left with a surplus. It was Ernie Eves who ran up a slight deficit, wildly exagerated by the corrupt and dispicable Mcguinty government, who then went on to massive increase taxes -- while still massively increasing the deficit!

You have to hand it to the Liberals. I mean, it's one thing to cut taxes, and then run a deficit. It takes REAL incompetence to massively increase your funding yet still grow an enormous deficit.

Ontario found he had left them in a sea of red ink that the Ontario taxpayers will be dealing with for decades.

That's actually kind of funny. The Liberals did everything they humanly could to exaggerate the state of Ontario's deficit, all the way up to about $5 billion, then after raising taxes repeatedly, brought the deficit down to uhm, $15 billion. And you criticize Flaherty?!

He then inherited a tidy surplus and stable budget from Paul Martin which he quickly blew through like a drunken sailor

Drivel. Up until the great recession, which they certainly can't be held responsible for, they had delivered surpluses with every budget.

he created the largest debt load we Canadians have ever seen,

More drivel. The debt created under them is nothing to what Trudeau and then Mulroney did. You are simply too ignorant to be discussion economics. I can understand why you created a new ID. Such raw ignorance combined with a gauch determination to criticize a dead man would shame most people. The tastelessness of it will, of course, draw contempt from anyone not a vicious ideologue.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black!

Actually Annoyed has valid information, whether you like the timing or not.

I'm not sure what your first language is. But in it, do you find 'valid' to be a synomym for 'bullshit'?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Argus

[Bob Macadoo]

The guy was curmudgeonly colourful. These have been tough times for the world. I think history will speak kindly of Jim Flaherty.

This is the best and truest statement that could be said for the man. He deserves to be neither cannonized nor pillared. He was a man with principles that behaved like any other human; sometimes stubbornly, sometimes conciliatory, sometimes wrong sometimes right. He wasn't a wizard nor was he dunce, he was handed advantages and was thrust into the abyss. He did the best he believed he could with what he had to offer.....no more or less than we expect of any civil servant.

[Mighty AC]

This is the best and truest statement that could be said for the man. He deserves to be neither cannonized nor pillared. He was a man with principles that behaved like any other human; sometimes stubbornly, sometimes conciliatory, sometimes wrong sometimes right. He wasn't a wizard nor was he dunce, he was handed advantages and was thrust into the abyss. He did the best he believed he could with what he had to offer.....no more or less than we expect of any civil servant.

Well said! I think Jim had a tough start and was probably in over his head a little. Though, I believe he grew into the position by the end. I think middle of the road would describe his time as finance minister; which, isn't bad for a guy at the helm during some tough times and with a notoriously interfering boss.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not sure what your first language is. But in it, do you find 'valid' to be a synomym for 'bullshit'?

Well I do speak the language of numbers. I'm sure Flaherty was a good guy, but he was no Paul Martin as a finance minister.

[Shady]

Well I do speak the language of numbers. I'm sure Flaherty was a good guy, but he was no Paul Martin as a finance minister.

What does that mean?

[On Guard for Thee]

What does that mean?

It means he took a multi billion dollar surplus handed him by Martin and turned it into a multi billion dollar deficit.

[Shady]

It means he took a multi billion dollar surplus handed him by Martin and turned it into a multi billion dollar deficit.

No he didn't. Somebody already explained that to you. Why are you ignorning it?

[On Guard for Thee]

No he didn't. Somebody already explained that to you. Why are you ignorning it?

Yes I know he had '08 to deal with, and I understand that. But the actual numbers don't lie.

[Shady]

Yes I know he had '08 to deal with, and I understand that. But the actual numbers don't lie.

Yes they don't. And now the budget is balanced, and in surplus. Crisis well managed, even though it was none of Canada's doing.

[Shady]

But I agree, Paul Martin was an excellent Finance Minister. The we he slashed the federal budget by almost 20% was necessarily, even though it did cause some pain. The way he reformed EI was also necessary, even though that caused some pain as well. Paul Martin in a way, was Tea Party, before it even existed.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes they don't. And now the budget is balanced, and in surplus. Crisis well managed, even though it was none of Canada's doing.

Well apparently it might be by next year.

[WWWTT]

Paul Martin in a way, was Tea Party, before it even existed.

I agree and disagree.

Paul Martin didn't increase military spending , didn't increase cuts to corporate taxes to the extent as the conservatives (in fact he eliminated many corporate tax loophole/breaks at the beginning of his term) didn't cut the HST. Voted for the gun registry!

Lots of stuff there that's not in line with the tea party.

WWWTT

[Smallc]

The Tea Party doesn't want to increase military spending, and no one cut corporate taxes more than Martin. It's also important to note that Martin did in fact increase military spending by a very large amount once he was in the big chair.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Smallc

[Argus]

Well I do speak the language of numbers. I'm sure Flaherty was a good guy, but he was no Paul Martin as a finance minister.

How do you know? It's easy to be Finance Minister during boom times, especially when working for a prime minister who has no ambition to do anything. Jean Chretien only believed in spending money if it bought him votes, and since there was no political pressure from the right during most of his term he didn't bother to address any issues.

[Argus]

The Tea Party doesn't want to increase military spending, and no one cut corporate taxes more than Martin. It's also important to note that Martin did in fact increase military spending by a very large amount once he was in the big chair.

Really? By how much?

Once he was 'in the big chair' and facing election from a unified right, ie, once the Liberals hold on power was actually threatened, he opened the money spigot as wide as possible. His own promises during that election would have eliminated his surpluses. In fact, because Chretien had commited so much money before leaving (to screw Martin) Martin's election promises could have thrown us back into deficit.

[Smallc]

He increases military spending very significantly as PM, and Harper increased it more after that...and now Harper has undone all of that.