Harper the Disgrace

[Topaz]

The Rich better get wise because if the government keeps taking mostly from the middle class, the middle class is going to disappear then the government will come after the only sector that has money the rich and then the rich will become the middle class.

[ReeferMadness]

it appears the OP list should have had the deficit line item at the end of the list... it might have allowed for greater review of the list by Harper proponents!

this crowd is in complete denial. Everything was someone else's fault. That's the very essence of conservative accountability.

[ToadBrother]

Harper is a disgrace. Problem is, I look at Trudeau and Mulcair and I see the same kind of lying, fake-smiling snake-oil salesmen only on the other side of the aisle. They're each a disgrace. We're all arguing on MLW about who is the monster when in fact any politician who smiles and lies into the camera is the monster, they're all our enemies.

Well, Jesus Christ isn't leading a political party in this country, so we have to pick the best of the worst. And really, how is that different than any other election?

[angrypenguin]

The Rich better get wise because if the government keeps taking mostly from the middle class, the middle class is going to disappear then the government will come after the only sector that has money the rich and then the rich will become the middle class.

I really wish you would spend some time in a country which truly doesn't have a middle class. Your assessment is entirely incorrect. Go to some regions in Asia.

[Argus]

"Hard choices" also means announcing the intention to run a deficit during an election campaign and appear not "fiscally responsible", something that could be political suicide and has been among many voters including yourself.

Trudeau really didn't have much choice. He was in third place and not moving and he needed to buy a lot of votes. There was no way, with the amount of promises he was making, he could pretend to be balancing the budget and not get laughed out of every press interview. So he took a gamble in figuring those most interested in government responsibility were probably likely to vote Conservative anyway, and went after those who really didn't care much like the 30% of Canadians who don't pay any taxes.

Uhh why did Harper have no choice? Somebody put a gun to his head and told him to run deficits for almost a decade? Why does Harper not have to make "hard choices" in a shrinking economy but not Trudeau? Double-standard.

Yes, they did, as you know full well. And there is a difference between going into deficit in the worst recession in history, and going into deficit during good times. The technical recession from earlier this year is over. And anyway, as Andrew Coyne pointed out in his column, most of the money Trudeau plans to spend isn't for infrastructure or improving the economy at all.

[Argus]

I know everybody must be thinking "If Harper was really such a pathetic failure, why do so many people plan to vote for him?

Because he's still better than the alternatives so strongly supported by the slack-jawed dullards who can barely write their names without spelling errors?

[angrypenguin]

Because he's still better than the alternatives so strongly supported by the slack-jawed dullards who can barely write their names without spelling errors?

Do they even know their names?

[Argus]

As for greedy, it's been well established that tax cutting overwhelmingly favors the rich and accentuates wealth inequality; and wealth inequality is bad for the economy.

In fact, the opposite has been established, as I have pointed out before.

But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012.

And.

What’s more, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted last year, the tax changes introduced under the Tories since 2006 “have been progressive overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.” Their income-splitting policy slightly shifts benefits up the income ladder, but it still benefits the middle class most.

I don't expect facts to get in the way of the ongoing Left wing theme that Harper is all for the rich, of course, but the truth needs to be said regardless.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/

Edited October 4, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I'm still waiting for you to present any.

You better be a patient man.

[Argus]

The Rich better get wise because if the government keeps taking mostly from the middle class, the middle class is going to disappear then the government will come after the only sector that has money the rich and then the rich will become the middle class.

This progressivity can help us understand why the top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/heres-what-the-wealthiest-of-the-wealthy-in-canada-earn-and-pay-in-taxes

To put the matter another way, the top one per cent now pay about 33 per cent of their income in tax, on average. Not only is that more than twice as much as everyone else pays — it’s about the same as it was in the early 1980s, when life was fair and “the sky was the limit” and the middle class could catch a break.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-forget-the-liberal-mythology-canadas-middle-class-is-not-struggling

[ReeferMadness]

But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012.

So, for some reason, there are only a few select years presented and nothing after 2012. What happened between 2006 and 2012 that might affect incomes? A stock market crash. And who hurts most from a stock market crash? The people who own all the stocks.

There isn't sufficient information here to determine what happened or why.

Let me know when Stats Can reports the numbers for the last 3 years since the markets have taken off again.

What’s more, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted last year, the tax changes introduced under the Tories since 2006 “have been progressive overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.” Their income-splitting policy slightly shifts benefits up the income ladder, but it still benefits the middle class most.

So, tell me. Did you look at the PBO report or did you just read the propaganda and triumphantly report it back?

[Argus]

So, for some reason, there are only a few select years presented and nothing after 2012.

That's because the last thing I found on the internet which quoted stats can came from 2013. There is no indication things have changed since.

What happened between 2006 and 2012 that might affect incomes? A stock market crash.

A deep, deep recession which put a lot of people out of work. As to the stock market, it definitely went south in 2008 and 2009, but it's been booming ever since.

There isn't sufficient information here to determine what happened or why.

It's strong evidence you are wrong, without any countervailing evidence from you that you aren't.

So, tell me. Did you look at the PBO report or did you just read the propaganda and triumphantly report it back?

I read the report. Did you? Do you have anything to counter these reports other than your own bile?

[angrypenguin]

So, for some reason, there are only a few select years presented and nothing after 2012. What happened between 2006 and 2012 that might affect incomes? A stock market crash. And who hurts most from a stock market crash? The people who own all the stocks.

Incorrect. You're assuming people hit "sell".

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, Jesus Christ isn't leading a political party in this country, so we have to pick the best of the worst. And really, how is that different than any other election?

Do we need Jesus Christ? No. Just a normal, respectable person who isn't a 100% sleazeball.

Our system right now allows this disgusting hierarchical party system, where you almost have to be corrupt to get to the top. Pierre Pollievre kisses his leader's ass all the way to cabinet at a very young age. Meanwhile, someone with conviction to stand up and disagree with Harper and the party, including introducing the Reform Act to give more democratic power to all MP's and backbenchers, has been punished and hasn't been in CPC cabinet since 2006.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, they did, as you know full well. And there is a difference between going into deficit in the worst recession in history, and going into deficit during good times. The technical recession from earlier this year is over. And anyway, as Andrew Coyne pointed out in his column, most of the money Trudeau plans to spend isn't for infrastructure or improving the economy at all.

Harper has had a majority the last 4 years, the CPC has had complete control over the budget. Give me a break.

These aren't good economic times. Oil prices have taken a huge hit on our economy. Central bank interest rates are still 0%,, what does that tell you?

[ToadBrother]

Do we need Jesus Christ? No. Just a normal, respectable person who isn't a 100% sleazeball.

I don't think any of them are 100% sleazeball. Maybe 30% or 40% sleazeball by volume

[poochy]

Harper has had a majority the last 4 years, the CPC has had complete control over the budget. Give me a break.

These aren't good economic times. Oil prices have taken a huge hit on our economy. Central bank interest rates are still 0%,, what does that tell you?

Give us a break indeed, i could use a break from all of the people who won't vote conservative pretending to actually care about the deficit, i am sure they cared at least as much as the federal liberal party that complained about the deficit after they asked for a bigger one, but before they planned to increase it.

[BC_chick]

OK. For the third time now, let me repeat what the study shows. People with low IQ's tend to be conservatives. That does not mean (or imply) what you just said.

It's too bad that this scientific study offends some of the conservatives on this board. Clearly, the answer is to vote for Harper again - he's good at making those scientists shut up.

I have NO idea wtf you are talking about.

I totally got it. Conservatives are not less intelligent or rich but those who are less intelligent or rich tend to vote conservative.

Maybe the fact that it went over so many heads proves the study's findings?

[Ash74]

I totally got it. Conservatives are not less intelligent or rich but those who are less intelligent or rich tend to vote conservative.

Maybe the fact that it went over so many heads proves the study's findings?

Or maybe it is the knowledge that government will just screw it up so we are just looking for a government that will do the least amount of damage.

I don't really like Harper but I do not like any of them. I just dislike Harper the least. We live in a nanny state but the Liberals and NDP will just make it worse.

[TimG]

I totally got it. Conservatives are not less intelligent or rich but those who are less intelligent or rich tend to vote conservative.

This reminds me of the studies that use statistical analysis to conclude that blacks tend to be less intelligent and asians are more intelligent. Both analyses may be true but largely meaningless since the variations with the groups far exceeds the variation between groups. Perhaps we should dig up those studies on races now that people have suddenly decided that this statistical approach is useful if it gives results they like.

[Not Yet]

Harper is a human being. He will never be perfect. He made his share of screw ups for sure. The only one I cannot forgive him for however is how he endorsed the torture issue. I can forgive the other mistakes but not the mistakes that cause human suffering.

[Biz Liz]

Oh that's hilarious. Now you recognize

---SNIP---

what was in front of his face. That's even worse.

Do you really think Harper is a "great economist" or were you joking?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[PIK]

Reefer thanks for the list of talking pts. It must have taken you all weekend to go thru all the dumb posts that have been posted here to get all that.

[Gleason]

Up until today I was marginally supporting PM Harper even though I do not agree with all of his policies but was grateful for the GST reduction. But after I read this article written by one of my colleagues, and I reflected on all the torture issues I have decided that I cannot support Harper in Good conscience. This article explains 70 reasons why not and how over the past decade, we have lost rights and freedoms that many of us took for granted...

http://www.alternet.org/world/whats-his-problem-70-ways-canadas-prime-minister-has-assaulted-democracy-and-law

Now before a bunch of Harperites start spewing your loyal and unconditional support, I ask that you at least read the article first. If there is anyone out there that can really deny any part of this article is true, I am all ears.

I am posting this comment in accordance with the rules of his forum and in accordance with the Charter RIghts of Canada. If indeed this forum is objective and free of bias, there will be no need nor cause to delete it. None-the-less I am taking a screen shot for the purpose and benefit of my article on "Political Propaganda & The Media" to be published on the 15th of October. For the record this is screen shot no.27.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Gleason

[ToadBrother]

Let's just start with item #2. What happened after the contempt finding and the election that followed?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post