Harper the Disgrace

[Shady]

That makes no sense. Hard choices means making decisions to not spend money or raise taxes to keep government spending less than revenue. And how much difference is an extra 10 billion going realistically make? The difference between Harper and Trudeau appears to be Harper runs deficits when it is clear that he had no choice. Trudeau is making the choice to run deficits. If Trudeau has said 'I don't trust the government numbers and I am prepared to run deficits, if necessary, for a few years' then it would be reasonable. The trouble is he said 'I am going to run deficits and don't really care if it is necessary or not'. That is why it is a huge concern.

No only that, but when interest rates rise, financing his new debt is going to be more expensive. But oh I forgot. The budget balances itself!

[Moonlight Graham]

That makes no sense. Hard choices means making decisions to not spend money or raise taxes to keep government spending less than revenue.

"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.

The difference between Harper and Trudeau appears to be Harper runs deficits when it is clear that he had no choice. Trudeau is making the choice to run deficits.

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.

The trouble is he said 'I am going to run deficits and don't really care if it is necessary or not'. That is why it is a huge concern.

Can you give me a link to where Trudeau said this or implied this? My recollection is he said this within the last several months in response to our recent economic woes. This year the gov's tax revenues are going to be lower than they would have because of the weakened economy.

[Bryan]

Uhh why did Harper have no choice? Somebody put a gun to his head and told him to run deficits for almost a decade?

Yes. November 2008 fiscal update, prorogation, coalition.... any of that ring a bell?

[ReeferMadness]

I know everybody must be thinking "If Harper was really such a pathetic failure, why do so many people plan to vote for him?" That's an excellent question and there isn't just one answer.

Some already wealthy people understand that Harper's tax cutting ways will make them even richer. They don't need more money but, hey, they're rich for a reason. There aren't nearly enough of them to elect him, though. There's a reason they call them the 1%.

As we've already discussed, Conservative dog-whistle politics have the effect of making racists, homophobes and other xenophobes feel better about themselves.

Lots of people are employed in fossil fuel jobs and they worry about their future without Harper there to champion their dirty industry.

Lots of people don't pay close attention to politics and Conservatives are especially good at jingoism and other types of cheap politics that play well to the uninformed.

Conservatism is statistically associated with low IQ's. Lots of Conservatives just aren't that bright many just haven't figured out that it's against their best interests to elect Conservatives. Sad but true.

[ToadBrother]

Conservatism is statistically associated with low IQ's. Lots of Conservatives just aren't that bright many just haven't figured out that it's against their best interests to elect Conservatives. Sad but true.

The minutes any partisan has to start insulting voters, I begin to question the partisan's intellectual rigour.

You're basically claiming a third of voters are morons because they don't agree with you.

[poochy]

There's an awful lot of ridiculous topic titles being thrown around lately, i dont suppose that has anything to do with trying to get a 'googler's' attention during an election, knowing most won't bother to read the lies being spouted, how for example something like

"Heartless Harper Blocked Visas For Iraqi Kids To Get Organ Transplants"

that isn't deleted...just wow, but yet there are standards here..

Edited October 4, 2015 by poochy

[ReeferMadness]

The minutes any partisan has to start insulting voters, I begin to question the partisan's intellectual rigour.

You're basically claiming a third of voters are morons because they don't agree with you.

Didn't say that at all.

I said this

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

Go argue with the scientists. Or try to shut them up, like the Conservatives try to do.

[ToadBrother]

Didn't say that at all.

I said this

Go argue with the scientists. Or try to shut them up, like the Conservatives try to do.

You were trying to insinuate Conservative voters are either greedy or morons, and misquoting a study to try to prove it.

[ReeferMadness]

There's an awful lot of ridiculous topic titles being thrown around lately,

One of the many Harper supporters on this site asked why I thought Harper was evil (though, in fairness, I don't recall ever using that word to describe him). I thought disgrace was a fairer, more accurate and less morally charged word than evil. We could ask the mods to change it, though, if you think evil is more accurate.

Anyway, clearly Harper 's government has done so many disgraceful and despicable things that it deserves its own thread. And let's be honest - we've only scratched the surface with this list.

[Bryan]

And let's be honest - we've only scratched the surface with this list.

Yes, let's be honest: your list is BS.

[ReeferMadness]

You were trying to insinuate Conservative voters are either greedy or morons, and misquoting a study to try to prove it.

If I've misquoted the study somehow, you should point it out instead of attacking me.

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. Certainly, the wealthy know this; or could know it if they chose to. It's logical that Harper's platitudes make the rich feel OK about their wealth and greed in much the same way that his rationalizations about the niqab make the racists feel OK about their views.

Conservatives bring out the worst in people in many ways. If it seems impolite of me to point that out, well, I'm not sorry.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, let's be honest: your list is BS.

The truth hurts.

[Bryan]

The truth hurts.

I'm still waiting for you to present any.

[angrypenguin]

Then why haven't Muclair or Trudeau promised to reverse it? They have certainly promised to reverse many of his other policies but not that one.

Because people wouldn't vote for them. Duh. It affects EVERYONE who buys stuff. Repealing the TFSA or whatever apparently only affects the "rich". ROLLEYES.

Edited October 4, 2015 by angrypenguin

[capricorn]

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. Certainly, the wealthy know this; or could know it if they chose to. It's logical that Harper's platitudes make the rich feel OK about their wealth and greed in much the same way that his rationalizations about the niqab make the racists feel OK about their views.

I see where you're coming from. You believe Conservative supporters have low IQs and in addition you believe Conservative supporters are disproportionately more wealthy than supporters of other parties. Therefore, you must be a Trudeau Jr. supporter, i.e. you're in the middle class or someone hoping to join the middle class.

[Accountability Now]

If I've misquoted the study somehow, you should point it out instead of attacking me.

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. Certainly, the wealthy know this; or could know it if they chose to. It's logical that Harper's platitudes make the rich feel OK about their wealth and greed in much the same way that his rationalizations about the niqab make the racists feel OK about their views.

Conservatives bring out the worst in people in many ways. If it seems impolite of me to point that out, well, I'm not sorry.

So let me get this straight....your study says that conservatives have lower IQs yet you also go onto to say that conservatives include the top 1%. Do you think it's just by luck that these people are wealthy? Even those that inherit wealth need to be smart to maintain it. So which is it? Or is it possible that there are stupid and smart people on both sides and that such a rash generalization is just stupid?

[ReeferMadness]

I see where you're coming from. You believe Conservative supporters have low IQs

The study says that people who score low on IQ tests tend to have conservative views. What you've said isn't quite the same thing. Please refrain from twisting my words.

and in addition you believe Conservative supporters are disproportionately more wealthy than supporters of other parties.

Now you're just making stuff up. Please refrain from inventing things and claiming I said them.

Therefore, you must be a Trudeau Jr. supporter, i.e. you're in the middle class or someone hoping to join the middle class.

Seems like you're just hallucinating now.

[ReeferMadness]

So let me get this straight....your study says that conservatives have lower IQs

It's not "my study" and it doesn't say that. Please read and understand before you comment.

yet you also go onto to say that conservatives include the top 1%.

Never said that.

Do you think it's just by luck that these people are wealthy? Even those that inherit wealth need to be smart to maintain it.

I've never seen any study that shows a statistical link between intelligence and wealth. If you think there is one, go and find it. Then come back.

So which is it? Or is it possible that there are stupid and smart people on both sides and that such a rash generalization is just stupid?

The study makes no generalization, other than less intelligent people are more likely to be Conservatives. If you are insulted by that, take it up with the study's author.

[ReeferMadness]

Seems like quite a few of you around here are in denial about the general nature of conservatism (at least in its virulent modern form) and its manifestation in the disgraceful, dishonest and pathetic actions of Mr Harper.

That's unfortunate.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

[poochy]

The study says that people who score low on IQ tests tend to have conservative views. What you've said isn't quite the same thing. Please refrain from twisting my words.

Now you're just making stuff up. Please refrain from inventing things and claiming I said them.

Seems like you're just hallucinating now.

O but you aren't trying to insinuate that conservatives are less intelligent...o no, of course not. More men are very intelligent than are women, also there are more very stupid men, than there are women, maybe men tend to be more conservative and therefore more of the very stupid men are conservative, idk, but i do know that pathetic left wingers like to pretend they are more intelligent. When so willing to mislead about a simple study like this it's no surprise that they are easily convinced to believe there own lies.

[ReeferMadness]

O but you aren't trying to insinuate that conservatives are less intelligent....

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.

More men are very intelligent than are women, also there are more very stupid men, than there are women, maybe men tend to be more conservative and therefore more of the very stupid men are conservative,

I have NO idea wtf you are talking about.

[waldo]

Repealing the TFSA or whatever apparently only affects the "rich". ROLLEYES.

I note you've mentioned TFSA's many times... per CRA (available 2013 data), only 17% of all Canadians with a TFSA have maximized contributions... that drops to 7% when the total number of Canadians eligible for TFSA's is considered. For those with existing TFSA's, percentage contributions for lower income categories are even lower... with several of those categories skewed by retired seniors with accumulated wealth. Of course, these figures even pre-date the 2015 yearly allocation increase from $5500 to $10000. If I ask you for an opinion (substantiated, or not) on just how many Canadians you think have $10000 available to apply to a TFSA... will you also throw me a 'rolleyes emoticon'?

.

[waldo]

Seems like quite a few of you around here are in denial about the general nature of conservatism

even setting aside the social aspect, it appears most around here consider Harper a fiscal conservative icon!

[waldo]

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! In any case, it's always heartening to read the usual suspects reach for the global recession ready go-to excuse... and trumpet how the mighty Harper slewed the recession giant and saved Canada... even though those wascally Opposition parties made him do it! But, as always, a gentle reminder:

again, the 2008 recession barely impacted upon Canada... 3 quarters period... - per StatsCan: Canada's (first Harper) recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!

"Canada's 'mild & short" recession resulted more from how Canada was positioned going into the recession; positioned as a result of policy/actions over the prior decade where the Liberal federal governments had budget and trade surpluses for most of that prior decade. Of course, Canada's banks were solid and there was no ongoing/pending housing bubble. All of this helped to diminish any credit crunch when banks ultimately tightened up on loans. Additionally high commodity prices helped to reduce the initial recession impact; effectively Canada entered the recession well after most other countries. Milder, shorter and entered later... resulting in, again, only a 3 quarter recession."