Gomery to target Chretien team.

[shoop]

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

- George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This wasn't the signature I was referring too. Look at it, it doesn't make any sense in reference to my post about your signature at the time.

[Guest eureka]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

It does not matter what the Liberals campaigbed on in that respect. The Conservatives had ample opportunity to explain the alternatives and to show that the GST was a better choice. That is something they did not adequately to the public when they changed the tax system.

It really is becoming a little silly to keep talking of lies by any one parrty. All parties lie through their teeth. Unfortunately they have to if they are to be elected. There never was a lie more blatant or more damaging than that of the Mulroney government over Free Trade.

I don't know that the Liberal promise was actually a lie. Often, a party, once it gains power, finds that the things it said it would do are impractical. To abolish the GST and restore the previous mishmash would have been highly irresponsible.

The Auditor General's office has certainly been around for a long time but it was the Chretien government that gave it the teeth to do what it has done in several instances over recent years. Why do you think there were no such broadcasts of the many corrupt practises that have been routine over the past century and a half - nearly.

As with the ethics commissioner. Lapfog that office may appear to be but it is there and functions. Its function should be improved but that also is something that we have learned.

In all, the Chretien record on the accountability front is better than any previous administration.

[kimmy]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there.

It does not matter what the Liberals campaigbed on in that respect. The Conservatives had ample opportunity to explain the alternatives and to show that the GST was a better choice. That is something they did not adequately to the public when they changed the tax system.

I do not think people were willing to look at it rationally, particular given the grandstanding of the opposition and the senate.

I don't know that the Liberal promise was actually a lie. Often, a party, once it gains power, finds that the things it said it would do are impractical. To abolish the GST and restore the previous mishmash would have been highly irresponsible.

...which they didn't realize until after they were elected? uh-huh.

A 6-week election campaign is not sufficient time to educate a gullible public. I give the Liberals credit for educating the public in this respect. After 12 years of the Liberals the voting public has been strongly immunized against campaign promises that seem too good to be true. In the post-Chretien era, politicians know that their campaign promises will be viewed with the utmost skepticism and cynicism.

The Auditor General's office has certainly been around for a long time but it was the Chretien government that gave it the teeth to do what it has done in several instances over recent years. Why do you think there were no such broadcasts of the many corrupt practises that have been routine over the past century and a half - nearly.

Chretien made his change to the post in 1994. Why did we not see any evidence of these "teeth" until 2001? I think the answer to that is easy and obvious. We did not have an auditor general with a stomach for the job until Sheila Fraser took office in 2001.

As with the ethics commissioner. Lapfog that office may appear to be but it is there and functions. Its function should be improved but that also is something that we have learned.

How is it functioning, exactly? Howard Wilson was Ethics Counsellor ™ for 10 years. What is his legacy? Where is his body of work? His primary accomplishment was to be so miserable that the post was overhalled and rebranded as Ethics Commissioner. ™

Bernard Shapiro has been on the case for a year and a half now. During that time he's let Judy Sgro's people have a hands-on role in their investigation and let her brandish around a leaked (and edited) letter proclaiming her innocence. And he's leaked details of investigations into 2 Conservative MPs. And publically admited he doesn't understand his own post and that he's "learning as he goes along." (doesn't that sound like something Dubya would say?) When you've got even gentlemanly old Ed Broadbent publicly blasting you, you're probably doing a crappy job.

What is this guy doing to convince me that the position is responsible or independant or useful?

In all, the Chretien record on the accountability front is better than any previous administration.

Only by accident. Only because they have been caught red-handed more than any previous administration.

You say over and over "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" "I'm not a Liberal" and yet you seem willing to go to unprecidented lengths to apologize for these clods.

-k

[FTA Lawyer]

Actually, I see it as a Conservative vs Liberal rant. Most of it you should be able to be a little more understanding about if you ignore the Party directives.

Corruption has always been with us: with every party. It always will be. And, as I have pointed out before, the Mulroney government used the same tactics with the SAME Ad agencies to a greater exrent. Almost the first act of the Chretien government was to clamp down on this sort of government pork.

This was a well intentioned program that was just not overseen adequately.

The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST certainly. Does it not seem reasonable to you that, when they found the alternative of bringing back the Manufactures' taxes, was impractical and not efficient, they changed course. That is intelligence not lying.

Srewart did not waste or lose a billion dollars. That was spent by HRDC, mpst of it properly and likely productively. The accounting was a little awry, perhaps.

The same goes for just about all of your criticisms.

And, whatever the Liberals are, the Conservatives, in the past, have been worse. Mulroney did lie about free trade. The Mulroney government was far more corrupt. That more things come to light now is simply because we now have a watchdog office with the power to actually call the government to account. That is a Liberal institution.

Anyone who would vote Conservative; for any Conservative party of the past twenty years, has his head deep in the sands. The party has all the failings of the Liberals with the bonus of attempting to make this country ungovernable as a country. It also has the avowed aim of making our society more like the America: that is destroying all the edifices we have built to try to bring about some of the equalities that we have - not enough, BTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka,

Not to make you a scapegoat here but much of your post underscores our problem in the Canadian political landscape...everyone is so damn partisan, and refuses to actually analyse anything on its merits.

In advocating for voting against a government that has demonstrated an incredible amount of corruption, I specifically stated to vote for whomever else you want; just not those who have just finished pillaging you right in front of your face!

When a small "c" conservative (i.e. not a CPC member...just someone with conservative political ideas) criticizes the fact that a senior government minister could not really explain where a BILLION dollars had been spent you respond with something in the realm of - "Maybe so but 20 years ago some real bad stuff got done by you Mulrooney-lovers".

Why can't we all agree, no matter who you want to vote for, that when a senior government minister, responsible for the spending of the BILLION dollars is at a loss for telling the House of Commons where it went, that this is BAD! Instead you say most of it was probably spent properly and maybe there was a numbers glitch!?!?!?!

Why is it acceptable that a government tells the House they will spend 2 million on something and then spend several BILLION and don't even bother coming back to say "oh, by the way, there's been a bit of a change in circumstances"?!?!?!

Quoting things that Stephen Harper said when he was employed by a group that's mandate was to protect Provincial rights over Federal intrusion is not a valid way of proving he's unfit to be Prime Minister. He was just doing his job at the time.

I've argued a lot of positions on behalf of criminal clients because it is my job, not because I like criminals or the things that they do. Just ask Stockwell Day if it is valid to call a lawyer who acts for a pedophile someone who supports child-molestation.

Saying "he's going to breach the Charter so he's no good for Canada" is stupidity...but it seems to work on the masses. Anyone who understands the Charter knows that it is a document which is internally designed to make it okay to breach itself!! AND, we (including Martin, who so gloriously proclaims how he will never violate it) breach it EVERY DAY in the furtherance of certain societal goals.

If there are valid reasons to argue that one person or his or her party should or should not be voted for, let's discuss them. If all we want to do is puke rhetoric and sound-bites then lets all just go home and talk to ourselves in the mirror, because it has just as much utility.

The system we seem to have right now, and dare I say because of viewpoints like you have put forth, is one of "try to be a bit better than the worst guy" so you can always make yourself look good.

I'd rather us, as Canadians, hold any government accountable when it lies cheats and steals...and as I said before, the only way to do that is not vote for them...at least once!

So I re-state my question...what will it take for "swing voters who traditionally vote Liberal" to actually NOT vote Liberal?

(please note, I did not say "to actually vote Conservative"...just NOT Liberal)

FTA Lawyer

[Canuck E Stan]

Good post FTA...I totally agree.

Once I was a Liberal voter,yes I voted for that bunch.

I feel the same about voting out the Liberals because of the corruption ect. ect.

I will vote for the Conservatives and if they DON"T improve the way the government is run I will vote them out the next time round.

I will give them a chance,the Liberals had a 14 year "chance" the least I can do is give the Conservatives 4 years to tell me different.

Why keep voting for the Liberals, throw them out,give them a break and wake them up to the reality that they don't deserve to be running the government at this time with the attitude they have.

Let's see what the Conservatives will accomplish in government and if it works for Canadians we'll vote them back in,if not ,out they go.

We have to vote brutal,think of what is best for Canadians,not the governing party.

This is not your favourite hockey team.

These people run our lives,they have to learn that we are in charge.

[err]

Eureka,

You're beginning to make me sick.

From reading your posts, I've always suspected you were...

The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST certainly. Does it not seem reasonable to you that, when they found the alternative of bringing back the Manufactures' taxes, was impractical and not efficient, they changed course. That is intelligence not lying.

Don't be so stupid,the Liberals won their election on the basis of the promise to get rid of the GST.

How many elections ago are we talking.. The Liberals have twice been elected since this lie was exposed...

Your interpretation of voter intent is skewed.... The voter intent was not just to get rid of the GST, but the kind of government that would strip our social programs, impose a regressive tax like the GST, and sell us out the the USA. Getting rid of the Tories was the big voter intent...

[err]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there.

Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it.... The middle and lower income earners do not have the convenient vehicles of tax avoidance provided to the rich.

[Leader Circle]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there.

Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it.... The middle and lower income earners do not have the convenient vehicles of tax avoidance provided to the rich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Businesses pay GST, If you collect more GST than you pay out, you pay GST! This write off dream you have is not that easy. The government has learned to stick it to businesses, just not their big business buddies! That will all come crashing down, now that these large Ontario firms cannot sink all their cash they used to into support for the Liberals, in return for some good sponsorship dollars!!!!

Try getting some facts before you put it in print!! I know that is a tough stretch for one of "your" kind! You could go to work for the Toronto star!

[FTA Lawyer]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that.

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there.

Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it.... The middle and lower income earners do not have the convenient vehicles of tax avoidance provided to the rich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Businesses pay GST, If you collect more GST than you pay out, you pay GST! This write off dream you have is not that easy. The government has learned to stick it to businesses, just not their big business buddies! That will all come crashing down, now that these large Ontario firms cannot sink all their cash they used to into support for the Liberals, in return for some good sponsorship dollars!!!!

Try getting some facts before you put it in print!! I know that is a tough stretch for one of "your" kind! You could go to work for the Toronto star!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, actually....

The net GST that a business has to remit to the Feds is money collected from customers...they're the ones "paying" it, the business just forwards it on to Ottawa.

In theory, as the business collects the GST, it puts it aside into a trust account and from that balance, the business deducts all of the GST that has been spent on business expenditures. If there is a net positive balance it's sent in...net negative and the Feds cut a cheque to the business.

Hate to slap you in the face on this one Leader Circle, but if the shoe fits...

That being said, you certainly do not need to be wealthy to start a business and take advantage of this "tax avoidance" as it has been called. Every middle-income sole proprieter can buy things through his or her business if they can reasonably be considered business expenses...so this argument makes little sense.

Further, consider what the GST is on a $20 million Bombardier jet? If a wealthy guy buys one for his personal use, he's just kicked in $1.4 million into the public purse. Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax...

FTA Lawyer

[Guest eureka]

FTA!

I may be the least partisan on these boards. I would not vote for any of these aprties - as I have explained in the past. They all have serious policy issues that I cannot support that trump any other issues. My preference is for the NDP but they have policies that I will not be associated with.

Let us, by all means, discuss issues and policies. I believe that is what I am continually attempting to bring to the fore. Yet there does not seem to be much interest in doing so. It, apparently, is much more fun to shout corruption and "Stop, Thief."

You are doing that, too.

What will it take to make "swing" voters vote for any but the Conservatives? The Conservative party that, as I have asserted many times, is hell-bent on balkanizing the country; on removing any claim to being a nation; on tearing down our social cohesion?

What will it take for Canadians to stop being a gaggle of naive, parochial - I can't think of an appropriate word - but what will it take to gain a little political maturity and the sense to apply it for the benefit of the nation.

[err]

The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. ...

How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. ...

Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it....

Businesses pay GST, If you collect more GST than you pay out, you pay GST! This write off dream you have is not that easy. The government has learned to stick it to businesses, just not their big business buddies! ....

Well, actually....

The net GST that a business has to remit to the Feds is money collected from customers...they're the ones "paying" it, the business just forwards it on to Ottawa.

.........

Hate to slap you in the face on this one Leader Circle, but if the shoe fits...

That being said, you certainly do not need to be wealthy to start a business and take advantage of this "tax avoidance" as it has been called. Every middle-income sole proprieter can buy things through his or her business if they can reasonably be considered business expenses...so this argument makes little sense.

However, the majority of middle and lower income people are not business owners, and do not have the tax avoidance vehicle. Of the upper-middle and upper-income, a considerably large percentage do have the tax avoidance mechanisms at their avail...

Further, consider what the GST is on a $20 million Bombardier jet?  If a wealthy guy buys one for his personal use, he's just kicked in $1.4 million into the public purse.  Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax...

FTA Lawyer

Rather an unlikely scenario, isn't it.... Someone who can afford a $20Million jet probably has a business (or number of them) through which the purchase can be made.... The rich don't usually get rich by being really stupid, and not using the tax-avoidance mechanisms designed for them.

"Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax..." Why, because he has to pay the same rate that poor people do ???? (see above.. he would not really have to pay the tax unless he was really stupid)