Vicious: Martin & Hargrove

[shoop]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

They seem to think they did.

It looks to me like feel-goodism.

[sage]

Rovik to be clear the NDP in Saskatchewan have not ran balanced budgets.

What they do is they set up something called a "rainy day fund" which is basically a savings accoutn. This is something like $400 million.

In the past (say 3-5 years) the NDP have been running deficits and dipping into this fund to say that revenue=expenses and thus a balanced budget.

As for the raising of taxes, they have in fact raised our PST, and applied it to more items. I am sorry but the NDP of this province for the past 5 years (since Janice McKinnon left as finance minister) is a terrible example of fiscal stewardship.

[Rovik]

Layton has said that his budget is but a down-payment on what is needed on many occasions. And so far economists are saying that there's no wiggle room in his budget. So if he is to lead, and achieve his goal, where does the money come from?

You haven't mentioned that his budget will not run a deficit and they have said that they will change the amount of monies allocated if the economy changes, therefore not run a deficit. Even economists say the budget will not run into deficit going by today's economy.

I'm sorry, but I think there comes a point where people need to do for themselves. I don't want to live in the Nanny State that's in Layton's dreams.

I think a government should empower people to do for themselves, not provide so they get used to not having to. And 9 times out of 10 we can find the services that leaders the likes of Layton want to provide cheaper and better in the private sector.

And lastly, I find Layton's culture of class warfare really tired. Corporations do not pay tax, they pass it down to the consumer. Always have. Always will. All his idea of taxing big business will do is stifle their efforts to expand and create jobs. The government cannot run an economy. Business does. As soon as Layton figures that out (thats assuming he ever does) he will understand why his messages aren't hitting. The rest of us know it already. Those who do buy it are caught up in their resentment that some people are rich and they aren't, to which I reply that if they want to be rich--they can be, if they work for it.

That great for places like Alberta and parts of Ontario where there are lots of manufacturing jobs with easy access to markets such as the US, but in poorer places like Newfoundland, govt. plays an important role. There is oil here yes. but Newfoundland benefits very little compared to Alberta when it comes to oil. And we're so far away from the US, that manufacturing jobs are few compared to Ontario.

Salaries are much lower, opportunities are not as high and what has kept Newfoundland going for hundreds of years, fishing has been mismanaged by Federal Conservative and Liberal parties over the years resulting in the industry is a shadow of what it once was. Often many of the jobs (such as fishing and forestry), especially in rural areas, are seasonal and people rely on EI to survive when they are not working. Business here often demands govt money to survive here, such as Abitibi Price (Forestry company.) In fact, many startup businesses will often demand a tax holdiay to come here and it has happened that companies have up and left after the tax holdiay has expired.

What you suggest would wipe out rural Newfoundland (most which are one industry towns.) St. John's and the surrounding area are an exception and is doing well but again it's an exception compared to most of Newfoundland.

Newfoundland and other poorer regions of Canada is not like Alberta or southwestern Ontario and circumstances warrant that a different approach is required. Therefore, this is just one of the many reasons for strong social programs because business is not the magic bullet for all regions in Canada.

[Rovik]

The NDP will never form government so there is no reason for them to put forth a coherent economic plan. They obviously agree or they would have done so.

It's funny, many Conservatives have accused the Liberals of been arrogant, yet your statement borders on arrogance itself.

[tml12]

The NDP will never form government so there is no reason for them to put forth a coherent economic plan. They obviously agree or they would have done so.

It's funny, many Conservatives have accused the Liberals of been arrogant, yet your statement borders on arrogance itself.

I'd say the statement is pure fact...the NDP has no economic platform, don't understand what Bay St. is there for, and merely serve to make the left feel they have a voice in a world that cannot and will never make Marxism any more realistic than it was fifty or 250 years ago.

[Rovik]

The NDP will never form government so there is no reason for them to put forth a coherent economic plan. They obviously agree or they would have done so.

It's funny, many Conservatives have accused the Liberals of been arrogant, yet your statement borders on arrogance itself.

I'd say the statement is pure fact...the NDP has no economic platform, don't understand what Bay St. is there for, and merely serve to make the left feel they have a voice in a world that cannot and will never make Marxism any more realistic than it was fifty or 250 years ago.

Really? Then what was in NDP's platform....crossword puzzles? You're talking about the wrong party by the way. I did a Google search and find the link for the Marxist Party of Canada. Here's the link if you want to check it out Link

And by the way, you must be a psychic to know the future, you must be by saying "I'd say the statement is pure fact" which says the NDP will never form government.

[tml12]

1) I was talking about "Marxism" not the political party.

2) The NDP will not form the government in THIS election...I didn't say in future elections.

3) Based on his comment, I would say Shoop's statement is factual, because the NDP has not talked about investors investing in government or anything that would make me think they understand this or think it is important.

[BubberMiley]

TML, Why do misrepresent the NDP as "Marxist," which few NDPers would agree to being, and yet disagree with calling Harper a neocon when he would admit to being one?

[Rovik]

1) I was talking about "Marxism" not the political party.

2) The NDP will not form the government in THIS election...I didn't say in future elections.

3) Based on his comment, I would say Shoop's statement is factual, because the NDP has not talked about investors investing in government or anything that would make me think they understand this or think it is important.

The NDP are not Marxist.

I gathered by Shoop's broad statement that he meant never as in never perpetually. My apologies to you and to Shoop, if he meant only this election.

I can't comment because I'm not sure what you mean by "investors investing in government" and I don't want to mistake what you are trying to say? Can you explain a bit more?

[tml12]

TML, Why do misrepresent the NDP as "Marxist," which few NDPers would agree to being, and yet disagree with calling Harper a neocon when he would admit to being one?

Read the following:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

(FROM: "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO"

SOURCE: http://www.marxists.org)

Many, especially numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 (half) sound like things your NDP voter would advocate.

Harper's policies, especially his advocay for small government, are not consistent with neo-conservatism. For the record, I never said Harper wasn't a neocon, in fact he probably is a moderate one. Of course, this is only bad if you're an NDP voter.

[tml12]

1) I was talking about "Marxism" not the political party.

2) The NDP will not form the government in THIS election...I didn't say in future elections.

3) Based on his comment, I would say Shoop's statement is factual, because the NDP has not talked about investors investing in government or anything that would make me think they understand this or think it is important.

The NDP are not Marxist.

I gathered by Shoop's broad statement that he meant never as in never perpetually. My apologies to you and to Shoop, if he meant only this election.

I can't comment because I'm not sure what you mean by "investors investing in government" and I don't want to mistake what you are trying to say? Can you explain a bit more?

The NDP opposed corporate tax cuts, don't discuss how their deficit (which would come from their leftist policies) would hurt the confidence of investors (what I meant) and don't seem very much concerned with the interests of Bay St.

BTW I never said the NDP was "Marxist" so much as I was trying to say they share many values that Marxists do.

[BubberMiley]

So long as we're talking projected deficits, the CPC never discusses theirs either. And after all the corporate tax cuts, it's much more likely than a deficit under the NDP plan. You just have to do the math.

[shoop]

If it is as simple as *just doing the math* why not go ahead and enlighten us?

So long as we're talking projected deficits, the CPC never discusses theirs either. And after all the corporate tax cuts, it's much more likely than a deficit under the NDP plan. You just have to do the math.

It's funny, many Conservatives have accused the Liberals of been arrogant, yet your statement borders on arrogance itself.

Why is it bordering on arrogant? The NDP are making no pretense of running a national campaign. They are not seriously contesting *any* seats in Quebec and putting up a front of contesting one in Alberta.

With 1/3 of the electoral map written off how could they form government?

[BubberMiley]

It's simple math. Massive corporate tax cuts + "no reduction in social programs" + elimination of waiting periods in health care + reduction of the GST to 5% + tons more money into the military including missile defence + $25 per kid per week to every family + tax cuts for high-income families = deficit.

[cybercoma]

It's simple math. Massive corporate tax cuts + "no reduction in social programs" + elimination of waiting periods in health care + reduction of the GST to 5% + tons more money into the military including missile defence + $25 per kid per week to every family + tax cuts for high-income families = deficit.

Could you be more specific on the following:

• massive corporate tax cuts
  
• tons more money into the military including missile defense
  
• tax cuts for high-income families
  

I'm interested in what specific tax cuts corporations and high-income families will get and how much money they will spend on missile defense.

[BubberMiley]

I guess we'll see the specifics once they happen. Are you denying the convervatives are in favour of tax cuts? Harper is pretty clear where he stands on these things. His apologists, however, don't seem to know what to think.

[tml12]

I guess we'll see the specifics once they happen. Are you denying the convervatives are in favour of tax cuts? Harper is pretty clear where he stands on these things. His apologists, however, don't seem to know what to think.

Are we competing over whether we think your party or our party will make the biggest deficits?

[BubberMiley]

That appears to be the case. Both are based on conjecture, but you don't have to worry about being proven wrong. At least I can come back in a year or two and make you eat crow.