CP: Klein tells PM Harper to lighten up with media

[normanchateau]

Sheesh, here we go again. Names and dates please of any Liberal member of Parliament involved in corruption.

Don't hold your breath Newbie. Those names and dates will never materialize. Harper supporters figure because the corruption mantra got them elected last time, it will work next time. Unfortunately for them, they now have to deal with Harper's mismanagement of economic issues and inexplicably bizarre behaviour since he became Prime Minister.

How on earth will they rationalize, for example, Harper appointing religious extremist and homophobe Darrel Reid to the Environment Ministry? Poor Rona Ambrose. She's neither a so-con nor a religious extremist yet Harper saddled her with Darrel Reid.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Don't hold your breath Newbie. Those names and dates will never materialize. Harper supporters figure because the corruption mantra got them elected last time, it will work next time.

Let me get this straight. Because it was Liberal party activists, and not Members of Parliament who profited from $1.14 Million in illegally obtained funds it isn't a sign of corruption?

Hmmm, nice line. Try it if you want, but that's a sure ticket to guaranteeing the Conservative Government gets re-elected.

[Canadian Blue]

So the Liberal MP's and the leadership were simply incompetent, is that what your saying?

Now how could so many taxdollars be funnelled back to the Liberal party without a single Liberal MP knowing about it?

Don't hold your breath Newbie. Those names and dates will never materialize. Harper supporters figure because the corruption mantra got them elected last time, it will work next time. Unfortunately for them, they now have to deal with Harper's mismanagement of economic issues and inexplicably bizarre behaviour since he became Prime Minister.

What major economic issues, income trusts???

We aren't in a deficit right now, and the country seems to feel Harper is doing an allright job as PM.

[normanchateau]

Don't hold your breath Newbie. Those names and dates will never materialize. Harper supporters figure because the corruption mantra got them elected last time, it will work next time. Unfortunately for them, they now have to deal with Harper's mismanagement of economic issues and inexplicably bizarre behaviour since he became Prime Minister.

What major economic issues, income trusts???

We aren't in a deficit right now, and the country seems to feel Harper is doing an allright job as PM.

You're right. We've got a huge surplus, not a deficit. Despite that, Mr. Harper on July 1, 2006, raised personal income taxes on those Canadians earning the least, i.e., in the lowest tax bracket. And thanks to Mr. Harper, the softwood lumber industry is paying even more in export taxes than they were in illegal duties to the US.

[Alexandra]

How on earth will they rationalize, for example, Harper appointing religious extremist and homophobe Darrel Reid to the Environment Ministry? Poor Rona Ambrose. She's neither a so-con nor a religious extremist yet Harper saddled her with Darrel Reid.

It stands to reason why the Gay community would have their knickers in a knot over Darrell Reid's appointment as Rona Ambrose's office administrator since he was involved in the Focus on Family group or some such; anyone involved in such an organization no doubt would be considered "homophobes and religious extremists" by the Gay - Lesbian activists. A recurring theme which seems to permeate these posts.

Harper appointed Reid to Ambrose's office? Really? Very interesting. You know this, how?

To believe Harper or Dion or Martin or Rae (any prime minister, e.g.) would have the time or inclination to involve themselves in micro-managing the hiring of office staff is quite a stretch. Laughable, really.

Jack Layton of course would have the time to choose his party's office staff. Ensuring naturally that the staff fit the extreme left wing agenda of the NDP.

[Canadian Blue]

You're right. We've got a huge surplus, not a deficit. Despite that, Mr. Harper on July 1, 2006, raised personal income taxes on those Canadians earning the least, i.e., in the lowest tax bracket. And thanks to Mr. Harper, the softwood lumber industry is paying even more in export taxes than they were in illegal duties to the US.

Why would the provinces support the agreement then???

As well on appointments by the Harper government, is anybody really complaining right now about Harper appointing a senior member of the Green Party to help with environmental policy. The sky isn't falling people.

[normanchateau]

You're right. We've got a huge surplus, not a deficit. Despite that, Mr. Harper on July 1, 2006, raised personal income taxes on those Canadians earning the least, i.e., in the lowest tax bracket. And thanks to Mr. Harper, the softwood lumber industry is paying even more in export taxes than they were in illegal duties to the US.

Why would the provinces support the agreement then???

Why would lumber companies continue to oppose the agreement then??

Why did Mr. Harper raise personal income tax rates??

[normanchateau]

How on earth will they rationalize, for example, Harper appointing religious extremist and homophobe Darrel Reid to the Environment Ministry? Poor Rona Ambrose. She's neither a so-con nor a religious extremist yet Harper saddled her with Darrel Reid.

Harper appointed Reid to Ambrose's office? Really? Very interesting. You know this, how?

"There are indications the decision to hire him as Ambrose's top political aide came more from the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper than from Ambrose, who is not known as religious."

The story appears here:

http://www.meia.mb.ca/WeeklyFYIforOctober2....html#ReidStaff

[Canadian Blue]

So basically rumours then?

Harper isn't nearly as Social Conservative as you like to believe, hell the Social Conservatives rallied around Day because they knew Harper didn't care much about the social conservative side due to his pro-choice positions. One of the reason's Harper left the Reform party was because he felt it became to Socially Conservative.

Whether you believe it or not the Cons aren't really social conservative, not even close to the same as many politician's south of the border.

John Malloy, a political scientist at Carleton University who does research on evangelicals in Canadian politics, doubts the appointment has much significance. Malloy said Reid is with Environment, not a portfolio involving justice or social policy, where someone with a social conservative agenda could have an effect.

The appointment is connected "more to his service to the party than anything he has done (evangelically)," Malloy said.

From the article you gave us a link to.

[normanchateau]

Whether you believe it or not the Cons aren't really social conservative, not even close to the same as many politician's south of the border.

This is true. There is no legislation in the US declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. Thus, Bush could not have voted against the legislation as Harper did.

[Canadian Blue]

This is true. There is no legislation in the US declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. Thus, Bush could not have voted against the legislation as Harper did.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!

THEIR ARE CURRENTLY 24 STATES WHICH HAVE HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION WHICH INCLUDES ATTACKING A PERSON BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION A HATE CRIME.

What, isn't it State jurisdiction for what is considered a "hate crime".

Allright Norman, the problem was with freedom of speech. The fear was that freedom of speech would be trampled on in favor of political correctness. Even down in the states the ACLU whom are staunch civil libertarian's are against hate speech laws. The reason why, because it infringes on right garaunteed by the Constitution.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html

Listen I'm in favor of SSM after alot of thought on the issue, and am in favor of Gay couples adopting. However I am opposed to legislation which could undermine freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and the religious freedoms.

[normanchateau]

This is true. There is no legislation in the US declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. Thus, Bush could not have voted against the legislation as Harper did.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!

THEIR ARE CURRENTLY 24 STATES WHICH HAVE HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION WHICH INCLUDES ATTACKING A PERSON BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION A HATE CRIME.

Sorry, what I meant is that there is no federal US legislation declaring the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why would lumber companies continue to oppose the agreement then??

Why did Mr. Harper raise personal income tax rates??

The majority of lumber companies accept the agreement. You are never going to get 100% agreement on anything.

The Liberals cut the tax rate 1% in a pre-election budget "update" that took effect in January of 2006. During that election campaign the Conservatives ran on a playform of changing the tax system.

Harper *raised* the lowest rate by 1/2 a point to help pay for the transit credit, the GST cut, the textbook tax credit, the universal child care program ....

[Melanie_]

Harper *raised* the lowest rate by 1/2 a point to help pay for the transit credit, the GST cut, the textbook tax credit, the universal child care program ....

So you believe the poorest among us should cover the costs for these Conservative initiatives?

[Ricki Bobbi]

So you believe the poorest among us should cover the costs for these Conservative initiatives?

The lowest income grouping in Canada is the one most likely to be helped by a cut in the GST, the transit pass credit, the employment credit and in many cases the universal childcare credit and/or the textbook tax credit.

Overall members of this groups are more likely to better off under the Conservative plan.

So the poorest among us are receiving the greatest benefit from these Conserative initiatives...

[Shakeyhands]

The lowest income grouping in Canada is the one most likely to be helped by a cut in the GST, the transit pass credit, the employment credit and in many cases the universal childcare credit and/or the textbook tax credit.

Overall members of this groups are more likely to better off under the Conservative plan.

So the poorest among us are receiving the greatest benefit from these Conserative initiatives...

How do you figure Ricki? The people who will benefit the most from the GSZT cut are those making big ticket item purchases, hardly those in the lowest income bracket whose biggest expenses are going to be food and rent. The transit pass credit is maybe of some use. and the childcare allowance is a joke, it doesn't cover squat, any idea what daycare costs?

Your last statement is laughable.

[Melanie_]

They aren't receiving the benefit if it is being clawed back in their income tax.

People with higher incomes benefit more from the cut to the GST, as they have more disposable income and spend more on items that are likely to be taxed.

Don't get me started on the Universal Child Care Benefit, which has nothing to do with child care. The Caledon Institute of Public Policy has shown that the benefit is greatest to single income families earning in excess of $100,000/year.

At $100,000, one-earner couples would receive $1,032, versus $778 for two-earner couples and $655 for one-parent families.

The overwhelming majority of Canadian families would end up with a Child Care Allowance worth considerably less than $1,200 per child. The biggest losers would be modest income families earning in the $30,000-$40,000 range.

A single parent with one child under 6 and income in the $27,000 to $29,000 range (not that far above Statistics Canada’s estimated $21,341 after-tax low income cutoff for a two-person family living in cities of 500,000 or larger in 2006) would end up with $481 − only 40.1 percent of the $1,200 face value payment.

http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/564ENG.pdf

[Ricki Bobbi]

They aren't receiving the benefit if it is being clawed back in their income tax.

People with higher incomes benefit more from the cut to the GST, as they have more disposable income and spend more on items that are likely to be taxed.

They are still better off under the Conservative plan than they would be under the Liberal regime.

Some of it is being "clawed back" in their income tax, but overall they are in a better position.

[Melanie_]

The lowest income grouping in Canada is the one most likely to be helped by a cut in the GST, the transit pass credit, the employment credit and in many cases the universal childcare credit and/or the textbook tax credit.

Overall members of this groups are more likely to better off under the Conservative plan.

So the poorest among us are receiving the greatest benefit from these Conserative initiatives...

The poorest among us are not receiving the greatest benefit, as shown in the previous posts. Yet they are on the hook for the tax increase. Another initiative you didn't mention is the tax credit for children's sports programs. Again, this is touted as being a benefit for families, but only the families who can afford to put their kids in the programs in the first place receive the benefit.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The poorest among us are not receiving the greatest benefit, as shown in the previous posts. Yet they are on the hook for the tax increase. Another initiative you didn't mention is the tax credit for children's sports programs. Again, this is touted as being a benefit for families, but only the families who can afford to put their kids in the programs in the first place receive the benefit.

You only focused on the child tax benefit in the other posts. You define greatest benefits in dollar amounts rather than total income saved. Convenient for your argument but pretty inaccurate and not properly representing the situation.

In totality lower income families are better off under the Conservatives than they would have been under the Liberals.

As long as there is a family member working they are better off under the Conservative plan. That is undeniable and is probably the reason why you are avoiding the topics.

There are many, many efforts to make sports open to children of low income families across the country.

Here is a program that opens schools in low income areas of Toronto for use by children free of charge for sports.

Here is an inititiatve of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association to open up facilites for children of low-income families.

Here is a list of groups that all try and promote youth activity who *explicitly* state that income should not be a barrier to sports.

Skills Through Activity and Recreation;

Hi5 Quality at Play

Youth RoadRunning

Making All Recreation Safe

Information on all four can be found here.

[Melanie_]

Here is a program that opens schools in low income areas of Toronto for use by children free of charge for sports.

Opening schools for casual evening use is laudable, but not relevant to a tax discussion.

Here is an inititiatve of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association to open up facilites for children of low-income families.

Ditto.

Two of the other four programs listed also provide access to casual recreation programs for low income children, but parents will not qualify for tax breaks based on accessing them. The other two provide training to people who provide programs. Tax breaks are available to families enrolling their children in organized sports, which can cost exorbitant amounts far out of the reach of low income families. For example, recreational, not competitive, gymnastics for an 11 year old and a 13 year old has cost me in excess of $1000 this year (I'm not going to count up the costs of swimming, soccer, football, etc, as I might just start banging my head on the wall) - I'd be happy to receive something back in my taxes, but I was fortunate enough to be able to pay the money in the first place. The poorest among us do not benefit from this tax break.

I mentioned GST as well as child care in the previous post. Your statement was that the poorest among us would benefit most, but my argument is that they see less benefit than those with higher incomes, yet have to bear the burden of the tax increase.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Two of the other four programs listed also provide access to casual recreation programs for low income children, but parents will not qualify for tax breaks based on accessing them.

I mentioned GST as well as child care in the previous post. Your statement was that the poorest among us would benefit most, but my argument is that they see less benefit than those with higher incomes, yet have to bear the burden of the tax increase.

The poorest among us are still better of with a 15.5% lowest Federal tax bracket, GST cut, working tax credit, transit pass credit, child care benefit and the textbook credit than they are with a 15% tax lowest tax bracket and none of the others.

This is what started the exchange...

So you believe the poorest among us should cover the costs for these Conservative initiatives?

You have agreed that the poorest among us aren't covering the costs for the Conservative initiatives. You changed the ground to "benefitting the most". I never said that in total dollar terms. I just said they do benefit from the Conservative initiatives...

[normanchateau]

Harper *raised* the lowest rate by 1/2 a point to help pay for the transit credit, the GST cut, the textbook tax credit, the universal child care program ....

So you believe the poorest among us should cover the costs for these Conservative initiatives?

Harper did what was politically expedient. If he raised the personal income tax rate of those earning the most, there'd be a national outcry as loud as the one we heard from investors when the Cons broke their promise on income trusts. But when he raised the personal income tax rate of those earning the least on July 1st, it was not even a front page story. The media were silent. Those who earn the least are a relatively powerless group in this country and Harper had little to lose by taxing them further. Most don't vote for him anyway. It is shameful and despicable that he choose to tax these poor people when Canada has a multibillion dollar surplus.

I predict that in February when the Cons deliver their next budget, they'll lower the personal income tax rate of those who earn the least. Even Harper by now must realize that the "optics" on this don't help the Cons.

Poor Ricki Bobbi had to twist himself into a pretzel to rationalize this one, e.g., the Cons needed the money to pay for the transit credit, textbook credit, ad nauseam. As if there were no better source of revenue for this than raising the taxes on those who earn the least. No wonder Preston Manning removed Stephen Harper as Reform finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a professional economist who believes that cutting personal income tax rates stimulates the economy.

[Melanie_]

Sorry, Ricki, it was you that said the poorest among us benefit the most from these initiatives...

The lowest income grouping in Canada is the one most likely to be helped by a cut in the GST, the transit pass credit, the employment credit and in many cases the universal childcare credit and/or the textbook tax credit.

Overall members of this groups are more likely to better off under the Conservative plan.

So the poorest among us are receiving the greatest benefit from these Conserative initiatives...

They aren't getting the greatest benefit, as it has been demonstrated that these initiatives provide more to those in higher tax brackets. Yet these are the people whose taxes have been increased. By drawing the connection between these two issues, you have implied that the poorest should cover the costs.

[Cameron]

If I do remember correctly, Mr. Harper said when announcing the GST cut that their would be a tax cut package from the Cons. in the future. I do see cuts coming for the low and middle class in the future.