Budget Poll

Anyone seen this petition against Rush?

http://www.dccc.org/page/petition/rush

:D

The most famous Zip code I can think of is 90210

Hmm? Had to hesitate for a moment between choosing "Yes, but I hate it" and "No, stop the spending." Eventually chose the latter although I know it's not the most politically expedient choice.

With the collective trillions being poured into the global economy, I can't help but think that another "imbalance" isn't being generated that's going to knock us off our rocker down the road.

oatmeale: read the topic Its not about Rush Limbaugh in fact Who care's this is canada.
Post that stuff to Readers Tips.

I voted "yes, but a I hate it". I will take the tax cut. I do wish that at least one journalist would at least ask a question from a remotely conservative standpoint, ie when did Mr. Harper decide he is not conservative? Will he return to his principles some day?

Monte must be so glad he got out when he did and did not have to justify this thing. As always, he has words of wisdom:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/monte_solberg/2009/01/28/8171086-sun.html

I dunno, should it?

Of course there is to much spending in this budget, BUT it is definately more well placed than the liebrals would do if they were in charge AND about half as much as would be in a budget composed by the coalition. How do you build a GREEN bridge or highway? Do you use biodegradable materials or Quebec unions to limit the longevity? One would hope that the "culture" monies will not all go to Quebec. Danny Williams is apparently upset that his province can't be on welfare and unemployment while working under the table.

I also voted "Yes but I hate it".

I really wish everyone would temper their condemnation of Harper over this. No one seems to think of the consequences.

I think the probability of getting an election this early after the last one is slim at best (although I think that is the preferred choice). Therefore, the alternative to an un-passable budget, no matter how correctly conservative it might be, is at least 2 and probably 4 years of the Liberals backed by the dips and bloc.

Before ranting about not supporting the party, not voting etc., I would like to see all of the ranters speculate on just what that would bring us. If you want a hint, look at what happened federally when the dips propped up Trudeau, and what happened in Ontario. Not only would we have 4 more years of adscams, gun registry scams, DND scams etc to line some lib friends' pockets, but we'd also see billions flowing into the blocs boondoggles in Quebec and every social program jacko can think up. At the end of the 4 years instead of a 600 billion debt we'd have a 2-3 trillion dollar debt.

So just ask yourself, would you rather a couple of years of compromise, or 4 years of absolute catastrophe.

I voted, yes it basically......

I do not hate it as a whole, Its nice to have some Over-Taxed Relief, However I do feel it could have went farther to get me to spend i feel the basic should be in the 12,000 area. We have been Overtaxed for Years, But who's fault is that anyways. We want our Social Programs & somebody has to pay for them, so you can't have your cake & eat it too.
I agree with the HomeImprove. credit But again i feel it could have been Double, Priced a can of Paint lately..
I have been arguing for years Re: the UI, You should not have to Wait 6wks to get your Money, this is wrong. The Program has not stayed with the cost of living for relief, But we have seen increases to contributions.
The working Hours as the Liberals changed that too, Should be Consistent across the Country and i believe are too high to begin with in many parts of the country.
And as for John McCallum complaining about the Hours & relief this morning on CanadaAM, Well John Your party is the ones that changed the Rules when your party was in Power. Why are you complaining Now, Oh ya forgot Typical Liberal Hypocrite.

bryanr

If I goofed. Kate will tell me.

You into suppressing free speech?

Attacks on Rush are attacks on us.

As Solberg pointed out in his column, this is a political document, one that traditional Liberals would support.

As Flaherty pointed out, this is temporary spending. That's more in line with Keynsean thinking ... a quick injection of state spending, then back off when the real economy bounces back.

Of course, the long-term fix would be to undo the Trudeau-era level of bureaucracy that Mulroney was unable to slash back in good times.

Only a majority Conservative government will get Canada out of the now nearly 40-year legacy of Trudeau.

That will have to wait for another time, but it will happen.

Harper does not need any big vision right now ... all he has to show is he's a good manager while Canada is gettins sideswiped by a situation not of its own making.

The morph from Con to Lib will be complete when we find out the Cons are stealing money.

I voted to stop the spending.

I think, as Monte Solberg pointed out in today's Toronto Sun, that this was a political budget. Its aim was to keep the Conservatives in power and, for the sake of the country, I think this is a wise decision.

As skuleman points out, the consequences of rejecting this budget are far worse than this budget which has primarily put back paying down the debt for five years while we weather this global economic restructuring.

Reject the budget, and even though Layton and Duceppe would scream for a coalition, the likelihood is an election - a dirty one, which might see the CPC returned with as the same minority or the Liberals with a smaller minority. Useless.

And, do we want a Liberal ideology in this time of, not only global but also Canadian, restructuring? The Liberals are Big Government, welfare state centralists. They operate within a style of government that makes all decisions in the Ottawa-Montreal bubble; that considers the 'people' as outside this decision-making zone; that is based around the old model of Ontario-Quebec as Canada.

Ignoring that the actual economic and demographic structure has changed; the West has taken over from Quebec. So, it's not simply about a budget; it's about a basic governing mode. Do we want Big Government, centralist focused around Quebec-Ontario? Or smaller government, decentralized, with decision-making by the provinces; and a Canada that includes the West. And the north.

It takes timem for the political system to acknowledge the realities of economic and demographic change. The Liberals and NDP and Bloc do not recognize this structural change. They operate in the Old Canada of the 1950s.

Something else to note; Notice how Harper is shifting his focus to Ontario rather than Quebec. Quebec has demographically and economically lost its primacy; the primacy it held since the 1960s and which was acknowledged by Trudeau in 1980. This has changed. Harper is acknowledging this, though certainly Quebec isn't. He's shifting the power to the West. And to Ontario. Ontario has been given more House seats - and a focus in this budget. That's for the next election.

It's a neccesary evil at this time.BTW,any of you here getting a tingle up and down your leg waiting for Iggy to speak?

I believe that a substantial income tax cut would be a more immediate stimulus. Yes, gov't would have to do without...for example the $30 million for the parties (paid by taxpayers). But put the money in the hands of people and they will spend as required. In the end, people will still need to goods and services for their daily lives...the more money they see in their pay the more they'll be willing to spend...which may just push businesses to hire more people to meet the demands of their customers. Oh and cut the business and payroll taxes so that business can either invest more money into themselves or hire more employees or both. Furthemore, if the Fed Gov't decides to let go of the socialized medicine model...I'm sure every large city will "grow" full service hospitals within months...after waiting six hours for medical attention for my youngest (and not receiving it--because it was 2AM and we were still waiting)...I know I'd be willing to pay to get the medical service for my kids. Unfortunately, I did not have the choice to take my bleeding child elsewhere because he had the misfortune of getting injured after 7:00 PM and all the private clinics were closed and there is no private "fee for service" hospitals in our city.

~~favill~~

Iggy's "I hold them responsible" right up there with the "I have a (dream) coalition" speech by Taliban Jack Layton.

Oatmeal: I would tell the next guy too, look at the topic before posting, Kate cannnot monitor all its up to us. I apologize if i offended you not intended too.
As for Rush Again Who care's That's the good ol usa & they have more rights & freedoms then we do so dont worry about Rush he has been around the block a few times. Its Canada that you should worry about for free Speach, Just ask Kate & a few others that are being Sued under the Sec. of you cant be critical because you will offend a liberal minded or Minority, So No iam not against free speach, but its Canadians that is being Threatened.
sorry folks thats all on this.

I voted yes to the budget...it would be nice to avoid a big deficit, but that'll happen through loss of revenue anyhow.
Why fault Harper for listening to Canadians? This budget was designed to help as many as possible. Sticking to hard conservative principles would only be cutting his nose off to spite OUR faces.
I don't agree that EI waiting period should be shortened though. Some people use benefits as a "rest" period; why make it easier? Jobs are thin on the ground in parts of the country, but not everywhere. I'd rather that people who can work would at least try to replace a lost job.

Tax and cash credits have to small and incremental to work. If a massive tax credit was provided, a large number of Canadians would put it to credit draw - mortgages, credit cards, car payments etc. While that's good for the credit agencies and banks, it doesn't ensure that the money will flow into commerce, nor is there any guarantee that credit agencies would immediately release it as credit. Amounts have to be of a size the recipient will spend rather than hoard or divert.

You left out one important choice Kate. Namely:

"Yes, but not until the non-stimulus pork and political pet projects are removed."

"The journey to the dark side is complete".

I noticed 1 person voted "No, it isn't enough spending". I wonder if that was Jack Layton?

I'm in the "Yes, but I hate it camp" but I'm not as optimistic about the fortunes of the Conservatives in the long or short run. PMSH will be laughed at for the rest of his career every time he calls himself a conservative. This "compromise" has compromised his public persona. PMSH has been the greatest PM in my lifetime, but I think the writing is on the wall for him. After this budget I don't think he can deliver a majority government. In the long term it would have been politically wiser to stick to his guns in November. I think the real question (politically) will be: Is this the end of the Conservative party as a national party; or, can someone fill Stephan Harper's shoes and salvage the Conservative's reputation?

I voted that it should pass, but I hate it.

It's a hell of a lot better than what a Liberal budget would look like, and a damn sight better than any monstrosity that the coalition would have cobbled together.

But, make no mistake: this is not a conservative budget. And, I'm pretty certain this is a bitter pill for Stephen Harper to swallow.

Yes but I hate it. Would not mind going to another election. I think a 300 million election could get PMSH a majority and the type of budget that Gord Tulk outlined earlier. Maybe. In the meantime, will do a small reno.

*
oh, good gawd... sometimes this stuff just writes itself...

" -- OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party
is prepared to “swallow hard” and support the Conservative
government..."

*

"I noticed 1 person voted "No, it isn't enough spending". I wonder if that was Jack Layton?"

To the barricades! This poll's been hacked!

Yes but I hate it got my vote, grudgingly. If it keeps that shifty eyed and I mean shifty eyed Iggy from the reins of power, I can live with that.

I am trying to imagine someone like Taliban Jack having a say in the governmental process. It's enough to keep a person up at night, screaming.

Now Ignatieff wants to put government on "probation" with progress reports in March, June and December. Does this guy have a clue how parliament works? We have annual budgets, and from time to time the GOVERNMENT decides to issue economic statements.

This so-called amendment is political garbage on part of Ignatieff (who seems to be the LPC right now). All he is looking for is photo-ops where he can call the government names, and position his party to defeat them, not when good government requires it, but when the LPC is positioned to seize power.

He probably won't, but Harper should call this bufoon's bluff. He should say that there are many mechanisms for parliamentary oversight, that it shouldn't be further bogged down (filibuster, amendments, unelected Senate to name a few that Grits have already tried) with this crap.

Like I said Harper should refuse this demand and put the budget up for vote. Think about it, if Ignatieff refuses to support it, we have election and he goes back to Harvard after solid electoral thrashing (no chance for coalition - hmm, I'm not the same leader who stood in election and want to take over government to implement budget I support - yeah good luck).

If Ignatieff knuckles under, then he looks weaker (quite an non-accomplishment for someone who has no legislative record, who hasn't put forward a SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POLICY PROPOSAL).

Typical power politics (can't even say policies because they have none) play by Grits, who are totally consumed with prospect of power rather than what this country needs, or, indeed, what the people (not just Liberals) want either.

Mr Harper should reject the professor's call for parliamentary mid-term exams. Let Mr Ignatieff go to the people now if he thinks Mr Harper is too arrogant and callous to govern.

Imagine this pompous empty suit windbag calling down others' fitness to govern. What a laugh.

I really hope Mr Harper calls his bluff.

bryan,

What happens to Rush is very important. He is one of the few critical voices for conservatism left in America. We have almost no one speaking up in Canada not only against the socialist hordes, but against the Conservatives morphing into Liberals before our very eyes.

We have the CHRC's here and in the USA the Democrats are working to bring in the "fairness doctrine". Which is a large talk radio muzzle on any criticism about the Left.

What is happening here is much the same as what is happening there. We are rapidly losing what is left of our freedoms and we are being robbed blind at the highest levels of government and banks by governments and investment bankers, but mostly governments at all levels.

Our freedom to bitch about any issue is at stake here with our "fairness CHRCs" and in the USA starting with Rush and the Democrat Socialist control freaks.

Everything is related now. One issue leads to another and it all amounts to the end of the Western life-style with it's freedom and enterprises.

What Harper is doing to stay in power is no different. I now expect him to continue on his road to hell by putting us in debt for what will be the rest of my life. What's next, Sharia Law for some neighborhoods? More money for Indians to make more drums or carvings.

What we need is a study to find out why Canadians are so stupid that they go along with just about anything our political leaders propose.

If Harper and all others who laughingly govern us were truly doing their jobs, they would have been better prepared for this down-turn. They would have long ago, insisted on dealing with rust belt factor in the industrial base of Central Canada, income taxes should have been dramatically lowered during the good times when the huge surpluses were being accumulated. And they should have left the income trust alone. They are killing older Canadians with their policies and discouraging young Canadians from aspiring to the private sector for a career. The only good job (no matter how useless) is a government job. That is not how is should be.

We do not have governance we have baby-sitters who rummage through the house when no one is looking to see what they can steal from us.

I voted No. I will not countenance this kind of reckless spending, whether it be done by Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, or outer space aliens. It is wrong, it is dangerous, it is irresponsible, it will not work, and none of that changes no matter whose name is on the damned thing.

The Conservatives are treading down the road of the Ernie Eves/John Tory PCs in Ontario. Make themselves look just like the Liberals so as not to offend the squishy moderate voters. In the process, they piss off their base to the point that they stay home, and the squishy moderates decide there's no difference between Tories and Liberals, so they just vote Liberal to get the "real thing" instead of the imitation.

I'm finished listening to the excuses of the Conservative party. Excuse after excuse after excuse for why they can't get rid of the gun registry, or the CWB, or reform the CHRA, or stand up to global warming hysteria, or now even just balance the budget! They don't even try to make a conservative case any more! They just keel over, play dead, beg a thousand forgivenesses for ever thinking conservative, and stick us with status quo or even outright Liberal policies.

Such spineless weasels will accomplish nothing even if given their precious majority. They'll just keep keeling over and feed us more excuses. Instead of "We don't have a majority!" it'll be "We don't control the Senate!" or "The Supreme Court is against us!" or some other crap. So I'm finished listening to them. They lost my vote yesterday. I'll sit out the next election outright.

And if that gets me labeled a wannabe socialist, or wannabe Liberal, or some other label thrown at me by Conservative cheerleaders who can't see past the party label, so be it. I can still look myself in the mirror and say I didn't ABANDON MY PRINCIPLES, unlike the fools and charlatans running the Conservative party into the ground.

If the world economy revives sooner than the "experts" predict and if the price of oil rebounds from $40/barrel to a reasonable $75 to $85/barrel (not the $200/barrel predicted by these same "experts") then the deficit being incurred will not be so large as this budget predicts. Hopefully the sheeple will that CO2 from fossil fuels is not the enemy of the planet but rather the "Green/Socialist/Seditionist/Propoganist" lobby is the ememy of all humans. Yes this means you Lizzy May, Taliban Jack, MSM, Gorecle and Suzuki.

I am for one unable to support or vote for CPC or any other party for that matter. This is not longer a question of strategy.The answer is of delusion. The government acts as a feudal ruler: tax cuts for your bread, stimulus for your Olympics (or hokey ring in a small town). The funny thing is that no one believes in divine power of the guy in blue sweater to heal the economy, yet many are still clapping - some mindlessly, some in fear of Layton and thugs alike.
The future is coming and it is coming fast. I though Harper being a conservative and realist could recognize the spectrum of changes that the world is facing. I was wrong. He is spineless creature floating aimlessly and has fallen in love with own small tactical games. He would be great playing office politics at middle management level of some bureaucratic institution.

I think the probability of getting an election this early after the last one is slim at best (although I think that is the preferred choice). Therefore, the alternative to an un-passable budget, no matter how correctly conservative it might be, is at least 2 and probably 4 years of the Liberals backed by the dips and bloc.

Skuleman, if we aren't getting policies that are good for Canada, what's the point of all this?

I don't dislike budget deficits, entitlement programs and massive spending because they smell bad. I dislike them because they behave like a cancer. Deficits lead to inflation, slow economic growth and are really only deferred tax increases. Increasing social safety net entitlements undermines individual and familial responsibility and expands the dependent class. Massive government spending on infrastructure inevitably leads to waste and corruption.

Our grandchildren will be paying for this and we still haven't finished paying for the last round of Trudeau/Mulroney deficits.

I hate these policies because they are bad for the goddam country, not because I like wearing blue.

Well, surprising no one, the "could not afford another election at gunpoint" liberals are going to support the budget.

This nightmare will pass.

People here have to take off their ideological blinkers and see what Canadians and the media are reporting.

This is the headline in the Globe:

"Tories put on probation; coalition declared dead.
To Layton's chagrin, Ignatieff says he is prepared to ‘swallow hard' and support budget so long as Harper releases regular economic status reports"

Ignatieff comes off as being statesmanlike and reasonable. Most Canadians do not want coalition, do not want another election, and WANT OUR LEADERS TO WORK TOGETHER TO HELP THE NATION.

Ignatieff shows that he is doing just that. Asking for a "regular economic status report" will not be seen as unreasonable by the man or woman on the street. It might be a cheesy ploy to those who live in the political bubble, but it will sound perfectly reasonable to the regular citizen, and it's not like Harper and the CPC have been wonderful in that regard... frankly they have been embarrassing.

Ignatieff has dissociated himself from the NDP and separatists, and undone much of the damage Dion did.

Ignatieff is playing it smart. Unlike Dion. He is a much more formidable man, and ideological thinking on our part will lead to a Liberal government in less than a year or two. No one here wants that.

I voted, Yes, it basically gets things right.

I don't why conservatives always want to cut taxes and spending. What do they think, they're going to stuff their coffins with money. Or worse leave it to their indoctrinated offspring.

Lori, it ain't about us or them, con or lib, it is about what is best for Canada and the partys be damned.

This budget is nothing but bad news.

I was in the "hold your nose and vote 'yes'" crowd. Of all the possible permutations/combinations this seems to be the least worst. The tax cuts are good.
What I find irritating is the media's and politicians' general use of idiotic loaded terms like "stimulus" etc. Governments can spend but they can no more "stimulate" than one can "stimulate" a horse to go faster by replacing the 90lb jockey with a 250lb linebacker because, after all, the 250lb linebacker can whip the horse harder and thereby "stimulate" it to go faster.
Governments can only tax and spend. The taxes, of necessity, can come only from those productive sectors of the economy which are doing well enough on their own, thank you, give real added value and are therefore the ones with the potential for real, self-sustaining future growth.
Government spending on infrastructure, if it is done wisely, can facilitate current and future economic development by virtue of the infrastructure improvements making commerce more efficient. And governments can defer taxation to, hopefully, more prosperous future economic times. But governments cannot thereby "create" jobs. They can simply plunder them from the productive economic sectors which will suffer the future burden of taxation.
At the end of the day this is the political budget necessary to keep the loons from running the asylum. On that understanding, and in the hope that governments both here and, more importantly in the U.S., will have far less influence on the economy than intended (government economic influence is rarely, if ever beneficial) I'd give this budget a grudging pass.

I'd love to renovate my home, but can't afford to. It's good to know that my taxes will help to pay for someone elses home reno.sarc/off

I'd still vote for the budget; the tax cut is not much but it's better than what the lib/ndp would offer.

Dig a little deeper, and the spending isn't that bad. I believe that most of the infrastructure earmarks (which wouldn't be "stimulative", anyway) will never be spent. That is because all funds must be matched by the provincial or municipal authority involved. They don't have the money to match! Monte is right, this is a political document to weather the worldwide Keynsian-Obamian mania, and retain power. Monte is right, though - Harper has to stop floating along, and start crafting a compelling conservative vision to present to the Canadian public. He'll never get a majority based on simply being "competent". And he'll start to bleed away his base if he doesn't offer them something soon.

Could be a lot worse, you know. Harper could have...

1. Run a deficit of 10% of annual GDP.

2. Effectively nationalized part of our financial industry.

3. Greatly expanded regulation over the remainder.

...like some countries that I won't mention but that are directly south of us.

It's not the budget I would recommend, but I can live with it.

Harry,

If you can't renovate your home its because you haven't learned to apply yourself to make the money to do so.

Blaming it on anyone but yourself is called externalizing your problems. Its just an excuse for your own failures.

Re budget - I voted yes, but I'm not thrilled about it. One thing I hate most, is that this will temporize things, and meantime the Liberals will consolidate power under a stronger leader (Ignatieff vs Dion), and then, when the next election comes, the Liberals will be real contenders.

By the way, Layton's recent conduct and comments have been absolutely disgraceful. He is making his party irrelevant. He just called Harper untrustful. Harper is one of the most honest politicians to hold the office of PM.

Disagree flaggman. Harper would have had a majority last time if Quebec didn't crumble due to mistakes on the CPC's part.

We will never see as weak a liberal leader as Dion in our lifetime.

On the other hand.... Harper will never get a majority if he is seen as governed by ideology rather than Canada's best interests.

And of course people here have their idea of what Canada's best interests are, but that idea does not jibe with what most Canadians think their best interests are. Perhaps SDA can mirror or "deliver" the Saskatchewan vote, but it does not deliver or represent the majority of Canada vote.

We have a generation long re-education project to carry out. It would be much easier to do that with Harper or the CPC in power, minority or majority, than the the Libs in power.

Has anyone at all heard a peep out of Ms.May over the Budget, Anyone?
Atlanticjim anything down there out of her?
Its just that it is eerily Quiet not like her at all. There must be something she dont like Or is it that because her Mentor(Dion) has been silent she has taken to silence too.

Neo
Iggy would swallow hard (or soft) if he thought it was good for the lieberal chance to get power back, and of course help promote his inflated puffin ego.

I voted 'No' stop the spending. Personally I do not think the Conservatives should have brought this kind of budget in. This is a deficit that is going to effect the everybody and will take the economy longer to adjust. All they are doing is prolonging the down turn of the markets. 'But' I would rather have the 'Conservatives' bring in the budget than the 'Coalition'.

Lori - interesting comment re the generation long project. I wonder how much of that will be a losing battle. My parents and my brother and I always voted conservative, no matter what. My kids - given what they are hearing at school - might be NDPers or Liberal voters.

I'm wondering if the Conservatives will ever be able to build a majority government, given MSM, University Faculty left leaners, etc.

This is a "mixing water in your wine" budget; but there is not enough water to completely dilute the wine. Or is that whine?

On a positive note it puts a stake in the heart of Kanada Komic Koalition (KKK).

The "Duceppetionists" and the "Laytonistas" are likely crying in their beer and pretzels. "Iggy is a traitor" or some such nonsense...

Given the Cons have 143 seats vs the Libs 77 offset by the Bloc at 49 and NDP at 37 one can do the political calculus pretty easily.

Cons + Libs = 220 seats

Bloc + NDP = 86 seats plus or minus 2 independents

Budget passes, Cons live to fight the more ideological items another day.

Do I like the idea of a 64 Billion deficit? Answer: NO, but given Obama is doing a ~1 trillion dollar deficit deal, if the Canadian dollar rises too fast that would be further deleterious to the Canadian manufacturing sector.
Recall ~85% of our trade is still to the US.

What good things did they do?

Tax breaks for lower and middle income, will generate debt reduction and ultimately more free cash flow by consumers who are hurt by the credit crisis not of their own making. (From a Canadian point of view)

Infrastructure spending is all to the good, as it makes one's economy more efficient in transporting goods and services. IE less brown outs vis a vis power generation, roads, bridges imply better movement of workers, goods and less idle time in traffic. Broadband access is necessary in the more information based economy and provides better long term efficiencies.

You can stamp your feet and say, oh we didn't get everything we wanted but then that might be considered petulant and childish.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Ian in NS:

Such naivete, coupled with such innocence, surrounded by such ignorance.

Tis a rare thing.