212 Replies to “Say What You Like About Harper (Bumped)”

  1. The time is probably good enough for Iggy to demure on denouncing this, aim for the top job, and reconfigure the Libranos to the right.
    That’s where their largest problem is – they’ve moved too far left for mainstream Canadian support.
    Maybe that’s why the Iggster is sitting on his tongue.

  2. ted, do you remember Chretien getting into power by his campaign promise of repealing the GST? And then, heh, not repealing it but keeping it? Hmmm?
    Harper reduced corporate income tax from 22.12% to 15% by 2012, reduced small business from 12 t0 11 in 2008, set up a capital gains exemption increase for small business from 500,000 to 750,000, the first increase in about 20 years, plus all his new ‘working families’ benefits, of child tax credits, eliminating RESP limit, eliminating the tax on elementary and secondary school scholarships, public transit credits on and on.
    The Liberals did none of this. They simply taxed and taxed. Kept the surpluses, not to pay down the debt, as Harper did, but to bribe ethnic groups and other groups in return for votes. Offloaded costs of programs on to the provinces.
    Again, why can’t individuals give 10.00 a year to their political party, as do the Conservative donors? Or, even, just that incredible 2.00? Why can’t they do it? Why does the Canadian taxpayer have to pay for this?
    Think what the govt could do with this 30 million? Why don’t the other parties give it up as part of their contribution to the economic crisis?

  3. Sorry Ted i dont know where you got that one about Chretian Lowering Taxes, I sure remember my taxes, UI going Up Not Down & besides Ted lets take another trip down memory lane there. Was it not Chretian that abolished the GST Oh sorry ted got that wrong He Promised to abolish the gst. Good gawd ted, sheila Copps even promised to resign if they did not, Ya she resigned all right long enough to run in a By-Election at a cost of how much? to taxpayers only to win that by-election & did they abolish the gst & did shiela go into caucas pushing for this. NO Ted remember all that was, just another pull the wool over the taxpayer as long as they got Elected, Now that Ted what was the word you used in ref to PM Harper? Deceive! Ya the liberals were Pro’s at that!

  6. Sorry Ted have to disagree with you again, Iam more confident with PM Stephen Harper then any other party leader in the current house. And i would say alot more Canadians are today then ever before.
    Lets agree on one thing though ted, lets wait & see whats happens today & look at the Publics Opinion friday of this decision.
    Besides i gotta go, days over & the tires calls will start again friday as we are expecting snow.
    take care all carefull drive Home, you too ted.

  7. Why can’t freeloading farmers give up their swill as part of >em>their contribution to the economic crisis, huh ET, why can’t they???

  8. ET: You are avoiding the question so I’ll ask it again.
    What tax did the Liberals introduce?
    They cut personal income taxes and corporate taxes, about $1.8 billion in the 2002/2003 budget, increased the personal exemption amounts that the Progressive Conservatives had frozen, and were the first government in the G8 to pay down the debt. In fact, 90% of the Liberal surplus went to paying down debt or tax cuts.
    Again, what tax did the Liberals add?
    Simple question. Please answer.

  9. Bryan said: “Iam more confident with PM Stephen Harper then any other party leader in the current house. And i would say alot more Canadians are today then ever before.”
    Curious then that the Conservatives are down in the polls and that they had less voter support (in absolute numbers) in this election than in 2006.
    I don’t have a problem with your statement though about having more confidence in Harper. I’m sure he’s obviously pleased to have your automatical support no matter who is in opposition or no matter what he does. It is obviously an individual choice to say he is a better leader than anyone else in Parliament, but don’t try to claim that “better leader” means he is a good leader. As I pointed out above, with those kind of decisions, he clearly is not a good fiscal manager of our finances or a good economic leader.

  10. manny, could you first explain your adjective of ‘freeloading’ as applied to farmers? Thanks.
    hardboiled – thanks for providing us with Coyne’s excellent column.
    By the way, ted, why do you trivialize and denigrate a discussion by your name-calling of Harper? That’s rather juvenile. Can we discuss the issue without resorting to insults?
    Now, when you accuse someone of lying, you have to provide evidence that the individual knew that X-was A, and that this same individual declared instead that X-was B. You have no evidence that Harper knew in advance about the ‘coming recession’ or the ‘coming deficit’ (neither of which have occurred yet). You, as a lawyer, ought to be clear about your terms and your evidence.
    As for taxing income trusts, you know, or ought to know, that this became necessary because of all the banks and other institutions that were moving into this very handy tax dodge. The Liberals were on the cusp of doing so, but, being Liberal, didn’t do it because of their fears of voter anger…A Liberal always has one eye on the vote.
    Harper did it, losing votes, because it was necessary. Otherwise, the tax loss would have had to be made up by individuals.
    What Contingency Fund? Please explain. Do you mean paying down the debt?
    The jets and limosines, long enjoyed by Liberals, have been curtailed. Remember Dingwall who insisted he was ‘entitled to his entitlements’. Does that satisfy you? Oh, and ted, you still haven’t mentioned a word about the Liberals paying back the taxpayer for Adscam.
    I think you’d better provide some evidence for you claim that the Conservative Party is engaged in ‘their own sponsorship program’. Otherwise, it’s libel.
    Now, ted, what’s your suggestion as to how the govt ought to deal with this current, complex, multifaceted economic crisis? Kindly remember that it isn’t ONE issue, but many.
    There’s the ‘tectonic shift’ in both production and consumption, as the emerging economies move into the middle class and costs of production rise as well as a focus on increased consumption by these economies.
    There’s the threshold limit where the union-driven costs of manufacturing have gone beyond the consumption capacity of N. American consumers. No-one can afford to purchase a N. American car and those companies can’t afford to make even a low cost car because employee costs are so high.
    There’s the shift from raw resource production in Canada as these resources dry up.
    There’s the fact that Canada developed itself as a mono-economy, focused only on producing goods for one consumer, the US, and refusing to make its products competitive in the world market. With the availability of goods to the Americans and others, from other markets, why should people purchase Canadian goods?
    So, it’s bad economics to simply throw our tax money into sustaining The Old Way. We have to develop NEW economic and production methods. If we aren’t willing to do that…and pumping money into the auto industry or forest industry won’t change the structure…
    Harper is waiting to see what the US will do with its auto industry – and he’s right to do that, since both are connected. He’s waiting to see what happens with liquidity in the financial sector as well. Or do you prefer a ‘plan’ (heh) that consists only of flinging money at the factory?
    That’s what the Liberal strategy has always been. To ignore the infrastructure. Always ignore the infrastructure. And just tax, and fling that surplus to prop up businesses (Bombardier and others); or make-work projects (the gun registry) or other make-work projects. All useless in themselves, all sustained only by taxing Alberta and Ontario. No attention to the real situation, the economic infrastructure. Is that your kind of govt, ted?

  11. Ted: “they would not have chewed through the Contingency Fund designed to avoid just the kind of deficit Deceivin’ Stephen has created.”
    Hmmm, Harper has created the deficit. First, until we here the opposite, the govt. isn’t in deficit; anything to the contrary right now is speculation based on certain assumptions that may or may not come true. As for his having created the deficit (which hasn’t yet come to pass), it’s true that he has spent far more than he should have, though it’s also true that his govt. probably would have fallen if it had shut the financial spout that was aimed at so many special interests. But it’s also true that Paul Martin’s govt. spent at an even higher rate, so if the country finds itself in a deficit that it could have avoided, the blame can be spread around both CPC and Lib govts.
    But if a deficit occurs and it turns out to be 10, 15 or 20 billion, how could the 3 billion contingency reserve have kept us out of it? That reserve is simply a Liberal talking point. In any case, far from blowing this reserve, the Conservatives simply applied it to the debt at the end of every fiscal year.
    To your credit, Ted, you didn’t suggest that the Conservatives got us into trouble by cutting the GST. God that’s a stupid argument.

  12. Did anyone else see Robert Fife refer to PMSH as “Putin minus the bullets to the head” or something like that? Someone needs to get that video- I think CTV pulled it.

  13. I just upped my donation from 20 to 30 dollars per month to the Conservative Party of Canada!! I just love that guy Harper.

  14. You are just mean. Do you realize the Communist Party may have to go back to using his girlfriend’s phone? Liz May won’t be able to afford to get to the microphone? The Liberals will learn grass roots don’t grow worth a damn on asphalt? You are just mean. Don’t worry about Jack, he will do ok. He may even support it to get official opposition or the others will be bribed for legislation passage. I’m so mean.

  15. Ted: “The Right Honourable Stephen … Harper may be a clever tactician, Bryan, but he is no leader.”
    I think he’s a fantastic leader. He’s got integrity, smarts, courage, and balls.
    As far as Librano “leaders”? PET, who swung both ways, and put Canada on the long, painful road to socialism; Chretien, le p’tit gars de Shawinigan who robbed Canadians blind; Martin, who didn’t know his *ss from a tea kettle and simply petered out in 2006–all their strings pulled by the Demarais at Power Corps (and Mo Strong).
    No thanks. With those guys at the helm, I guess Liberals wouldn’t know a leader if … his name was Stephen Harper.

  16. ET:
    Still avoiding the question, I see. I understand your problem: you accuse the Liberals of being taxers when in fact they didn’t increase any taxes at all and you know it. In fact, they cut taxes.
    Now as far as the rest of your nonsense, please keep up with current events.
    Harper told us in the middle of October that there would be no deficit and Flaherty repeated this after the election. A multi-billion dollar deficit does not just suddenly appear, as Harper and Flaherty would have us believe. Harper’s own budget chief announced that Harper’s spending policies made the coming deficit inevitable. The report was being worked on and discussed for months. These things don’t just happen. If you want to bury your head in the sand that’s up to you.
    As for taxing income trusts, you have a hard time with reading comprehension I know, so I’ll restate what I said. Taxing income trusts was not the criticism; it was recklessly promising never to tax them in the first place. A good economic leader doesn’t act so recklessly. Harper made a bad problem worse because seniors and income trusts believed him. That is very bad economic leadership.
    What Contingency Fund? Oh please, ET, read the news once in a while. While the Liberals were paying down the debt and cutting taxes, they also built up a reserve fund in order to ensure that we never faced a deficit again and never had to rely on foreign investors for our budget. Harper has blown through that in his record-breaking spending sprees. That is very very bad economic leadership.
    The jets and limosines, long enjoyed by Liberals, have been curtailed. Except we only this week got a report of cabinet ministers being jetted off in luxury to their second homes at taxpayer expense, ET. Only NOW that they’ve been caught out do they promise to tighten their belts.
    I think you’d better provide some evidence for you claim that the Conservative Party is engaged in ‘their own sponsorship program’. Again, ET, do you ever read anything but SDA for your news? Google “Bev Oda” and “sponsorship program” or check out this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gbo4b. That’s just bad economic and fiscal leadership.
    How do you jive your ‘tectonic shift’ with the comments of Deceivin’ Stephen about the “fundamentals of the economy are fine”, nothing drastic needs to be done or needs to be changed in government action? How do you jive your ‘tectonic shift’ with comments from the government that this economic crisis has come upon us suddently and rapidly? If it was a tectonic shift, then he should have been planning for it. That is very very very bad economic leadership.
    Now, I’ve courteously applied myself to your comments on my assertions.
    Could you please answer the one single question I’ve asked about your assertions: what taxes did the Liberals raise or introduce? I’m still eagerly waiting for your reply, ET.

  17. ted, the Liberals ‘balanced their books’ by both their high taxes, and their offloading programs to the provinces.
    The fact that Chretien didn’t introduce new taxes is irrelevant, ted; (oh, wait, what about pension deductions?)The fact that everyone had to pay 70%more to qualify for the CPP. Heh, he got away with not calling it a ‘tax increase’ but an increased pension contribution. But it goes into the govt coffers.
    Oh, and employer-paid insurance became taxable. Capital gains tax exemption gone. Air transportation tax went up. Fees for national parks, food inspections etc etc..all went up. Not called ‘taxes’ but ‘costs.
    Oh, and Chretien borrowed money, increasing the national debt by over 100 billion in his first term in office.
    the fact that he kept the GST after promising to drop it; that he offloaded costs to the provinces as a means of gaining a surplus, and that he didn’t return this money to the people, but used it for ‘bribe and vote’ strategies, is his legacy.

  18. what are the odds Citoyen Dion happens to have both thumbs up his a$$ when the vote comes?
    OTTAWA — All three opposition parties say they’ll vote against the minority Conservative government’s fiscal update — raising the spectre of a showdown that could lead to yet another federal election.
    The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois say they can’t support the plan because it offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.
    The fiscal update is a confidence measure that must pass or the government will fall.
    However, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion did not respond when asked if a handful of his MPs might be absent for a vote on the update, allowing the government survive.

  19. Ted: “While the Liberals were paying down the debt and cutting taxes, they also built up a reserve fund in order to ensure that we never faced a deficit again and never had to rely on foreign investors for our budget. Harper has blown through that in his record-breaking spending sprees.”
    Actually, it’s incorrect to say that Harper’s spending spree has been “record-breaking.” It hasn’t been good, but the record for year-over-year spending increase belongs to Paul Martin in his final year as PM.
    As for Stephen Harper “blowing through” the 3-billion contingency reserve, what he did was apply *all* end-of-year surpluses towards the accumulated debt.
    Finally, it’s pretty naive to think that a 3-billion dollar annual reserve (not compounded year after year) would “ensure that we never faced a deficit again.” As I said earlier, that’s just a Liberal talking-point.

  20. The fact that Chretien didn’t introduce new taxes is irrelevant
    When you accuse him of increasing taxes, yeah, it is kind of important and relevant, ET.
    You’ve shown us you don’t read much, that you don’t comprehend what little you read and now that you don’t understand your own argument, ET.
    I’m heading home now. Thank you for the laugh. I’m still chuckling. Oh, I wish there were more conservatives who thought like you do, ET.

  21. Does anyone actually believe we will have an election over this economic update? What a laugh? It’s almost as funny as the opposition seizing control of parliament, such as was done in 1985 by NDP/Liberal minority agreement.
    Harper needs something like 13 votes to go his way, or not vote at all. That’s what will happen. The Liberals would have to go into another election with Dion as leader, and explaining to Canadians that they are trying to preserve their $ for votes, or worse still, telling us what they would do instead.
    What the Bloc and Dippers think what should be done is irrelevant. In the extremely unlikely event of an election in 09, actual policies would have to be proposed, rather than “do something.”
    It would be a referendum of whether you believe in limited government helping or massive government intervention into things like infrastructure (which takes months/years to take effect). Remember the last infrastructure program of buying flags, roads to nowhere, and basically wasting $6B.
    The whole thing is a joke, really. Grits are blowing steam, and seem more like a bunch of whining pigs, determined to keep their snouts in the trough.
    Oh yes, the electorate would love that. Does the LPC actually have a death wish. It’s arguably possible Tories are playing politics right now; if they are opposition are going for it hook, line and sinker.

  22. Augueing with “Ted and Manney” is like talking to a child about touching a hot stove. They never learn unless they get burnt. Sometimes it takes a child several times to learn. “Ted and Manney” are like “Obtuse” children, they just never learn. Nannies, big government, instatutions, sucking off government program teats, being controlled and just plain whinners.
    “TED”, you never let the Conservatives any minority, PMSH earned that right by bieng smarter than your HERO Dion. Suck it up princess and put your big girl panties on. Take off your “rose coloured glasses, look out the front window. You may get brave enough to actually venture outside “grasshopper” and open the gate and step out on the sidewalk. Be carful “grasshopper”, us Conservatives have layed traps of “dog poo” for all you Lieberals to step in.

  23. one thing of interest, semi related.
    How many days after the election has it been? Where Mr. Dion’s great plan to save the nation during this economic crisis?
    I mean, sure he’s not the PM but he promised a plan PDQ. You would think he would at least have a brain storm chart filled with good ideas and perhaps even an opening paragraph to the study?
    Actual nuts and bolts not just the bulleted points:
    a) save economy
    b) save auto sector
    c) save lumber
    d) raise government spending
    e) cut taxes
    f) do all the above with balance “magic” budget ledger
    there’s only two possible reasons we haven’t seen any useful input from the leader of the opposition: 1) their only plan was to start working on a plan by forming a plan planing group once elected. Or 2) they have the silver built solution and rather then help the nation they are keeping it secret just to stick it to the PM.
    What do you think is more likely?

  24. MJ:
    Yes, it was Liberal thinking at the time to think that no Prime Minister in their right would spend the way Harper spent. Martin did not spend more. He unwisely promised to spend a whack of dough in leading up t the 2006 election but even those promises (which obviously he did not implement) did not amount to as much as what Harper has ACTUALLY spent.
    Harper has broken the record in year-over-year spending increases. That is a fact. And that PLUS the shortsighted gimmicky tax cuts (while increasing income taxes to pay for it) PLUS eating through the Contingency Fund is why we are headed into a deficit. It’s the combination of all of this that highlights what a bad fiscal manager Deceivin’ Stephen and Deficit Jim are.
    I believe that governments actually do NOT have a great ability to affect the economy positively over the long haul, but they are 100% responsible for their own budget and fiscal position. When the mortgage and housing and credit markets start taking a sharp nosedive, as they did starting in the summer of 2006, and your own budget and economic advisors are telling you that worse is to come and the dominoes are just starting to fall, Harper fiscal policies were incredibly irresponsible and very bad economic leadership.

  25. MJ:
    Yes, it was Liberal thinking at the time to think that no Prime Minister in their right would spend the way Harper spent. Martin did not spend more. He unwisely promised to spend a whack of dough in leading up t the 2006 election but even those promises (which obviously he did not implement) did not amount to as much as what Harper has ACTUALLY spent.
    Harper has broken the record in year-over-year spending increases. That is a fact. And that PLUS the shortsighted gimmicky tax cuts (while increasing income taxes to pay for it) PLUS eating through the Contingency Fund is why we are headed into a deficit. It’s the combination of all of this that highlights what a bad fiscal manager Deceivin’ Stephen and Deficit Jim are.
    I believe that governments actually do NOT have a great ability to affect the economy positively over the long haul, but they are 100% responsible for their own budget and fiscal position. When the mortgage and housing and credit markets start taking a sharp nosedive, as they did starting in the summer of 2006, and your own budget and economic advisors are telling you that worse is to come and the dominoes are just starting to fall, Harper fiscal policies were incredibly irresponsible and very bad economic leadership.

  26. “Again, what tax did the Liberals add?”
    It’s not so much about what they did above the table, Ted. Under the table they stole millions and boondoggled billions of taxpayer money.
    But then that’s how criminals behave isn’t it?
    “Curious then that the Conservatives are down in the polls and that they had less voter support (in absolute numbers) in this election than in 2006.”
    And the Liberals? The worst showing since Turner.
    But then Ted, you already knew this. But rather than calling you a deceiver, I’ll call you an outright liar.
    The Conservatives had a higher percentage of women voting for them than the Liberals. The Conservatives had the best percentage gain in the popular vote versus competition +1.43% vs. Liberals –3.93%, Bloc –0.49% and NDP +0.49%
    Oh, and Nanos had this to say:
    “Harper and the Conservatives can rightly claim victory. They increased the numbers of seats in the House of Commons and improved their showing in battleground Ontario where they surpassed the Liberals in popular support for the first time in 20 years.”
    You and your loser party of criminals? Right where they should be. Staring into the abyss.

  27. ted – I never said that Chretien introduced a new tax; so don’t say that I accused him of such.
    I said he overtaxed and that’s hardly disputable. he kept the old ones; including lying about his campaign promise of dropping the GST; he increased other taxes (not new ones; but increases); I’ve listed some.
    So, what’s your point?
    And, what are your suggestions for an economic lifesaver for the nation? You are certainly eager to criticize but don’t offer any suggestions.

  28. Oh come on now folks Ted is just upset. You see during Ted’s halcyon days the Liberals used to hand out money in brown paper bags but with Harper’s intent they won’t even be able to afford a brown paper bag.

  29. This poll though probably not definite. Made my day. I mean do we really want half a billion spent like in the US on elections in a Country with less of a population than California? Frankly our Politicians aren’t worth that much.
    Its a smart political move because only the politico’s are hurt this time, instead of the tax payer buggered by the the usual Liberal gambit to up their pay checks or scam an ele4ction on our dime. They where the inventers of this. Let them eat the pie they made.

  30. This poll though probably not definite. Made my day. I mean do we really want half a billion spent like in the US on elections in a Country with less of a population than California? Frankly our Politicians aren’t worth that much.
    Its a smart political move because only the politico’s are hurt this time, instead of the tax payer buggered by the the usual Liberal gambit to up their pay checks or scam an ele4ction on our dime. They where the inventers of this. Let them eat the pie they made.

  32. It’s unclear how the Green Party would be able to stage an effective cross-country campaign without the money, especially since they were unable to elect a single MP to Parliament.
    It’s pretty simple. They won’t be able to.
    They’ll have to build the party the old fashioned way. Sell some memberships, collect some donations. Run in only a few ridings where your issues resonate and the sitting member isn’t strong. (The Deputy Prime Ministers riding is NOT a good choice.) Win a couple of seats, repeat as necessary.
    If you can’t do any of these things, you are not a real party, the tax payer owes you nothing!

  34. Can’t understand how some of you constantly try and reason with the trolls here, you waste too much effort in trying to educate them and it must be apparent that they are beyond redemption. Anyone who cannot see the intrinsic logic of political parties being supported by donations from their supporters has been drinking the ‘fool-ade’ for so long that their brains have turned to mush. Harper has virtually eliminated the Bloc and the Greens from the political scene. We now have a three party country with the libs/dips on the left. The next election whenever it comes will be a watershed moment because most of the readers here and most Canadians understand there never was and never will be a free lunch, you get what you work for and if you expect something for nothing all you get is more ‘fool-ade’

  35. Manny: Until now I have always skipped over your drivel but in reply to your question –
    “Why should we taxpayers fund freeloading farmers, ET, rather than have that money building roads etc??? Huh, ET, tell us, why???”
    A big reason the taxpayers fund the farmers is to ensure a safer food supply than the alternative would give us. I am sure we could get cheap food supplies from China but before I would consume a lot of what they produce, I would like you to try it first.
    An advertisement for ‘Drink Malamine” doesn’t sound as good as ‘Drink Milk’.
    Millions of people have starved in the past and are starving now in countries that could have produced more than enough food to feed themselves – Russia, China, a bunch of African countries. If we were to let the farms go back to natural prairie or bush, where do we get our food from? Not only that but if we wanted fresh meat we would have to go hunting and kill it ourselves. Are you promoting the killing of bunnies and bambies?
    I can’t believe you would promote the building of more roads which leads to more autos which leads to more CO2 – are you promoting global warming? or are you a denier?
    Better watch out or you will have to turn in your tinfoil hat.
    Now – “Why should we taxpayers fund these political parties?”

  36. So can anyone tell me…Do the CTV polls automatically close down once over 75% vote against the socialist agenda??

  37. Far as I am concerned the CBFC and those poxy media whores at the CTV are made from the same pile of Tranna bullchit. Thank gawd for cable and the internet.

  38. ted
    ET has answered your questions several times, but you appear to have a comprehention problem, so let me simplify things for you
    the liberals DOWN loaded many things to the provence, thus they did less with your tax dollars but kept collecting the same amount, now that IS a tax increase
    same as if an employee’s hours are cut but their paycheque remains the same, they effectively recieved a hourly pay increase
    CAPICE?????

  39. The liberals have been social engineering their own demise.
    Liberal supporters expect the government and the party to look after them, they don’t believe in donating or volunteering unless there is something in it for them.

  41. Don Martin suggests “the public outrage at a election-triggering stunt perpetrated by the prime minister would unleash a backlash of historic proportions – and the reaction would be angriest in Quebec”, but the CTV poll (80% in favour of cutting direct taxpayer funding) suggest there is support. My favourite part of Don Martin’s comment is this, though, “Political parties hooked on taxpayer subsidies for their lifeblood will suffer catastrophic withdrawal from the public purse if this proposal goes ahead”. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it? And he’s writing against the idea?

  42. Gosh, Kate, yet ANOTHER CTV poll “gone horribly wrong”:
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?Results&id=111875&pollid=111875&tf=ctv%2Fgeneric%2Fhubs%2FctvNewsSub.html&cf=ctv%2Fgeneric%2Fhubs%2FctvNews.cfg&hub=TopStories&subhub=VoteResult
    The Conservative government is holding off on an economic stimulus package. What do you think of this strategy?
    Wait to see what happens 2395 votes (65 %)
    Economy needs it now 1264 votes (35 %)
    Total Votes: 3659

  43. I have been following comments, columns, and news heads for the last few hours, and I agree with the consensus that Harper has played a bold strategic move today and has in effect check-mated the opposition. However another thought has occurred to me while considering the ramifications we will witness over the next while. We all know that Harper is great strategist and thinks many moves ahead of the opposition, surely he must have several other moves he wants to play? This one results in a lot of noise, and has some risk, but what about his next alternatives? I have no doubt he has something in mind, if he finds that the opposition is united, what else does he get in return for not pushing it? Then again, what manoeuvrer is in his plans, that this actions sets up? True senate changes?.. as I said who knows, but you can bet he is already 6 months ahead of everyone else in Parliament, and nothing he initiates is linear. As others have said “He is a political/economic chess master”.

  44. Marmot Days – Victoria opined: “I have no doubt he has something in mind, if he finds that the opposition is united, what else does he get in return for not pushing it?”
    I think he’s going to ban the wearing of underwear by all males in the House of Commons which should shorten committee meetings considerably. It should also result in an increase in ointment in their flys.
    No need to thank me. All in a days work.

  45. Got up early the other morning to hear Preston Manning speak at the municipal convention in Winnipeg. It brought back a few pleasant memories of the good old days of Reform prior to the election disappointment of 1997. Like Lee at 4:14 I was with the Reform campaign in 1993 and basically had much the same experience with fund raising. No big donors, just lots of canvassing. We’d get the corporate donor lists from the Libs and PCs and shake our heads at what they were getting compared to us.
    In those days Reform fund raisers played up the tax deductibility of personal donations as a means to encourage higher amounts. There was nothing wrong with doing that but the end result was that the Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing the political process, big time. I considered that to be contrary to Reform’s basic message of fiscal responsibility. I therefore maintained my habit of not claiming my contributions at tax time.
    When Chretien changed the system from indirect to direct subsidy he simply guaranteed all of the parties a revenue stream based on their vote count. It is the removal of this revenue stream that outrages the opposition. They have become rather lazy and developed a culture of entitlement. As far as I’m concerned, if they have grassroots financial support, then hey, “no problem” (right Preston?). If not then they can either get out and raise their own funding or go out of business, it’s a simple equation._

  46. ET- Freeloading–Living on other peoples hard work and money. Per capita cost for the CBC-about $30.00. Per capita costs for farm subsidies in SK-about $400.00. The per capita cost for what you’re whining about, what, two bits? Puts things in perspective, don’t it?

  47. manny, no, your opinion that farmers are ‘freeloaders’ (using your definition of living on other people’s work and money) is invalid.
    Farmers work. Very hard. I bet you don’t understand where your food comes from. It comes from farmers. From their work and money. The farm business in Saskatchewan is worth over 6 billion per year. Subsidies, which enable farmers to update equipment, obtain low cost loans, aren’t in lieu of work; they enable work. I bet you don’t know that.
    Have fun with your ignorance, manny.

  48. ET, would that I, or anyone, could enjoy ignorance as much as you clearly do. Pantload Steve Harper would make it illegal.
    Auto workers work…very hard.
    CBC employees work…very hard.
    Millions of Canadians work…very hard.
    I guess anyone who works hard should be subsidized in ET’s “free market, conservative” universe.

  49. BTW, ET, I know more farmers, and more about farming than you ever will. And I know a lot of farmers who haven’t the slightest acquaintance with hard work.

  50. “CBC employees work…very hard.”
    “I know more farmers, and more about farming than you ever will. And I know a lot of farmers who haven’t the slightest acquaintance with hard work”
    Thanks manny.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation