Flaherty (nee Harper) is either....

[gramage]

They've supported the Canadian Banks. Canada is a resource based economy - even more so that McSquint has sat idle for the last two years and watch manufacturers flee to lower tax rate jurisdictions or be decimated altogether.

Where the hell were all you guys when all this was going on ? You need CNN to tell you when to worry ?

Is 2% really the difference in these manufaturers starying here? I can't stand Dalton (green belt was a slap in the face to property owners, picks fights when he should govern and shuts up when he should pick fights, plus he doesn't even bullshit well) but I don't think his stubborness on tax policy was the straw that broke the economies back.

 

[train]

The economists unleashed plenty of moaning and groaning that the document's belt-tightening focus went against prevailing wisdom that all government vaults should be opened for a mega spending spree, even though it makes sense to curb nice-to-haves and focus money on need-to-have priorities and take some time to design proper stimulus programs.

.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if these same economists that are moaning and groaning had seen any of this coming.

Six months ago they were all preaching balanced budget at all costs. So do you believe them then or now ? Same group. Even the US Treasury Secretary admitted he didn't expect this. Doesn't inspire a ton of confidence does it ?

 

[fuji]

Harper had been sending signals to all the opposition parties of trying to be a little less partisan than he has been in the past.

The contents of the "economic update" did not strike me as the sort of think that Harper has ever advanced in the past, and as you say, seems to be completely inconsistent with the way he had been positioning his government.

What is DOES sound like is Flaherty, it is the same sort of highly partisan, divisive, mean-spirited approach to governing that characterized the second term of the Mike Harris government--the one in which Flaherty rose to a top job.

I really think Flaherty blindsided Harper with this nasty bit of ideological claptrap and he's essentially at this point put his entire party and government at risk. That's too bad because I was coming to see Harper as a good and balanced leader--my theory is he trusted the wrong guy.

This is what I mean when I say Flaherty is "incompetent".

 

[landscaper]

nothing that goes out for public consumption does so without bering vetted by the PMO. If it was in a floor speach it was seen and approved. Why it went out is another question, setting off teh chattering classes across the isle is one thing but this threatened their entitlements and we can't have that.

Grammage the couple of percent tax rates are in fact enough to tip the scales if it comes down to it. Particularly if the company is foriegn owned, bringing jobs home is always good politics in the states and you can squeeze huge benifits out of some states.

 

[fuji]

his threatened their entitlements

Nothing in the updated related to any entitlements. The update proposed to remove PARTY funding, funding which would be used to pay for advertising. None of that money would wind up going to the MP's personally.

Since I think you probably know that I have to wonder why you insist on posting things as misleading as that--is it because you want us to doubt everything you say?

 

[gramage]

Grammage the couple of percent tax rates are in fact enough to tip the scales if it comes down to it. Particularly if the company is foriegn owned, bringing jobs home is always good politics in the states and you can squeeze huge benifits out of some states.

What jobs are going home? these are American companies sending jobs overseas or cutting them never to be seen again.

 

[landscaper]

Nothing in the updated related to any entitlements. The update proposed to remove PARTY funding, funding which would be used to pay for advertising. None of that money would wind up going to the MP's personally.

Since I think you probably know that I have to wonder why you insist on posting things as misleading as that--is it because you want us to doubt everything you say?

The party funding goes to the parties to be used as they see fit. It saves them from having to raise the money from suporters.

Amounts o the funding do indeed go to local candidates through advertising and other purchases.

The fact remains they consider that money and entitlement , the big uproar is because when the liberals brought it in it replaced money that came in from corporate and union funding . Niether the NDP or the Liberals has bothered to create a fund raiseing arm or system to replace it.

 

[fuji]

Amounts o the funding do indeed go to local candidates through advertising and other purchases.

In other words it doesn't go to the candidates themselves, it goes to their political advertising expenses.

I see that you are acting as though you disagree with me but you are not actually disagreeing with me, you are actually confirming that this is not an entitlement from which the MP's will benefit personally but rather it is an election campaign expense that will be paid.

Niether the NDP or the Liberals has bothered to create a fund raiseing arm or system to replace it.

Perhaps, like me, they are of the opinion that political campaigns would be fairer were all parties funded equally based on their proportional vote.

I am against contributions to political parties. The people who contribute tend to be advocates of some special interest group and thus push their agendas on the silent majority of Canadians who are not bothered enough by current issues to send in dollars.

Public funding of parties is BETTER than the alternatives. By all means put this to a vote and find out what percentage of Canadians believe parties should be funded only by special interest groups!

 

[capncrunch]

...or he's trying to setup a coup to replace Harper. It is possible that the Mike Harris wing of the Party is not happy with Harpers move to the political center.

There might be more to this than you originally thought.

Guy Giorno, one of Mike Harris' closest advisors during the bad old days of the Harris/Eves years is, runs the PMO. And, apparently, he's not happy at all with the way that Harper has moved to the centre.

Now, there's no question that Giorno is one smart dude, but he's about as partisan as they come, a pure ideologue.

Hey, here's a thought: How about the Conservatives form a couple of new parties. For the socially progressive but fiscally conservative wing, they can form something called, oh, let's say the Progressive Conservative Party. And for the social Darwinists that lurk in the party that are constantly wanting to change the way government works, maybe they can come up with something. Maybe call it the Reform party.

oh... wait...

 

[emvee]

Harper is an asshole. Flaherty is an idiot and an asshole. Baird is also an asshole. Stockwell Day is a Jesus-loving zealot freak. MacKay is just a wanker.

But Trudeau was an asshole too, as was Chretien. Volpe is an asshole too but luckily he's never had a significant cabinet post.

I hate Duceppe's politics but I think he's a reasonably smart guy. Dion seems like a nice guy, pretty smart but not cut out for the bloodsport politics are.

I hate Layton's politics too.

I was really hoping to see Obama screw over Harper for that NAFTAgate thing, I guess we'll never see it played out.

 

[Never Compromised]

Guy Giorno, one of Mike Harris' closest advisors during the bad old days of the Harris/Eves years is, runs the PMO. And, apparently, he's not happy at all with the way that Harper has moved to the centre.

Now, there's no question that Giorno is one smart dude, but he's about as partisan as they come, a pure ideologue.

I strongly suggest not writing about Giorno. He is not very forgiving.

 

[ggaleazz]

Nothing in the updated related to any entitlements. The update proposed to remove PARTY funding, funding which would be used to pay for advertising. None of that money would wind up going to the MP's personally.

Since I think you probably know that I have to wonder why you insist on posting things as misleading as that--is it because you want us to doubt everything you say?

Nah, it's just fun to parrot a quote from something that happened almost 5 years ago.

Now where's that Harper coalition letter c. 2004

 

[chiller_boy]

They've supported the Canadian Banks. Canada is a resource based economy - even more so that McSquint has sat idle for the last two years and watch manufacturers flee to lower tax rate jurisdictions or be decimated altogether.

Where the hell were all you guys when all this was going on ? You need CNN to tell you when to worry ?

WE have been listening to this theory for a long time - Flaherty made a big deal about it a few months ago fueding with Mcguinty and saying that Ontario was abad place to invest.

I don't think its true, and I think we would be hard pressed to find a single instance of this. The problem(independent of the crashing world wide economy) is wages/benefits. Isn't this obvious? It even trumps skilled work force(most of the time). Arguing that lowering taxes brings more business to Ontario is simply ideological. Now subsidies - thats a different kettle of fish.

The solution may involve what the CAW termed a 'race to the bottom' or nationalistic consumerism/protectionism.