The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper

[Guest rattler]

Ottawa sets deadline for auto makers

Article  Comments (4)  KAREN HOWLETT

Globe and Mail Update

November 28, 2008 at 7:24 PM EST

The Detroit Three auto makers have until next Friday to outline their restructuring plans for their Canadian operation as well as their cash holdings.

Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement and Ontario Economic Development Minister Michael Bryant sent a joint letter to the presidents of the companies' Canadian subsidiaries on Friday, setting out their conditions in exchange for any government financing.

In the United States, the Detroit Three have warned of a “catastrophic collapse” of the entire U.S. economy if the government fails to throw the auto companies an emergency lifeline of $25-billion. The U.S. government has asked the companies to submit a detailed restructuring plans to Congress by next Tuesday, including an assessment of their long-term viability.

The Canadian companies are also calling on the federal and Ontario governments to provide aid to help them to survive the auto crisis.

“Our governments share concerns regarding the long-term viability of Canada's auto sector and thus want to understand how your Canadian operations fit within your overall restructuring plan,” says a copy of the letter, obtained by The Globe and Mail.The letter says their plans should include the following: An analysis of how competitive their Canadian operations are compared with their global operations A strategic analysis of how they plan to restructure their Canadian operations A financial assessment of their current operating cash position and short-term liquidity situation, as well as an analysis of how they propose to meet their financing needs An analysis of their pension plan liabilities An examination of the effect of their restructuring plan on Canadian suppliers and distributors Canadian government officials have said they were looking at providing financial assistance to the auto companies to help them weather the economic downturn, but they have made it clear there will be strings attached.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty met with the heads of the auto companies earlier this month. He said his government won't provide the Detroit Three with any assistance unless they guarantee that they will maintain operations and jobs in the province.

“We are running a $500-million deficit [and] revenues are shrinking,” he told reporters. “If we are going to come to the table in a way that is meaningful to the sector...they're going to have to demonstrate to us that that somehow serves the greater public interest,” he said.

[Don Hudson]

rattler;

Again, the NP article is a good one.

Re,

So you thought Stephen Harper was scary? How does the prospect of Prime Minister Stéphane Dion and Finance Minister Jack Layton grab you?

Like Sarah Palin as McCain's VP did. In Vancouver, we can hear Mr. Layton salivating even with the rain pouring outside.

But like the NP says, Harper did this to himself and his party. He is now blaming for his burns, the bed that was on fire when he climbed into it. In one Palin-like move, his judgement has come under broad question.

I'm still trying to find the "brilliant" part of Harper's tactic mentioned in the previous NP story. Surely the Post isn't being sarcastic.

[Guest rattler]

rattler;

Again, the NP article is a good one.

Re,

Like Sarah Palin as McCain's VP did. In Vancouver, we can hear Mr. Layton salivating even with the rain pouring outside.

But like the NP says, Harper did this to himself and his party. He is now blaming for his burns, the bed that was on fire when he climbed into it. In one Palin-like move, his judgement has come under broad question.

I'm still trying to find the "brilliant" part of Harper's tactic mentioned in the previous NP story. Surely the Post isn't being sarcastic.

I said the same, self inflicted wound. Political parties only care about themselves and money. No one should be surprised at that. Although a certain party does have a worse track record when it comes to money and how they free they feel to obtain it.

[RFL]

I do not have sufficient information (and probably will never have) to make a judgement call on this. Politics is a blood sport and regardless of the party or country I think most politicians will use every opportunity available to improve their position. That is the system we inherited and tolerate because it is still preferable to the alternatives which have never succeeded.

If nothing else I am enjoying the entertainment value. The media (eastern based especially) and other types who so depend on politics to justify their existence are wound up tighter than a cheap watch.

[FA@AC]

If nothing else I am enjoying the entertainment value.

The entertainment value is in Harper's hypocrisy and in his discomfort now that he's trying to backpeddle. It is amusing to watch him as he tries to do what doesn't come naturally to him, i.e. to not be provocative. The man just cannot keep his aggressive, angry, nasty streak in check.

Parliament has barely been back for two weeks, and after all Harper's talk about wanting cooperate with other parties, here he goes already trying to throw his weight around. What a jerk.

[Hadji Ramjet]

That said, Paul Martin, though boring, left Canada with very good financials.

Did he now, Don?

The Left criticizes Mulroney for leaving the books in rough shape, and Chretien/Martin for allegedly wonderful fiscal management, but the numbers show a somewhat different tale:

When Mulroney took office, Liberal program spending was 123% of revenue, ie for every dollar the government was taking in, they were spending $1.23. The Left talks about the large deficit that Chretien/Martin inherited in 1993, but fail to note that the deficit that Mulroney inherited (thanks in part to Chretien's stint as Minister of Finance) was 9% of GDP, the largest in terms of the size of the economy the nation has ever seen. In terms of the size of the economy, the worst Mulroney did was fully one-third smaller, and this in the midst of the same recession that the Left wants to use to excuse Bob Rae's fiscal mismanagement of Ontario. When Mulroney left, program spending was reduced to 97% or revenues and operational surpluses had been run for the latter two-thirds (six of nine budgets) of the PC period. Virtually all of the increase to the national debt incurred by nine Mulroney budgets can be attributed to interest payments on the debt legacy left by the Liberals.

Martin meanwhile decreases program spending in his second budget by a whopping 2%, after increasing by 0.75% in his first; so two years on spending has declined by an astonishing 1.25%

In his third budget he cuts spending by 8% and that is as far as he ever goes. Unfortunately he does this primarily in two ways: a 23% cut to DND, and large cuts in transfers to provinces that offloads the problem rather than dealing with if. Harris' deficits were largely due to making up for Martin balancing HIS books while leaving SOME other provinces floundering. The following budget again posts an increase in spending, and increases are maintained for the rest of the Liberal reign. Twelve budgets, two cuts, 10 increases: not exactly the model of fiscal restraint the Left would have us believe.

Dion has complained that Harper is the biggest spender in Canadian history (matters little that Dion promised greater spending during the election); program spending has increased 18% in three budgets. Martin on the other hand increased spending FIFTY PERCENT in his last five budgets; again hardly the model of fiscal restraint the Left would have us believe, particularly since in 2000 Martin promised to keep spending increases to the rate of inflation plus populatin growth. That promise didn't even make it to the following budget, and Dagger accuses Harper of falsehood?

National debt reduction? The debt was reduced by $6 billion during the entire last Liberal reign; Harper reduced it by a greater amount in his first budget.

One could make a case that the alleged Liberal fiscal responsibility was more due to reduced charges on the national debt due to reduced interest rates, something Martin did have much control over, rather than any intelligent policy decisions whatsoever.

There is probably a good reason why, during the last election, polls consistently rated Harper as the leader best able to deal with economic difficulties: the Left has one financial plan, "times are good and we have money so lets tax and spend it, times are bad and we don't have money so let's tax and borrow and spend it."

[RFL]

The man just cannot keep his aggressive, angry, nasty streak in check.

As in choking and pepper spraying peaceful and legal bystanders/protesters?

That would be a previous PM and referring to him as a man is philanthropic.

edited to widen the choices.

[FA@AC]

As in choking and pepper spraying peaceful and legal bystanders/protesters?

That would be the previous PM and referring to him as a man is philanthropic.

I wasn't aware that Paul Martin had pepper sprayed or choked anybody.

[Hadji Ramjet]

I wasn't aware that Paul Martin was the focus of that comment, nor that he was:

The head of a political party;

Running for the head of a political party;

Had stated any intention to run for the leadership of any political party.

The only thing I can recall about Paul Martin from the last session of Parliament was that he didn't bother to show up for a single vote, even for measures brought forth by his own party.

In fact, the only memorable things I can recall about Paul Martin are that:

when the Xmas tsunami happened, he decided to stay on holiday; and

at a D-day ceremony in France, he talked about the invasion of Norway.

Oh yes, and he moved his company to the Bahamas to avoid the same taxes he was responsible for taking out of your pocket.

On the other hand, the person who WAS the focus of that comment is an individual of such high morals, that when confronted about the APEC pepper spray issue, replied "for me, pepper is something I put on my plate."

This same individual mentioned to the media that he sometimes chatted with a homeless man in an Ottawa park, yet no one could ever find this man (shades of Mackenzie King's dead mother?). This is also the same man who pledged to take Canada out of NAFTA and rescind the GST...

You can probably figure out by now who that is.

Edited to add an apology to FA@AC: you're right, it WAS directed at Martin and although I'm loathe to put words in the mouth of the poster, I imagine he meant Chretien.

[Don Hudson]

Hadji;

Thank you for the thorough summary. It's detailed beyond what I had and knew and I appreciate the research and summary. It is a popularly understood notion that Canada's deficit was reduced to zero during the Martin years and was kept there by the Harper government. In fact many earning a decent wage have benefited under Harper not only due to the tax reductions brought in but due to income splitting brought in, in 2007.

the Left has one financial plan, "times are good and we have money so lets tax and spend it, times are bad and we don't have money so let's tax and borrow and spend it."

With all British Columbians, I have experienced "the Left's" kick at fiscal responsibility under the NDP. You likely won't recall "BingoGate" when the NDP's Dave Stupich "arranged to appropriate" money from nuns who were the recipients of lottery winnings. While I am no fan of the BC Liberals, the province's finances are in better order than in the 90's; - it was the NDP who attempted to bring in a 4% wealth tax based upon one's home and one's possessions, (art work, cars, stocks, etc). Maureen Maloney's plan failed when "gray power" in Kitsalano and Kerrisdale, who bought their homes in the '20's and 30's for thousands were going to be taxed on their "wealth" of hundreds of thousands, (1993) and occasionally millions, woke the NDP up from it's stupor and the NDP rescinded the plan.

While I prefer a society where individual hard work is rewarded, ingenuity, risk-taking and being both smart and responsible with limited resources is successful and brings prosperity to a society, I frankly don't mind a redistributionist society providing that's what it is and everyone is cared for but still works hard. I'm not sure we could call Scandinavians "lazy" as is the traditional accusation of societies which care for all, more or less equally but I believe also that such a society could not advance, implement and influence technology as the U.S. has, (but at the same time, for me, the jury on technology and it's benefits, is still out). As it is, "socialist" policies these days are certainly not for the majority - for proof all we need do is examine the last 30 days in the U.S. The Scandinavian countries, (though only them), seem to tick along, surviving with a good and healthy lifestyle - it would take some research to verify that the picture is indeed that rosy but one thing we can't deny and that is the redistributionist Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman model for the wealthy that Greenspan and others embraced in the 90's not only doesn't work, it has brought us the present disaster, something that the left is most certainly not responsible for.

I do not consider these views "leftist". Such polar opposites are no longer useful and don't describe the changes occuring in society. Many people now embrace both "left" and "right" views, depending upon society's needs. Obama is a master at perceiving and expressing this change.

As Giroux states, "We live at a time when the conflation of private interests, empire-building, and evangelical fundamentalism puts into question the very nature, if not existence, of the democratic process. Under the reign of neoliberalism, capital and wealth have been largely distributed upward while civic virtue has been undermined by a slavish celebration of the free market as the model for organizing all facets of everyday life. Political culture has been increasingly emptied of democratic values as collective life is organized lround the modalities of privatization, risks, deregulation, and commercialization. When the alleged champions of neoliberalism invoke politics, they substitute "ideological certainty for reasonable doubt" and deplete "the national reserves of political intelligence" just as they endorse "the illusion that the future can be bought instead of earned." I believe in hard work and individual reward. I just don't believe in a corporatist arrangement of society where "every man is for himself" is the reward. To me, fiscal responsibility supports those larger goals, eschewing special interests and narrowly-motivated advocacy groups. That's the goal - the reality is, I realize, very different and not altogether changeable.

Thanks again for the detailed summary.

[FA@AC]

I wasn't aware that Paul Martin was the focus of that comment,

Well, when I made a remark about Harper, RFL responded with comments about "the previous PM". Paul Martin was Harper's predecessor.

And yes, Chretien made a stupid comment about the RCMP's excessive use of force during Suharto's visit to Canada. I imagine you're angry that he kept us out of Bush's Iraq war too.

[Hadji Ramjet]

FA@AC: see apology above, my fangs came out and pinned my dick to the floorboards.

The APEC issue is deeper than most realize, specifically pertaining to Indonesian security forces being allowed to keep their weapons while in Canada. Lots more noz about it than just that, but suffice to say that Chretien was doing his absolute best to cowtow to every foreign leader and senior UN toady, as that was where he saw his future. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. Mind you, this is also the guy that missed the funeral of King Hussein by allegedly skiing in Whistler when he was really in Chicago... no what do you suppose he was doing there?

As far as Iraq is concerned, my opinion is grossly biased because although Canada never went there, I did.

It's detailed beyond what I had and knew and I appreciate the research and summary.

Why beyond what you had? The information is not hard to find. You spend a lot of time and effort on things related to flight safety, your knowledge there insofar as civil aviation is concerned is far beyond what I could ever hope to attain. Unfortunately, like Dagger with his financial knowledge, you seem to be claiming a halo effect and expect people to accept your word on faith in areas where you might better tread more carefully. Clearly you have demonstrated a better-than-most ability to do research, why did you fail to do so in this instance? I can understand Dagger's failure, he's here just to stroke his ego, but you come across as far more professional than that.

That said, when you make a statement you want to be accepted as fact and it's not, that's the sort of thing that torques people like me. Don't take it personally, it's just the way it is.

So, to carry on:

Yes, I'm aware of Bingogate. I'm also aware that Harcourt resigned as Premier because even though he didn't know about it, as the guy at the top he understood he SHOULD have known about it. And therein BC lost its best Premier in several generations.

I remember when the Social Credit's Women's Auxuillary brought in a convention motion that rapists should be castrated, then decided the wording was too strong and replaced castrated with circumcised. That's the kind of stupidity that has ruled the west coast since Amor de Cosmos was Premier. I remember that the first cabinet minister in the history of the Commonwealth to be convicted of bribery was a BC Socred. I remember when Dave Barrett took over in 1972 just as the recession hit, and it wasn't because of a great desire on the part of BC'ers to become socialist, they were just disgusted with the arrogance of WAC Bennett and his party. Remember his movie, "The Good Life"? The one that, unentered, almost won the Stephen Leacock award for humor?

I remember George Kerster's campaign office on Clarke Rd in 1975 when he defeated Barrett, and I remember Kerster's conviction for pedophilia for trying to hook up with some sweet young thing he met on the internet.

I remember Socred Minister Agnes Krips trying to change the word "sex" in sex education in school, for "bolt" meaning "biology of life today." I really still remember the film of the hilarity in the chamber when an Opposition member commented, "what about the nuts?" and she shouted at the Speaker to, "bang that thing of yours on the table!"

I remember Bob Williams doing a horrid job as Mines Minister, and it coming back to haunt his family when VanCity wanted to by the Bank of BC, but Vander Zalm blocked it and instead forced the sale to the newly formed Hong Kong Bank of Canada. VanCity happened to be run by Bob's son at the time.

I remember Bill Bennett winning an election mainly on the strength of giving everyone 5 shares in BRIC, giving you something you already owned. Oddly enough, almost everything BRIC owned was bought by Barrett's NDP. I still have my shares, do you? Not like they were worth much within about a year of Bill's election.

There has been a litany of lousy governance in BC (one could draw a Quebec parallel here, but that's for another time) and it has not been limited to party lines.

BUT, if you want to believe that you know more about the history of politics in BC than I, I'll be happy to take you on.

I'm going to stay away from the economic theories you're talking about, because although I can claim familiarity, no way I'd make it to a Reach For The Top team about that.

But, I will point out that there is some evidence to indicate the present banking problem in the US has its genesis in Clinton's refusal to uphold a 1933 law and allow merchant banks and commercial banks to merge (gee, wonder why no Canadian bank has yet failed?), the first instance of which occurred in 1997. If you can't figure out which bank, it's the one that has laid off 53,000 people.

My personal belief is one of helping those who need it, not those who just want it. Equality of opportunity, not equality of society. But hey, I thought Genghis Khan was soft on communism.

If you have a rebuttal it better be fast, I leave within 72 hours to go and fight in a foreign land and won't have time for the sort of things found on here.

[Hadji Ramjet]

I have to stroke my own ego by throwing a few things in here just to dump on the Lefties once more:

Not long after the Sudanese had the French come and get Carlos the Jackal, they asked the US to come and get bin Laden. Clinton declined and bin Laden moved to Afghanistan. Thanks a lot you dumbass lefty. After 1998 when bin Laden had flattened two US embassies and declared war on America, and Clinton could no longer ignore the problem so he could boff interns, three times bin Laden's location was identified and each time Clinton vetoed an attack. Thanks a lot you dumbass lefty, we could've skipped this whole thing, but nooooo.... Got (Allah?) forbid that a compound where the target is known to be might get hit because there's a child's swing in the yard. No children on the ISR kit, mind you, just a swing. And so we fight when we didn't need to.

Why is it that when a ship is taken off the Somali coast, the question is always: where's the US Navy? Why not the Swedish or Norwegian or Finnish Navies, if they "tick along" so well? Might be important to note that not a single ship taken by the pirates flew an American flag, was destined to or came from and American port. Cuba's a wonderful "we're all one happy family, everyone's equal, let's sing kumb-by-ya" kind of place, must be ticking along just fine. Cuba sent a lot of troops into the bush wars in Africa, why aren't they standing up against this piracy? Cuba is a model of your anti-capitalist society, shouldn't they have the resources?

Screw it, as Grossman says: certain people run TO the sound of the gunfire.

[conehead]

I leave within 72 hours to go and fight in a foreign land

Going to kick some pirate butt?

[Canus Chinookus]

Political parties can't exist without the public tit?

Then be gone.

exactly. I am offended that a political party that I will never vote for is funded with my tax dollars. If you can't go out and bang on some doors and convince people that you need their money to support your quest for the PM's office, then you don't deserve to be a political party. What a bunch of pigs.

[Canus Chinookus]

Maybe a little levity is needed.....

you have got to be kidding, right?

[Don Hudson]

Hadji/P,

you seem to be claiming a halo effect and expect people to accept your word on faith in areas where you might better tread more carefully.

No halo intended, no expectation but I know both can creep in, unwanted. I take nothing personally.

BUT, if you want to believe that you know more about the history of politics in BC than I, I'll be happy to take you on.

I grew up in Westminster knowing those stories but you win, and I had a good laugh again, esp the gavel story. Never had BRIC shares as I left BC long before the issue.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of society.

We agree. Why then is it so complicated and for so long? Ghengis Kahn was a genius in his own time, but now?

Why beyond what you had? The information is not hard to find.

Interest vs. time.

[Guest rattler]

QUOTE (Hadji Ramjet @ Nov 29 2008, 01:42 AM)

I leave within 72 hours to go and fight in a foreign land 

Reg. force or rental? In either case, keep your head down and come back with all of your parts intact. Cheers

[J.O.]

Hadji:

Maybe you don't intend it, but you really can be an arrogant so and so. It confuses me because you also seem quite intelligent, and therefore should be able to remain respectful. There is no wiser or more reasoned member of this forum than Don, and IMHO you owe the man an apology. For heaven's sakes man, he thanked you for setting the record straight, and you respond with a full frontal assault on his character. Not once has he claimed to be all knowing and all seeing. Like yourself, he states his opinions elloquently, while always expressing a willingness to become better informed. If you ask me, his open and learning demeanour is how he became so wise.

[FireFox]

Great posts Hadji...stop by more often.

[handyman]

Hadji:

Maybe you don't intend it, but you really can be an arrogant so and so. It confuses me because you also seem quite intelligent, and therefore should be able to remain respectful. There is no wiser or more reasoned member of this forum than Don, and IMHO you owe the man an apology. For heaven's sakes man, he thanked you for setting the record straight, and you respond with a full frontal assault on his character. Not once has he claimed to be all knowing and all seeing. Like yourself, he states his opinions elloquently, while always expressing a willingness to become better informed. If you ask me, his open and learning demeanour is how he became so wise.

J.O.

Are we not all a little arrogant at times? It is however people like you that create this "halo effect" when you stroke one's ego, regardless of who, with statements you made above.

No apology is required as Don wishes to engage in an open discussion and one's skin had better be a little thicker than yours appears to be. He is knowledgeable however, he is not "all knowing" and appears to enjoy the competitive discussion.

Don, please don't get discouraged and adopt J.O.'s sentiment that anything is personal...it's just a hard-core discussion and if your skin is as thick as I think it is, you will press on. IMO, this thread is one of the most enlightening and enjoyable reading threads in a long time.

As for Hadji, I'm in his corner mate! Hell, he should become a political adviser.

[Guest rattler]

The following could almost be written by Don.

found on the internet

Yes, there is a huge gaping hole between intelligent and wise. This is a little complicated to explain so bear with me... I'll try to explain my understanding of it.

I find that there are these categories of intelligence...

1. street smarts

2. common sense

3. book smarts

4. emotional intelligence

5. wisdom

6. natural intelligence

So lets look at what each of these are and hopefully this will explain to you what kind of intelligence you have. From what I read, I believe you are likely emotionally intelligent, have common sense, and perhaps some street smarts. You are wise if you know how to use them.

Street Smarts - Practical knowledge, especially concerning human behavior.

Common Sense - Practical judgment or understanding of something, arrived at by taking other factors into account.

Book Smarts - Quickness and ease in learning by provided (possibly complex) information.

Emotional Intelligence - A combination of various skills such as self awareness, self control, and empathy. (empathy is being able to place your self in someone else's shoes)

Wisdom - The trait of utilizing, combining, or applying knowledge, experience, common sense, understanding, and insight.

Natural Intelligence - Has an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work, strong individuality and imagination.

So... based on that, is that a little more clear what the differences are? People fall into different categories. They can be in more than one. They may be all of them, though those people are rare. Wisdom itself doesn't require knowing what e=mc2 is. It does however, require that you are in multiple categories and are able to use those for the benefit of yourself and others.

What you are describing of yourself is empathy. Emotional intelligence. Empathetic people can accurately perceive emotions in others as well as sense what others are feeling. These people are generally good at reading facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, and other signs of emotion. Empathetic people recognize what others are feeling without being told these emotions.

Now for example... should you combine emotional intelligence with natural intelligence and you are merging the ability to feel what other people feel with the ability to create. Music, poetry, art... all of these combine these two forms of intelligence to present something to the world that causes other people to feel what they feel. That evokes certain emotions, be it anger, fear, love, sadness, joy...

Did you know that the most successful people tend to be more emotionally intelligent than the average person? Being book smart is good... but it isn't the make or break you. It helps. It makes life easier. But being ignorant of book smarts doesn't mean you aren't intelligent.

[mrlupin]

exactly. I am offended that a political party that I will never vote for is funded with my tax dollars. If you can't go out and bang on some doors and convince people that you need their money to support your quest for the PM's office, then you don't deserve to be a political party. What a bunch of pigs.

I am curious....

If 1.95$ goes to party you voted for, why would you think YOU are funding the other parties? My 1.95 goes to who I voted for and your money goes to who you voted for...

Seems simple...

I am missing something here?? Maybe you are opposed to funding who you voted for?

[Mitch Cronin]

As for Hadji, I'm in his corner mate!  Hell, he should become a political adviser. 

Talk about halos! One of Hadji's truest comments: "I have to stroke my own ego" ... Ya don't say?

We're all little pieces of nothing in the end... All halo'd Hadji included. (Cliff Claven comes to mind)

... as for thick skin, this industry demands it, but all of us have our glass houses from time to time eh?

f 1.95$ goes to party you voted for, why would you think YOU are funding the other parties? My 1.95 goes to who I voted for and your money goes to who you voted for...

Seems simple...

.... Excellent question Eric!

[FireFox]

I am curious....

If 1.95$ goes to party you voted for, why would you think YOU are funding the other parties? My 1.95 goes to who I voted for and your money goes to who you voted for...

Seems simple...

I am missing something here?? Maybe you are opposed to funding who you voted for?

My question to you mrlupin is why in the world do you need government to do this for you?

Less government = good

More government = bad