More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[deicer]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/ladies_and_gentlemen_stephen_harper_is_beginning_to_panic

Ladies and gentlemen, Stephen Harper is beginning to panic

Did you notice anything a little off about Stephen Harper on Monday?

The first clue was a jittery tweet sent by the Conservative leader accusing the opposition of wanting to create "economic chaos," as well as floating the idea that the opposition wishes to run deficits until the end of time itself:

Harper, on the other hand, ran deficits for six years in a row.

And the second clue?

The Conservative Party hit send on an apocalyptic doomsday e-mail Sunday night using words like "weak," "fragile" and "turmoil" (in general) to describe the economy:

Weakness? Fragility? Turmoil?

What happened to the "strong economy" Harper used to talk about?

Who then is really responsible for this "weak" and "fragile economy"?

It looks like Harper may have created more weakness, fragility and turmoil than he's created jobs:

• Even as Canada headed into its second recession under Harper, corporate profits soared to a 27-year high.

• Harper's corporate tax breaks have not created quality jobs (those have hit a 25-year low), they've created a $680 billion pile of 'dead money' instead (fastest growing of any G7 country!).

• Corporate Canada's cash in offshore tax havens has exploded to $199 billion under Harper.

• Despite a drop in oil prices, Canada isn't rebuilding its manufacturing sector and so manufacturing jobs are dropping to near record lows as jobs continue to be exported out of the country.

• And despite what Jason Kenney says, Canada's entire economy has been taking a beating, not just the oil and gas sector.

• Canadian business investments in R&D is dead last in the G7.

• Since taking office in 2006, Harper boasts the lowest levels of economic growth and the worst job creation record of any Canadian Prime Minister in 69 years.

Just don't expect Harper to take any responsibility for bad news.

[Guest]

Reference the above post from "PressProgress". Hardly an unbiased source.

About

About: PressProgress produces hard-hitting progressive news and analysis. PressProgress is a media project of the Broadbent Institute.

Mandate: PressProgress is editorially independent. It operates under the Broadbent Institute's mandate and focuses on issues that fall broadly within the following categories: social and economic equality; green economy; and democratic renewal.

Commitment: PressProgress delivers news, analysis and commentary in an entertaining way. Though taking strong editorial positions, PressProgress is – first and foremost – driven by facts. All information presented by PressProgress is sourced and supported by links to credible and relevant online sources.

[deicer]

Ideology aside, what about the points raised?

• Even as Canada headed into its second recession under Harper, corporate profits soared to a 27-year high.

• Harper's corporate tax breaks have not created quality jobs (those have hit a 25-year low), they've created a $680 billion pile of 'dead money' instead (fastest growing of any G7 country!).

• Corporate Canada's cash in offshore tax havens has exploded to $199 billion under Harper.

• Despite a drop in oil prices, Canada isn't rebuilding its manufacturing sector and so manufacturing jobs are dropping to near record lows as jobs continue to be exported out of the country.

• And despite what Jason Kenney says, Canada's entire economy has been taking a beating, not just the oil and gas sector.

• Canadian business investments in R&D is dead last in the G7.

[boestar]

In a few years we will just be states 51 through 64.

[J.O.]

Reference the above post from "PressProgress". Hardly an unbiased source.

About

About: PressProgress produces hard-hitting progressive news and analysis. PressProgress is a media project of the Broadbent Institute.

Mandate: PressProgress is editorially independent. It operates under the Broadbent Institute's mandate and focuses on issues that fall broadly within the following categories: social and economic equality; green economy; and democratic renewal.

Commitment: PressProgress delivers news, analysis and commentary in an entertaining way. Though taking strong editorial positions, PressProgress is – first and foremost – driven by facts. All information presented by PressProgress is sourced and supported by links to credible and relevant online sources.

Why attack the messenger? No answers for the questions they raise?

[Fido]

This is the old "He is scary" under a new headline.

[Guest]

Why attack the messenger? No answers for the questions they raise?

Just following others.....

J.O.

7

• Donating Member
• 
• 6,032 posts

• Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2015 - 08:11 AM

The Calgary Sun writes a pro-Harper puff piece? I'm shocked.

Not.

It's also interesting that the Sun doesn't allow comments on their opinion pieces.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

Desiderius Erasmus

[dagger]

It is nice to see government being run responsibly.

Just because a budget has been set does not mean that the money MUST be spent. If departments can run for less then the government is doing a good job by spending less. I cannot countenance the idea that money must be spent just because it was authorized.

I heard many stories about wild, end of year spending at TCA just to get amount spent that had been authorized. The rational was that if the company did not spend it all they would get even less the next year. Vehicles were bought at the end of the year just to spend the money, not because new vehicles were needed. Business trips were taken just to get it on the books for the following year. Overtime was encouraged just to keep the budget up. Air Canada got over that sick mentality and now the government has seen some rehabilitation too.

Trudeau bleating that the surprise surplus came about because program spending was cut is unbelievable and can only come from someone who has always had more money than needed. I applaud the government for not spending every dollar in the budget.

No, it doesn't have to be spent, but when there is a conscious effort not to make good on programs that have been approved in the budget, and when the amount of non-spending is exaggerated - apparently for no other good reason than to make a political target - then it is more than fair to cite the consequences to the economy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/economic-prudence-or-cuts-by-stealth-federal-departments-left-8-7-billion-unspent-last-year

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said he had no doubt the Conservative government ordered senior public servants to “put the brakes” to spending to ensure a surplus during the election campaign. “It’s a big chunk of spending,” he said. “And it’s not easy for a lot of the departments.”

Page, who now teaches at the University of Ottawa, said lapsed funding has a direct impact on Canadians, and whoever wins the election will face a difficult situation that may involve either re-opening the taps or making more cuts.

“They’re going to look at that spending framework and say, ‘Is this sustainable?’” he said. “Is the Coast Guard going to function the way it should function? Are we going to have the sort of food inspection we need? Are we going to be able to get the cheques out the door for seniors and unemployed people?”

When money is allocated and unspent, it has a number of undesirable consequences. The capital withdrawn from the market means reduced spending and job creation in the economy. For example, if a road scheduled for repaving is not repaved, the road crew that would have done the job doesn't get the work, doesn't get paid for the work, has less money to spend at Canadian Tire or McDonalds, so Canadian Tire and McDonalds hire less help.

And of course, the condition of that roadway gets worse. The need to repave it doesn't go away.

Canada has a massive infrastructure deficit at all levels.

http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/services/deals/infrastructure-project-finance/financing-the-future.html

If money is allocated but not spent, the need doesn't go away.

And if departments deliberately underfund the services they are supposed to provide, there is a direct link to services to veterans that are not provided, refugee processing services that develop enormous backlogs, huge security lineups at airports, etc. We pay in different ways for underfunded services, including via an economy that is seriously underperforming.

[Fido]

Wow Dagger:

You really have the Liberal mantra down 100%

The brakes went on years ago not just for this election. My daughter is a fed in Ottawa. Three and a half years ago she was hired to fill a one month contract just to get a particular job done. With the news of redundancies she did not have much hope for a permanent position. Now she has been made permanent and received a promotion to a higher level but all of those position have vanished. She was never laid off for even one day. Attrition handles the people but government expenditures are way down.

The same way that things are handled in the commercial world.

[Guest tailwheel]

 

Ideology aside, what about the points raised?

• Even as Canada headed into its second recession under Harper, corporate profits soared to a 27-year high.

• Harper's corporate tax breaks have not created quality jobs (those have hit a 25-year low), they've created a $680 billion pile of 'dead money' instead (fastest growing of any G7 country!).

• Corporate Canada's cash in offshore tax havens has exploded to $199 billion under Harper.

• Despite a drop in oil prices, Canada isn't rebuilding its manufacturing sector and so manufacturing jobs are dropping to near record lows as jobs continue to be exported out of the country.

• And despite what Jason Kenney says, Canada's entire economy has been taking a beating, not just the oil and gas sector.

• Canadian business investments in R&D is dead last in the G7.

De-Icer,

as I have pointed out, most of your information posted has been at best misleading or straight out misinformation. For example, you post an ad where someone spits on a backpack with a Canadian flag. I counter it with a credible survey showing Canada as THE most respected country in the world.

You make a post about how the left wing parties are the responsible ones making budget cuts using Greece as an example when the Syriza party created an economic crisis and was FORCED to make budget cuts by Germany or go bankrupt and exit the EU. I point out that the Conservative party in Canada refused opposition calls to throw billions of our money at supporting the Greeks a few years ago.

Now you post this information which I can try to discuss but I'll admit that there are some areas of which I am not at all familiar.

First, there is the statement that corporate profits are at a 27 year high. Is this a problem? Would you prefer that they are at a 27 year low as being something better. Seeing as having profitable corporations in Canada might be a good way to attract more corporations and the jobs they provide, does it occur to you this could be a good thing as they may invest that money in expansion creating more jobs? Lets talk about a corporation that we are all familiar with...WestJet. They now have record profits and are expanding creating a lot of new jobs. A lot of posters on this forum work for them and share in the profits directly but also with good paying jobs. I know that you seem to like the Syriza party in Greece as you posted earlier, but I think that Canada's model is a bit better.

It is correct that not only oil and gas is being affected by this minor recession. The price of many natural resources has gone down with gold being a good example. When people are laid off in these industries, it affects other industries. Is this a surprise to you. Fortunately when the economic reports came out last month it showed a reverse in trend with expansion in June. But even if it didn't, have you not been able to figure out at your age that regardless of which party is in power, there will be recessions due to outside factors? Or are you just intent on misleading as we see so much from both opposition parties.

Does it not occur to you that when the Liberal government implements policies that create massive electricity costs for manufacturers such as in Ontario, that it takes away some of the advantage that is created by the low dollar and good jobs are lost in the manufacturing sector. Companies look at their costs and when they see big price increases in their costs, they look at alternatives. Good bye jobs.

Canada's business investments are the lowest of the G7. Has it not occurred to you that when we are the smallest economy of a the G7 countries that our numbers will be smaller than most if not all the other countries. Do you think our business investment will come close to Britain, France, US, Germany, or Japan? Do you not try to look deeper into these statements and ask yourself why?

I can't comment on the offshore tax information you gave but based on virtually all of you previously posted opinions and information, I suspect that there is a reasonable explanation for that as well.

There is nothing wrong with stating that you want certain changes in how the country is run. A lot of people would like a more socialist model of government whether it is raising taxes to spend more on a large number of programs or our civil servants quality of life, a more compassionate country airlifting 50,000 refugees here by Christmas, etc.

But please base the arguments on facts.

[deicer]

I guess it's all in how you interpret the numbers.

If Corporations are doing so well, why doesn't it trickle down to the average person? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Instead, they are sitting on money, or offshoring it to hoard it. You didn't argue those points.

As pointed out earlier, balancing a budget is a good thing if all essentials are taken care of.

Unfortunately, if you take Toronto as an example, cutting infrastructure spending to balance a budget is not a good thing. The roads are terrible, the water mains are breaking even in the summer now, the hydro lines are falling apart, but the taxes are low! So who benefits?

This is happening on a national basis now.

Ontario under Harris downloaded costs to the cities. All these years later we are seeing how it manifests itself. Harper is doing it to the nation.

The bill will be paid eventually, but the interest charges that are piling up now are what need to be addressed.

But I guess you're doing OK.

[deicer]

http://abacusdata.ca/the-race-for-24-sussex/

[Guest tailwheel]

I guess it's all in how you interpret the numbers.

If Corporations are doing so well, why doesn't it trickle down to the average person? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Instead, they are sitting on money, or offshoring it to hoard it. You didn't argue those points.

As pointed out earlier, balancing a budget is a good thing if all essentials are taken care of.

Unfortunately, if you take Toronto as an example, cutting infrastructure spending to balance a budget is not a good thing. The roads are terrible, the water mains are breaking even in the summer now, the hydro lines are falling apart, but the taxes are low! So who benefits?

This is happening on a national basis now.

Ontario under Harris downloaded costs to the cities. All these years later we are seeing how it manifests itself. Harper is doing it to the nation.

The bill will be paid eventually, but the interest charges that are piling up now are what need to be addressed.

But I guess you're doing OK.

I gave you an excellent example of a corporation doing well that we can all relate to where the money is not only trickling down, it is raining down on employees...WestJet. I realize that it is only one company but I wanted to use an example that is close to all of us.

I can't comment on offshoring, I don't have much info on the subject and won't pretend to be knowledgeable about it. But if corporations see an investment where they can get a reasonable return,I think they will at least be tempted to invest. I am not sure what Trudeau or Mulcair have as a policy to prevent this "hoarding" that you are talking about, but if you have an idea aside from raising taxes, how about letting us know.

Balancing a budget if "all essentials are taken care of" is an interesting statement. What are the essentials. Throwing more money at the natives with no oversight as Trudeau who met up with Chief Spence seems to want to do(Martin called her a role model for Canadians). Is the Ontario Liberal style(Justin campaigns with Wynne) of massively increasing government worker pay part of the essentials?

Is spending billions on Green energy and transferring billions more to third world countries as the other two wanted to do with Kyoto part of the essentials? What about paying so many to work a full 10 weeks a year and then collect pogey? The other two were willing to spend big sums for the Toronto summer Olympics, another typical sinkhole. Is that essential. What about airlifting 25,000 refugees here before Christmas? Was it essential to send billions over to prop up Greece as the other two wanted to do.

The list of opposition essentials goes on and on.

And guess what? Yesterday Naomi Klein and other Friends of the NDP posted their manifesto to end carbon use in 30 years or so. How will that help corporations and your pension when it gets cut off as AC/WJ/other aviation employers are grounded.

[deicer]

The only comment I will make is that if the economy is so good, then my friends who have lost their jobs should get gainful employment soon, my friends children will get jobs that will sustain our society as we retire, and it will be affordable to live in this country.

All things I do not see happening with the current government.

That is why I worry.....

[Guest tailwheel]

If your friends want work, they will be working soon. It may be a temporary bridge job until the desired job comes along but they will be working and contributing. If they are picky, then the taxpayers will end up subsidizing them.

Please provide more detail about where your friends were working and where they have applied for work. This could be an excellent case study on unemployment and not being able to find work.

More details please.

[FireFox]

Is this the NDP's "hidden agenda"?

Leap Manifesto and Stephen Lewis

>>>>>

The document defines austerity as “a threat to life on earth.” It recommends abandoning the vast wheat fields of the Prairies in favour of “localized” organic farms.

Canada must implement a “universal basic annual income.” Any and all fossil fuel production must be forced out of business within a generation. “All trade deals” must be ended.

The manifesto is essentially a shortlist of everything NDP leader Tom Mulcair has been carefully avoiding in his bid to convince voters that social democrats aren’t nearly as scary as the Conservatives say they are.

But nobody appears to have told that to the dozens of prominent NDP supporters who signed the thing. Or Lewis, who publicly said that the document is essentially NDP policy.

“For the New Democrats, it’s an extension of the kinds of things they’ve been talking about,” he said.

<<<<<

[flyinghigh]

Apparently they want to stop mass farm production. That will good for feeding the world.

Still want the NDP in power with its large number of Leap manifesto believers.

[Guest]

I will be tuning in at 1930 EDT but will not check the twit on twitter: I would rather see what the BLOC leader has to say.

Not included in debate, Elizabeth May to participate via Twitter

Published Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:27PM EDT

While Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will not be in Calgary's Stampede Park with her rival federal leaders for Thursday night’s economy debate, she still hopes to take part.

Twitter has provided May with a platform where she can answer the same questions faced by NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

The social media company plans to quickly film May's responses and retorts in a Victoria church and post them to Twitter.

"I won't just be tweeting in response, I'll be actually answering the questions," May said in an appearance on CTV's Power Play on Thursday.

(I am) participating at some distance, but perhaps we can make our way into the old boys club yet.

Mulcair, Harper and Trudeau were invited to by the Globe and Mail to Calgary to discuss economic issues.

Twitter's Steve Ladurantaye will be helping May even the playing field and get her voice heard online alongside the other leaders.

The idea is to reach Canadians who will be watching the debate, while simultaneously looking online for instant analysis.

However, May didn't isn't shying away from taking jabs at the Globe and Mail event, which she called a "bogus, corporate, private debate."

Despite May's exclusion, Sean Humphrey, the Globe and Mail's vice-president of marketing, has defended the debate's format.

May has also been left off the podium at the Munk Debates on foreign policy in Toronto and a French-language debate on TVA.

The Green Party Leader criticized Harper and Mulcair for their plans to skip the traditional televised leader's debate, which is scheduled for Oct. 7.

[Guest]

Imperfect Harper just might make history 478

David Akin BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2015 06:55 PM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2015 07:01 PM EDT

OTTAWA — There is an interesting line in one of the new campaign ads from the Conservatives.

The ad runs down the NDP and Liberals and then a female actor says, “Stephen Harper isn’t perfect but when it comes to the economy, we can depend on him.”

For a party that has so steadfastly refused to admit any of its shortcomings over nearly a decade in power this is a remarkable admission.

But it may also be a politically canny one that could pay off at the ballot box on October 19.

Ontario voters may remember a television ad the Ontario Liberals used in the 2011 provincial election. The polls, at the time, showed a tight two-way race between Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals and Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives. But the polls also showed that McGuinty was a drag on his party’s numbers, that he had become personally unpopular with voters.

So early on in the campaign, the Ontario Liberals rolled out a TV ad in which McGuinty, alone against a white background, smiled sheepishly at the camera and confessed: “Well, the polls tell us I’m not the most popular guy in the country. I accept that.”

But then he said, “Doing what’s right is not always doing what’s popular.”

It was a heckuva gamble by the Liberal war room but it paid off.

They ran a sharp campaign. Their opponent, Hudak, made some mistakes. And McGuinty won his third consecutive term, something no Liberal in Ontario had done for more than 100 years. In fact, he came one seat shy of winning a majority.

Harper, too, is trying to pull off a rare historic feat and win four consecutive elections, something only done twice in our history and then it was done by a couple of guys named Macdonald and Laurier.

And Harper’s trying to do it using a bit of the same basic pitch that McGuinty used to great effect in the 2011 Ontario election, namely concede that you haven’t done everything as perfectly as you would have wished — Harper said as much in that leaders’ debate Thursday — then convince the electorate that you got the big important things right while warning voters that taking a gamble on the other guys just isn’t worth the risk.

But what are those imperfections to which the Conservative campaign has confessed? I’ve got three.

The first, perhaps oddly enough, is the energy file. As NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair noted in that Thursday debate, not a single new kilometre of pipeline has been built while Harper was prime minister. Our Western oil remains largely landlocked.

Harper, of course, is quite right to say it’s up to private sector companies to propose, finance and build these things. But if Harper wins, perhaps he could take a cue from Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod who has quietly forged considerable consensus among government, First Nations communities and environmental activists to create some winning conditions for resource development in the Western Arctic.

The second imperfection is defence spending. You won’t hear Mulcair or Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau pushing Harper to boost spending on our military but our allies are taking note that we’re not pulling our weight here.

We’re now spending just 1.5% of GDP on defence. That’s 8th worst among our NATO allies and well below the commitment we made to NATO to spend 2% of GDP on the military. Our navy is in desperate shape. Our search-and-rescue capability is as bare bones as it gets.

And finally, there’s the issue of Harper and the Conservatives failing to play nice with others. Harper personally can be warm, generous, and compassionate. That was most obvious the day after the terrorist attack on Parliament Hill. But the standard operating procedure for his party is to use an often vicious scorched-earth policy against any critic or opposition.

Harper is never going to be touchy-feely everyday in public — and no one wants that — but a Conservative government that takes a bit more of an adult, intelligent approach to criticism would be welcome.

No, he’s not perfect. But with less than 30 days to go in this campaign, Stephen Harper — warts and all — has an excellent chance to set the same record as Sir John and Sir Wilfrid.

[Don Hudson]

It's contradictory to use of the phrase, "excellent chance" (last sentence in the story), given the present polls. Perhaps even-chance, but "excellent" is a pound, er, kilo of blush.

I think too, that the article is considerably over-optimistic regarding Mr Harper's ability to build a McLeod-like consensus. Clearly it can be done by some, perhaps even many, but I don't think Mr Harper has the will, the desire and the personal qualities to do so, nor does he show any signs of wanting to build consensus. In the same vein, his government has never accepted "an adult, intelligent approach to criticism" and, should he be re-elected, we have no basis to believe things would change there either.

[Guest]

It's contradictory to use of the phrase, "excellent chance" (last sentence in the story), given the present polls. Perhaps even-chance, but "excellent" is a pound, er, kilo of blush.

I think too, that the article is considerably over-optimistic regarding Mr Harper's ability to build a McLeod-like consensus. Clearly it can be done by some, perhaps even many, but I don't think Mr Harper has the will, the desire and the personal qualities to do so, nor does he show any signs of wanting to build consensus. In the same vein, his government has never accepted "an adult, intelligent approach to criticism" and, should he be re-elected, we have no basis to believe things would change there either.

Mind you the other parties have never demonstrated "an adult, intelligent approach to criticism" either. That does not seem to be an attribute of any Political party or present day governments..

[Guest]

Have to agree with scrapping the F35 but can not quite believe a Liberal who will build up our armed forces.

Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 program, use savings to increase navy spending

By Staff The Canadian Press

HALIFAX – Liberal party Leader Justin Trudeau says if elected his government would not purchase F-35 fighter jets and instead buy planes at a lower cost to replace the military’s aging aircraft.

Trudeau says the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Liberal leader made the comments Sunday at Pier 21 in Halifax, a National Historic Site and home to the Canadian Museum of Immigration.

He said a Liberal government would use an open process to procure new fighter planes and the money saved would go towards buying icebreakers and surface combatants for the navy.

The Conservative government had planned on purchasing 65 F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force but the procurement process was put on hold after the auditor general accused the government of fudging project costs and not doing sufficient research.

The purchase would have cost taxpayers an estimated $44 billion over its four-decade lifetime.

Trudeau said he would also immediately launch a review of military spending but promised to maintain current National Defence funding levels as well as planned increases.

© The Canadian Press, 2015

[flyinghigh]

It's contradictory to use of the phrase, "excellent chance" (last sentence in the story), given the present polls. Perhaps even-chance, but "excellent" is a pound, er, kilo of blush.

I think too, that the article is considerably over-optimistic regarding Mr Harper's ability to build a McLeod-like consensus. Clearly it can be done by some, perhaps even many, but I don't think Mr Harper has the will, the desire and the personal qualities to do so, nor does he show any signs of wanting to build consensus. In the same vein, his government has never accepted "an adult, intelligent approach to criticism" and, should he be re-elected, we have no basis to believe things would change there either.

I completely agree that Harper has used a scorched-earth policy when it comes to opposition criticism. In fact, he has treated the other parties exactly the way that they have treated him. For some reason, they seem to get angry at being treated in a similar manner. How strange.

Aside from all the vitriol hurled by his opponents and returned in similar manner, one of the most frustrating examples was the Afghanistan file. I can respect the NDP position. They are, were and always will be opposed to such a thing and have not wavered. Fine. But the Liberals sent the troops over there and gave us all their reasons for doing so, something that was not necessarily popular with Canadians. As soon as they were removed from power, they became one of the most vocal critics of the very mission they started, all no doubt due to an analysis of what they thought would be most popular.

[Fido]

Chretin sent Canadian troop to Afghanistan because he did not want to send then to Iraq.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm really quite surprised to see so many dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives show how truly ignorant they are as this campaign rolls along.... not just ignorant of truth, but apparently blissfully ignorant of truth! ... acting as though they were born yesterday....? ...or is it that they would have the rest of us believe they were born yesterday?... Lol