Canadian politics maybe getting interesting!

[purpleoscar]

So true.

This poster is completely out of touch with reality, economics, and looking at this thread I may even know more about the workings going on within his countries own political parties...

It's just theories(which often he doesn't even understand) and mantras...

We have more government than you do and we still have higher unemployment and homeless. That's something you're going to have to figure out.

And how can I be out of touch if you agree about the role of saving money in the economy? If you agree with Krugman then you should spend as much as you can.

You're just a lazy poster that criticizes others but offers no worldview because you're afraid of getting criticized yourself. You also target me as "this poster" like I'm some weirdo because you understand that I can actually influence people with decent arguments compared to the average left-wing poster who thinks everybody should be left wing. I may be out of touch with left-wingers but I'm not out of touch with reality.

 

[Diemen]

Such humility.

You also target me as "this poster" like I'm some weirdo because you understand that I can actually influence people with decent arguments compared to the average left-wing poster who thinks everybody should be left wing.

Perhaps it would be best if you stopped putting words into other people's mouths and stopped speaking about other people's intentions as if you know their thoughts.

And that goes for everyone here.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That was a legitimate statement, one with an element of truth, purpleoscar has offered more articles and original posts with new content advocating free markets (rather than state supported monopolies like most people) without being pissy or rude.

 

[BVS]

We have more government than you do and we still have higher unemployment and homeless. That's something you're going to have to figure out.

Your point?

And how can I be out of touch if you agree about the role of saving money in the economy? If you agree with Krugman then you should spend as much as you can.

I agree that saving is the responsible thing to do whenever possible, but you make it the end all be all, you've even gone as far as saying it creates jobs, which no economist in their right mind would agree.

You're just a lazy poster that criticizes others but offers no worldview because you're afraid of getting criticized yourself.

I'm not sure where you've been, but I constantly offer my worldview.

You also target me as "this poster" like I'm some weirdo because you understand that I can actually influence people with decent arguments compared to the average left-wing poster who thinks everybody should be left wing.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in here in awhile.

I may be out of touch with left-wingers but I'm not out of touch with reality.

Oh, so anyone in financial hardship is now automatically left wing? This is why you come off as out of touch with reality. Your answer to Lila the other week, is why you seem out of touch with reality. The fact that you don't know the difference in some of your own political parties is why you come off as out of touch with reality. The list goes on and on...

 

[anitram]

Well, Harper blinked, as I suspected. Now he's pushed the vote a week (to next Monday) realizing that he bit off more than he could chew. Pretty embarrassing.

At this stage, the opposition parties can sense the blood in the water and the way things are going may bring down to government irrespective of what Harper does.

He has only himself to blame.

 

[purpleoscar]

Well, Harper blinked, as I suspected. Now he's pushed the vote a week (to next Monday) realizing that he bit off more than he could chew. Pretty embarrassing.

At this stage, the opposition parties can sense the blood in the water and the way things are going may bring down to government irrespective of what Harper does.

He has only himself to blame.

I like the idea that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to provide funds to political parties. I also like the idea of waiting to see if the bailout in the U.S. actually works (so far lending is still tight and people are still paying off debt before they will borrow to buy more). If the left thinks we should just throw lots taxpayers money all over the place the deficit will have to be taken care of with higher taxes or spending cuts in the future which will cause controversy either way.

We will see. It's a minority government.

 

[anitram]

Do you believe that it's prudent in these difficult times that our Prime Minister's main goal seems to be to agitate the opposition by threatening to bankrupt them? Is this $28 million, which is an amount that our government spends every hour of every day, by the way, the crucial thing that will pull us out of the recession? Or is it that Harper's thirst for power got him to do something incredibly stupid that has been panned by even the most unlikely sources?

You can reasonably agree that taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill. But if you think that this was done in the name of the taxpayer and not in the name of politicking of the most brazen kind, then you are extremely naive.

And if you do realize that it was nothing but politicking, then I can't understand how you think it would be acceptable to alienate all the opposition when you have a minority government and when the times are so unstable that you have no choice but to work with the opposition for the good of the country.

Harper's brazeness is so outrageous here that he deserves to get the boot for it.

 

[purpleoscar]

Your point?

Why hasn't government wiped out poverty in Canada already? We have more social programs, so where are the results? In Sweden they have poor except they keep them off the street but they are still poor. Putting four walls around them doesn't mean the problem is gone. I want as many able bodied people to have self-esteem and to perservere. If you're not medically ill and are capable of doing some work there is opportunity in North America.

Most people only have a number of years to pay off a mortgage, raise kids, and save for retirement. It goes by fast. It's a window of opportunity that can be missed.

I agree that saving is the responsible thing to do whenever possible, but you make it the end all be all, you've even gone as far as saying it creates jobs, which no economist in their right mind would agree.

How can you have a business without capital savings from individuals and spending from individuals? Consumer goods come from capital assets like Buildings and Machinery. Most companies can't pay for large assets like that without loans from the bank. The bank can't loan you money without savers at the other end saving and investing, unless the central bank creates money by lending to the banks which is inflationary. You need to read some more economists that aren't totally Keynesian. I think even some Keyensians would agree with some of what I'm talking about. Classic Keyensian economics expects deficits to be paid back during the recovery. But in practice that's remained elusive without unpopular spending cuts.

What happens to the economy when people don't have savings for retirement? The taxpayer gets extra burdens to pay for it. In the U.S. at least you guys have some children. In Canada we have less than 2 kids per family so we better open the flood gates of immigration. Yet that doesn't answer the problem because many go on programs right away and many are not that young. New Zealand in the '90's got into a crisis when their generous entitlements couldn't be paid because there wasn't enough taxes they could collect to do so. So what did they do? They cut benefits and for some people they had to go back to work despite being retired. I'm trying to establish limits to government. There are many wide eyed people who think the government is like Superman and completely credulous.

YouTube - Child Poverty in Canada

Look at this video. I thought the poverty programs were supposed to eliminate poverty. These pleas for government assistance even when answered never solve the problem. No sociologist ever asks the question about parents and their spending habits. Yet changes in spending habits lead to better results and faster results for those who aren't debilitated.

Look at this video during the War on poverty in the U.S. It's dated but there are many good points that still work today.

Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing

The reason why I harp on savings is that I want people to be proactive in their lives and realize much of their success comes from themselves. Whether you notice it or not, many people throughout the world believe in "the great leader" in saving them from their plight. I don't want people to rely on those guys. I want people to rely on themselves. What happened to the American way of "Live free or die!"? People in the past used to be energized by trying to improve their lives as individuals and to teach their kids morals that allowed for that success to happen. It's all laughed at now. People like Spike Lee look at the Republican party as "Father knows best" and "Leave it to beaver." I understand that people may not care and vote for left-wing parties for gay marriage and such but as you can see in the "Are you a socialist?" thread it's not only social issues that motivate this political preference.

I'm not sure where you've been, but I constantly offer my worldview.

You offer few posts longer than a couple of lines in responding to me mostly to talk about why I'm out of touch or that my posts are just misguided without any particular elaboration or detail that would further discussion. That's why it looks to me like it's intended as a way to stop conversation.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in here in awhile.

Calling me out of touch with no elaboration or counter-arguments with some depth gives me that impression.

Oh, so anyone in financial hardship is now automatically left wing? This is why you come off as out of touch with reality. Your answer to Lila the other week, is why you seem out of touch with reality. The fact that you don't know the difference in some of your own political parties is why you come off as out of touch with reality. The list goes on and on...

She said she didn't want to hear about savings from me when I was talking to other posters. My post to Lila was looking at what she said and that if she can work and she feels squeezed I thought a student loan could improve her chances of higher income. If her medical condition prevents her from doing this then I'm not against her getting government assistance. I'm not an ultra-libertarian, but I'm aware that many healthy people have horrible finances that lead them to reliance on government and looking to government for the solution. (Look at Obama's commercial). If Lila is able to keep up a mortgage then she is technically saving anyways because that money goes towards something that has value in retirement. Good for her! Not all my posts are perfect and I'm trying to make them better and add more articles and detail per your many requests.

In regards to knowing my political parties in Canada I think my posts obviously show that I do. If the Green party wants to spend a whole ton of money more than NDP and say they are somehow quite conservative compared to them then I don't have to believe what they say. Elizabeth May was trying to defend stupid arts programs that yielded little showing her true colors. Harper didn't even cut that much. You'd think it was the end of the world in those debates.

Ka-ching, ka-ching: Spending promises by party

Quick rough add:

New spending promises:

Green 40 billion
NDP 18 billion
Liberals 14 billion
Conservatives 4 billion

The NDP was closer to Liberals this time out because Jack layton was getting good polling numbers and wanted to see if he could be the leader of the opposition instead of Dion. Some in CBC media were talking about him wanting to be a new Tony Blair.

If you add the Bloc that is 4 left wing parties. It's not even in the interest of the left to divide their vote and I still champion a two party system. I want clear choices that can be clearly judged by the electorate. There's so much competition on the left I don't see the Green party increasing much in votes.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Just last week in Peru Harper said more spending and a deficit would be necessary to properly address this economic crisis and yet we saw nothing of the sort yesterday.
Flaherty and his boss don't seem to be on the same page

 

[purpleoscar]

Just last week in Peru Harper said more spending and a deficit would be necessary to properly address this economic crisis and yet we saw nothing of the sort yesterday.
Flaherty and his boss don't seem to be on the same page

Harper had a meeting with economists recently and he said they told him not to be afraid of deficits. In the election Conservatives were attacked for having a smaller surplus, and on CBC last week liberals were talking about attacking the Conservatives for having a deficit. Now that Harper has made his move the left can't attack the idea of a deficit because it would go against their criticism of no new stimulus package.

The problem with deficits is paying them back later when the recession is over. It's unpopular to do. At least Canada has paid down some overall debt so they aren't in the same position as the U.S. If the U.S. keeps going into double digit trillions of debt foreigners could sell their bonds and go elsewhere leaving the U.S. with no choice but to massively increase taxes to pay the bondholders or print money devaluing the currency.

What the left is most worried about is having a Bloc Quebecois losing their tax payer funded campaigns. More seats could go conservative or liberal. This is the chance for Layton to attempt to be prime minister if they take over without another election.

Interesting times.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Well, perhaps if the Tories hadn't eliminated 2% of the GST we'd have a little more wiggleroom

 

[anitram]

More from the National Post, which is the right wing national paper:

Mr. Harper reacted like the boy who pokes the dog with a stick and then complains about being bitten. "The Opposition is working on an agreement in back corridors to reverse the result of the last election, without the consent of voters.... They want to put in place as prime minister someone [Stephane Dion] who was rejected by the voters of Canada only six weeks ago."

Mr. Harper has only himself to blame for his dilemma. It seems highly unlikely that we would be in this sorry state had his hubris not pushed him to try to beggar the opposition parties by cutting their public subsidy.

The Liberals say that their visceral reaction has nothing to do with political funding issue and that the primary concern is the lack of stimulus in the fiscal update that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty brought down this week. "[Mr. Harper] said in Peru that it's time for major fiscal stimulus but while he speaks like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he acts like Calvin Coolidge," said Liberal MP John McCallum.

Whatever their protestations, there's a good rule of thumb that says when an MP tells you it's not about the money and that it's about the principle, then it's really about the money. The government has already said that it will bring down a budget within a matter of weeks and that there will be fiscal stimulus in that budget. Quite how a period of political instability, perhaps including a general election, would expedite that process remains unclear.

What is becoming clear is that Mr. Harper's power grab has rebounded on him. It led Jack Layton to ask former NDP leader Ed Broadbent to get in touch with former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien and see if there was any common ground between the parties. It turns out there was -- everyone wanted to get rid of Mr. Harper. Having reached that conclusion, the idea gained momentum and now Mr. Harper's fate is no longer in his own hands.

About says it all.

 

[purpleoscar]

Well, perhaps if the Tories hadn't eliminated 2% of the GST we'd have a little more wiggleroom

Perhaps if we had less waste in government there would be more wiggle room

Perhaps if Liberals used their massive surpluses of over taxation during the boom when government revenues were optimal and paid down more debt we would have less debt interest to pay giving us more wiggle room

Liberals supporting the GST

 

[purpleoscar]

More from the National Post, which is the right wing national paper:



About says it all.

More from the National Post, which is the right wing national paper:

About says it all.

Izzy Asper owns it so it's not that "right wing" and the article treats politics like it's sports. If the left take over they will have responsibilities and they won't go away because they did some manuver. It's ultimately not who wins but what policies get put in place. If the left want a deficit and to implement Green Shift they will be judged by those policies. The U.S. is in a huge deficit and overall debt and I don't see their stimulus actually saving jobs. You can have low interest rates and government spending and still have unemployment. Embarrassing Harper ignores policy completely and shows people looking at politics like it's an episode of Survivor. The conservatives simply said they will do a stimulus when they need it instead of following Bush and Obama over a cliff.

Another thing. If Harper just did a stimulus during the budget do you think that there wouldn't be any criticism of Harper for incurring a deficit? I know the liberals were saying that they were getting ready to criticize the budget because of the deficit. Harper didn't give them that option and now they have to criticize something else.

Nobody ever vets blame for consistency. That's why a lot of people get turned off by politics.

What would be interesting to see is the public's reaction to a new left wing coalition.

 

[melon]

I have nothing to say, except I've enjoyed reading this thread, for the most part. As a Canadian permanent resident, I can't vote anyway.

 

[anitram]

And the Tories have officially dropped the funding cut. I said right at the outset that Harper would change his mind before Monday and here you go. Now he looks dumb and weak at the same time.

 

[purpleoscar]

And the Tories have officially dropped the funding cut. I said right at the outset that Harper would change his mind before Monday and here you go. Now he looks dumb and weak at the same time.

Yeah that's a mistake. He should have cut the funding.

It would improve democracy to have all parties tailor their policies to attract campaign financing instead of taking it from the taxpayer. Conservatives don't want to lose their jobs over campaign financing. The Bloc and NDP would have to raise more money for advertising in future elections or change their platforms.

 

[purpleoscar]

I have nothing to say, except I've enjoyed reading this thread, for the most part. As a Canadian permanent resident, I can't vote anyway.

Yeah this thread was more fun than most. It's what happens when there's a minority government. Elections at least every 2 years if not sooner.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

But according to the Globe & Mail, despite Harper's reversal, looks like negotiations between the NDP and Liberals may be too far ahead to turn back now:

globeandmail.com: Tories reverse decision on political subsidies

I'm torn - I"d love to see the PM removed but I kind of hope the opposition gives up now that Harper's relented on the issue that really mattered to them (despite them paying lip service to the economy in general) ; last thing we need during this crisis is more political instability and less confidence in our market.

And Melon, just because you can't vote doesn't mean you can't voice your opinion

 

[anitram]

I think the problem is that now everyone in the opposition has concluded that Harper thinks he is going to rule like King Bush down south, with absolute disregard to compromise. Apparently he believes that getting 37% of the vote gives him a mandate to do whatever he pleases. Somewhere in there he forgot that we were a parliamentary democracy.

 

[purpleoscar]

Good I want the left to over reach.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Political schadenfreude.

We can't have that, now- can we?!??!?












If it happens, VP, you PM me, and we'll set a intercountry toast- you with the imbiable of your choice, and me with *Sparkling Apple Cider*

ALtho if you have a toast with me on Jan 21, or 22nd < depends on schedual> ( cause I'll BE in DC on the 1/20th - my sib is taking me to the swearing in! So I won't be around near a 'puter at that point., nor be carrying around stuff like that in the crowd )
I might have the *SpAC*, and buy the smallest, nicest champange mini-I can afford and add it to the SpAC take 3 sips, and then give the rest to someone else!

 

[anitram]

Really good, balanced article from the Globe & Mail today:

Public confidence that Stephen Harper can be anything other than a default leader has been badly shaken by the events of the past few days. Not only by the partisanship and cynicism in last week's economic update, but by the Prime Minister's shocking statement last Friday, in which he essentially set the stage for a constitutional crisis by denouncing the idea of an opposition coalition replacing his government as something akin to a coup d'état. It might not be politically palatable, but within the conventions of Parliament it does fall.

Mr. Harper has poisoned the well for this Parliament, and has contributed to the political destabilization of Canada during a great economic crisis. He's proven himself a party leader, and not a very able one at that, at a time when the country needs a national leader.

There are always opportunities for Mr. Harper to redeem himself by acting in the greater interest of the nation, but his total inattention at this point makes it doubtful he can overcome his reputation as a small-minded hyper-partisan. His government has correctly withdrawn its proposed cuts to public funding for political parties, a reform that may have merit but was completely inappropriate at this time. Other climb-downs appear to be following. But any retreat should be viewed as tactical and not principled.

That does not mean, however, that the interests of Canada during tumultuous times would be best served by a Liberal-NDP coalition, propped up by separatists. Such an unwieldy group would, at the least, need a very strong hand at the helm. The Liberals are presently in no position to provide one. They should be focused not on cobbling together an unholy alliance with sovereigntists and social democrats, as they are charging ahead with despite backtracking by the Conservatives over the weekend, but by moving in the short term to settle their own leadership questions.

After their abysmal showing in the Oct. 14 election, the Liberals should have replaced Stéphane Dion with an interim leader. And as the events of the past four days illustrate, the party does not have the luxury of a drawn-out leadership contest. May is too late. They must settle on a plan to expedite their choice, perhaps by putting the matter to a vote by their caucus, national executive and riding presidents.

It's too late to turn back the clock and allow a co-operative exercise in policy-making during an economic crisis. The Conservatives are almost entirely responsible for that. The antipathy they provoked will not, consequently, disappear. The current Parliament promises to be short and ugly, and the Liberal Party must ready itself to provide an alternative when the country is again forced to the polls.

But despite the events of the past few days, the Conservatives are better positioned to provide stable government than the alternative. They should be given another chance to make this Parliament work. If, however, they take that opportunity as licence to continue their pattern of behaviour, setting aside the country's interests in pursuit of their own, the opposition will be justified in defeating them at the next opportunity.

 

[Se7en]

I have nothing to say, except I've enjoyed reading this thread, for the most part. As a Canadian permanent resident, I can't vote anyway.

i concur. except for the part about being a canadian resident.

not to derail the thread, but would any canadian posters prefer the u.s. presidential system to your parliamentary system?

 

[BoMac]

i concur. except for the part about being a canadian resident.

not to derail the thread, but would any canadian posters prefer the u.s. presidential system to your parliamentary system?

No.

The main problem I have with our system is the first-past-the-post way of determining riding winners. In any given riding you'll have vote-splitting parties that allow another party to come right down the middle and win it. For example, in Quebec we have a choice of three centre-left parties and one right party, the Conservatives. In some cases, the right party will take the riding with 30 percent of the vote, even though two-thirds of the electorate voted for a party that's ideologically opposite the Conservatives.

This was also the case in Western provinces during the 90s that had two right-leaning parties that allowed the Liberals to win seats they probably wouldn't have otherwise.

I would much prefer to see an electoral system based on proportional representation.

That being said, in my opinion, I think the Canadian system is superior in that of the United States, at least with respect to the fact that the Prime Minister is accountable for his actions in the House of Commons on a daily basis. He has to explain his policies and actions directly to the Canadian electorate and answer questions directly from MPs—something the U.S. President does not have to do.

 

[anitram]

not to derail the thread, but would any canadian posters prefer the u.s. presidential system to your parliamentary system?

Not a chance.

I think your electoral college system is crooked.

Plus, there is no way we'd have had to put up with Bush for 8 years under our system.

 

[purpleoscar]

Dion, Layton sign coalition accord

The brutal politics continues. It's like I thought. There should only be one left-wing party. Why split into different parties when they have a common ground.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Really good, balanced article from the Globe & Mail today:

Great article and pretty much sums up how I feel.

Now that it's been confirmed Dion would head the coalition, I suspect there will be a public backlash between now and next Monday and the opposition will be brutally humiliated.

I don't like Harper but I think it's time they back off...

 

[anitram]

Should the NDP and Liberals merge, you'd likely see a leftist government here almost constantly. Until the CPC moved left, because Harper is too far right for the Canadian people as a whole and that is the truth that many refuse to face. They are Reform Lite.

To think that in time of fiscal crisis, with the Liberals having the most useless leader in decades who is, by the way, despised in Quebec, with the Bloc considerably underperforming and with Layton basically stuck in mud and unable to attain more seats election after election and a totally feckless Green Party led by a woman so dumb that she decided to run in McKay's riding, the Canadian people STILL did not want to give Harper a mandate to govern. This was his best chance at a majority and he didn't get it. His time as a leader is coming to an end, but if the Conservatives want to have a future they have to open their eyes and realize that the majority of Canadians don't want them to govern. Given the shift to the left down south, this will become even more pronounced.

The CPC is too conservative for most Canadians outside of Alberta. It remains to be seen whether they will shift closer to the principles of the old PC, which was quite a reasonable conservative party and not Republicans Lite.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

I agree with everything you posted but at the end of the day, Canadians didn't vote for a coalition - more voters voted for the Conservatives than any other party.
I know it's legal and well within their right but I'm not convinced it's warranted at this stage. The Tories caved on the one issue that really mattered to the opposition (public financing) so I'm not even sure on what grounds they're going to vote against the Conservatives come next Monday.
Some could say Flaherty's update didn't contain enough goodies to spur the economy but the budget will be announced in under 2 months, granted that might be too long of a wait but is that worth overthrowing the elected government?

I can't believe I'm defending the Conservatives