Skip navigation

A budget to drive spending

Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa to announce range of measures from tax breaks to interest relief on credit cards ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mac GLG from Canada writes: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty plans modest but permanent tax breaks for people in middle- and lower-income tax brackets, with one senior official saying the cuts will apply to those earning $80,000 a year or less.
    .
    .
    This is good news but really doesn't address family income. Two incomes at 75k will very well and a single income of 90k gets what. Assuming family size is equal it's not hadr to see where the benefit will be.

    I hope he takes a look at total family income of income splitting.
  2. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Every Liberal wants something for themselves .... buy the Liberals with a niche budget.
  3. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    What's the good of anouncing infrastructure spending when no money flows ??

    'the City of Toronto has not received a dime from the Conservatives' Canada Builds Project announced in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 budgets.'

    I am certain it's the same for most cities/ municiplaities ... . That's why they are griping about a useless announcement and more useless announcements.

    The COns are great at announcing CRAP but getting the money is another matter. If they insist 1/3rd of the project be locally financed it means property taxes must rise to pay for it.

    The COns also insist new projects be P3 projects which complicates things enormously, slows down projects and hikes costs to locals unnecesarily.

    That way the fedCOns get credit but locals in cities where 80 % of Canadians live will have to pay higher property taxes.

    Or provinces will be saddled with extra debt and deficit to pay their 1/3rd. Or maybe cut services. ...

    Just another cheap mikey harrisass trick. It's called downloading.

    mickey harrisass staff now have control in Ottawa eh ....
  4. m. r. from Canada writes: this 'budget show' by Conservatives proves how inept they are at governing Canada in an economic crisis! the worst is yet to come!
  5. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    ' The budget.. will also resolve the government's future, as opposition leaders decide whether to defeat the Tories and replace them with a Liberal-NDP coalition or force an election'

    Tiny note to writers: IF the budget is voted against, it is NOT the opposition Parties that will DECIDE to replace them with a coalition or an election. That will be at the discretion of the Governor General IF this budget confidence matter is defeated.
    .
  6. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    WTF? Credit card interest limits? That's definitely the stupidest idea I've read so far this month!

    Credit cards charge 0% interest. That's it. There is no cut needed or possible.

    The only people that pay more than 0% interest for more than a matter of days or weeks under dire circumstances are those that are totally clueless about personal finances. They are at severe risk of default and therefore banks NEED high interest rates to cover the potential loss.

    If banks can't charge a proper interest rate on those who are totally inept at personal finance than they will simply make back the money from all the rest of us through higher fees and reduce service. Responsible people will need to pay for the folly of the financially irresponsible.
  7. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Oh leave it alone carrierre.

    Everyone in the galaxie already knows stevie made the budget liberal proof.

    stevie dropped his trunks and made a liberal busget - as painful as it is for him - so he can keep his jobby.

    Just get over it ........

    BTW if you think all this money will ever get spent you are a dreamer.

    Infrastructure spending is nothing more than a downloading scheme anyway. Downloading to municiplaities with the fedOCns getting the credit and hype while local areas will be forced to hike property taxes to pay for their share.

    Read:

    'Baird said the government will favour projects ready to go immediately and that can't start without a federal infusion. He also said Ottawa prefers projects whose costs are shared by the provinces and municipalities.'

    CBC

    'Baird said the emphasis will be on projects that are ready to go either this year or next.
    Critics were quick to raise questions about whether the projects will receive proper environmental oversight or even whether the money will flow at all, given what they say is the Conservatives' track record of announcing money that is never spent.'
  8. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    there is a list of projects carrierre. Google it.

    YOU tell us why some of them are not already started ??

    I'll tell you why. The fedCOns announce stuff and never release the money !!! It's all a PR exercise.

    If you lived in Ontario carrierre during the mikeharrisass years you would understand this stuff perfectly.
  9. CallofDuty . from Toronto, Canada writes: Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    WTF? Credit card interest limits? That's definitely the stupidest idea I've read so far this month!
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Are you new to Canada? This is the one in a long line of stupid ideas from the government.
  10. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Well, beyond the sillyness of the credit card rules mentioned above (seriously people, there are about a bazillion credit cards out there, if you don't like the terms of one, get a different card!), it's a mix of good and bad.

    - Income tax cuts good. Ideally start by bumping up the personal exemption and then expand cuts throughout the line. It looks like only the bottom two tax brackets are getting cut here. It would be more effective for a smaller cut to all 4 brackets.

    - Corporate tax cuts good. We need to encourage new companies to replace the dying industries. No amount of handouts to failing companies will prevent them from failing, we need new blood.

    - Home reno credit bad. This sort of thing is just ripe for abuse.

    - Expanded corporate welfare bad. As mentioned above, no amounts of handouts to failing businesses will prevent them from failing, at best we'll just delay the inevitable. Besides it is NOT the government's (read: taxpayers) job to be a bank. That's the banks job.

    My biggest worry though is 'can we afford this'? And tragically the answer is 'no'. Much as I like the idea of the tax cuts above they do no good if they're simply tax deferral. Cutting taxes now and running a deficit just means higher taxes later, at interest. Of course if we got rid of the many billions in corporate handouts targeting specific industries and indeed specific companies we could afford it. But this plan calls for the INCREASE in corporate welfare, not a decrease.
  11. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Listen folks - cutting income tax for higher income earners is as useless as titz on a bull.

    It's the lowest income earners who spend ALL their income now. Every week, every month.

    Get them to spend more not save or repay debt - is in fact spending is the goal of all this stuff.

    Higher earners have many more tax didges than the low earners in the first place. They do not need tax more breaks.

    Lower business taxes for NEW investments O N L Y !!! If at all.
  12. Voiceoftheelder lee from Canada writes: I wish I could care about this budget but it's all political drivel and ho-hum crap intended to placate the sheep and make the shepherds look good.
    I don't believe any of it will occur except items that match the ideology of the current gov't. The rest isn't even window dressing it's misdirection and lies.
    No confidence please and I dont care if there's an election or not.
  13. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: kee-ritz on a cracker, PM Harper looks demented in that photo! Heath's got nothing on that joker. There oughta be a prize. Oh, I guess there is!

    On the fudgit-budget-not-a-budget, it's all about the carry-through. If the batting average of the wimp hitters of the Harper crew is any indication, this game will be rained out.

    Is the G-G going to give Harper another chance at a re-do?

    Seriously, that picture is getting some airplay. Where was it taken and who has the credit? It's a keeper.
    .
  14. winterpeger hello from winnipeg, Canada writes: i was hoping they would twin the transcanada highway -- especially in ontario --- long overdue
  15. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Vern McPherson from Canada: You are quick with the knife and bullets of blame, but if you were the least bit honest, you know infrastructure just didn't fall apart during the last 3 years!

    Perhaps your memory has failed you when remembering the' Liberal government committed just $100 million in 2003 towards municipal infrastructure, just a little bit more than was spent on 'Genome Canada.'

    The Conservatives did announce in 2007 that they had already budgeted $33 Billion for the time frame 2007-2014. What projects were started by either the feds, the Provinces and/or the cities--and what money has already been spent--and if there were delays, why were these delays caused.

    And while you try to make this a political hate fest concerning downloading, you neatly skipped the Liberal Paul Martin years of the slashing of federal transfers to the Provinces who did likewise to the cities-hence the major problems that exist in Health Care and Education today traces its financial roots to your beloved Liberals.
    .
  16. Roger Cooper from Canada writes: The bulk of the projected deficit is unaccounted for. How much of this is coming from the bank ABCP, pension and auto bailouts, and how much is a structural deficit brought on by the government's past actions on increasing spending and reducing taxes?

    No one likes the GST, but in retrospect that 2% reduction looks very foolish indeed.

    Mr. Ignatieff will have some work ahead of him this evening, and perhaps some fancy footwork tomorrow.
  17. JACK V from Canada writes: WHO WOULD GIVE MONEY TO ANY GOVERNMENT PARTY THAT CONTINUE TO KEEP SCREWING YOU.THINK ABOUT THAT.
  18. Vern McPherson from Canada writes: Is 'government' just too big? The Civil Service? Something just doesn't sound right with these numbers. Of course there are less tax revenues in either personal, business, and other tax collections (GST) including the energy sector and fuel taxes, and more payouts, but I would like those questions answered! . Posted 27/01/09 at 5:46 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment ================================ carrierre I pointed this it out yesterday here. Of the 34 billon projected deficit this year only 20 billion or so ( give or take a billion), is accounted for in the 'incentives' . Tha balance ( 13 billion), references the projected deficit ANYWAY for 09/10. This figure was provided by the Budget officer Mr Page last week prior to all these silly leaks. The 13 billion is the result of declining revenue, lost GST revenue, previously announced tax cuts and recessionary decline in economic activity - which leads to less business and general tax revenue for the feds. Plus a drastic increase in spending since 06. COns management of the economy I think the reference was. What I would like to know if all that smart preparation was supposedly done by flakerty prior to late 08, why are we in a 13 billion deficit position from the starting gate ?? And there carrierre, friend, is the resason for all the COns'leaks' we've been subject to these last several days. It's the good news (supposedly), places in the press by stevie and his trained seal Ministers for the express purpose of hiding that 13 billion in bad news.
  19. John Connor from Canada writes: I think Tony. from Waterloo and Vern McPherson must be sniffing out of the same glue tube.

    C'mon you guys, at least wait until King Iggy talks to his people. You know, those you obviously voted for. They are the ones to pull the plug, if they have the stones, (I don't think they do) not you two clowns.

    Get over yourselves, you just aren't that important in the grans scheme of things. And Vern, Toronto isn't mentioned in the budget (rightly so) since they already swallow most of Ontario's GDP in the first place, there happens to be a universe outside the center you know.
  20. Robert M from Canada writes: Of the ideas leaked by the Harper government, who believes that they will help deal with a credit crisis, or to stimulate the economy? These ideas were cooked up by the same team that brought Canadians the disasterous November 27th Economic Update. Relief for credit card borrowers? This suggests that the Harper government is confused about the nature of the credit crisis. Mr. Flaherty attended a G-7 meeting on October 10th, however, he just does not seem serious enough to follow through on the committments made. Let's listen to business leaders comments on this measure once the details are available. The idea that tax credits for qualifying home renovations does not appear to be a serious stimulus measure. How many people will begin to have work done as a result of this idea, that would not have otherwise been done? John Baird's announcement of funds for infrastructure spending has strings attached. If the provincial governments are cash-strapped, how can they provide matching funding to get things started? This is a classic Harper government idea that results in little or no action. The Harper government is leaking the budget since it has too many major holes to be taken seriously. I have not heard anything from the members of the Economic Advisory Council which the government announced on December 18th; they must be second-guessing themselves about getting roped into that.
  21. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk, Canada writes: Well the opposition and the left wing media in this country have apparently got what they have demanding....a huge deficit. Obviously PM Harper had no choice if he wanted his government to survive the demands of the left wing parties currently occupying Parliament.

    Unfortunately much of the money will be wasted and all that spending will end up being a feel good exercise. Much of it will be ineffective at getting us out of recession and/or will be too late to be effective.

    The only thing that is going to get Canada out of recession is for the U.S. to recover and begin buying our products again.

    Watch Count Iggy crow that the government met his demands and therefore the Libs are the ones who made the government see the light. Let's see 6 mos down the road when the money appears to be wasted if he is prepared to still say its a Liberal budget.
  22. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Vern

    You are to be admired for your passion and unusual (for Canadians) interest in politics and policy.

    But why for Heaven's sake, do you have to shred anyone within arm's reach. It does nothing for your argument, makes you look like a fool and turns this blog into a toilet wall full of low-life graffitti.
  23. J. Michael from Canada writes: We have just finished the greatest period of spending in Canadian history. Where has it gotten us? Simply it has landed us into an economic mess. What makes people think trying to keep that level of borrowing and spending going is going to lead to a promised land?
  24. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    I said this yesterday, and post this as a reminder. What we have here is the 'seen vs. unseen' fallacy at work.

    Government produces no wealth. They take wealth from others and redistribute it to others under their monopoly of the monetary system and violence. Let me illustrate with an example:

    A and B put their heads together and decide what C shall be made to do for D. All eyes are on how D benefits. Endless political commentary and punditry abound around D. A and B is the State. C is the person who does productive economic work and pays taxes extorted via A and B and D is the recipient of the swindled money from C, less the cut that A and B squander on themselves or their favoured insiders.

    What is not seen is the economic benefits of what C might have done if C was allowed to retain his money and spend it as they saw fit. Existing businesses would not receive C's money anymore or future businesses may not come into existence. In otherwords, current and future businesses effectively subsidize D, favoured by A and B.

    A and B have another mechanism to swindle C; devalue the money s/he has in their pockets by printing new currency into existence to finance D. This new currency has an inflationary effect on C's savings for today, tomorrow, or passed onto C's children. Government sponsored inflationary attacks on C by the State/Banking cartel rob C in such a manner that not one in a million C's can diagnose. C pays for D via inflation, not taxation.

    The most skilled statistician cannot tell you what millions of C's would have done, today or tomorrow, had they been allowed to retain their money (or the value of it) to spend into the economy.

    C is the forgotten man.
  25. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    carrierre check this out.

    'Data from federal government Public Accounts records confirms this showing the total money lapsed (money budgeted approved but not spent) in the Office of Infrastructure reaching over $2 billion.

    • 2005-06: $261 million lapsed (Public Accounts 2006, Volume II, Page 24-7)
    • 2006-07 $651 million lapsed (Public Accounts 2007, Volume II, Page 24-9)
    • 2007-08 $1.17 million lapsed (Public Accounts 2008, Volume II, Page 24-9)

    The amount of lapsed funding is likely to increase again this fiscal year (2008-09), given the fact that only a fraction of the $926 million budgeted for infrastructure projects in the Building Canada Fund (BCF) for the 2008-2009 period has been announced, while an additional $1.141 billion allocated for infrastructure programming from previous Liberal budgets is scheduled to sunset. (Budget 2007, Table 5.3, 167)

    That means not only have the COns not spent the allocations -- they have permitted previous liberal funding to lase as well. So, it's not spent either while Municipalities have a list of 2600 projects ??
    Come on carrierre. Get the facts.

    (Oh I shouldn't bring up the past should I )
  26. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Partisan politics are a ruse. There is no left/right in a feudal system, only top and bottom. Lords and Serfs. It keeps the masses divided through unimportant arguments via the political system, while the government/banking monetary system preys on us, our children, and future unborn uninterrupted.

    If you have a monopoly on violence (the State) you need not be logically consistent; you can change the rules at any time. The process of voting will not buy you freedom.

    As long as we continue to subjugate/prostrate ourselves to an organization that stole our freedoms by claiming a monopoly on violence, usurped our money and leaving us with a pile of counterfeit paper whose supply and value is arbitrarily regulated, not by market forces, but political ones, we will continue to be plundered.

    From the cradle to the grave, Statist brainwashing (via government indoctrination camps euphemistically called 'public education') and a subverted media (if newspapers needed a bailout, this would absolutely happen - who would be the State propaganda agents?) has utterly, hopelessly convinced the public that the solution to all their woes is through a group of people that have a gun. Anybody who has a monopoly on violence is subject to bribery and corruption.

    We don't vote out of sake of preference, although many of us think so, we vote to coerce each other into accepting the shade of lipstick applied to the pig of the State to violently fleece our fellow citizen. We vote to change the direction where the gun is pointed. Voting is political 'might makes right'. A majority knows - given their vast extensive philosophical and economic knowledge, right? - what to foist on the minority.

    'Reform cannot be achieved by a well-intentioned leader who recruits his followers from the very people whose moral confusion is the cause of the disorder.' - Socrates
  27. Stewart Smith from Canada writes: If the Feds want the infrastructure funding to flow, they will need to change the matching formula. Since they are only paying 1/4 to 1/3 of projects, it is the cash (not environmental red tape) that is slowing things down.

    John Baird, if you want credit for making something happen on a timeline that matters.... make something happen on a timeline that matters.
  28. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Great picture G & M looks like Flaherty is spending about $40 bucks for a pair of shoes .......... 'Why has he/they spent billions ($12 3 13 Billions) like a bunch of drunken cowboys home from the range in the past 2 1/2 years while away most of his time from Ottawa on vacation...... Now that would be an award winning picture!
  29. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Vern McPherson from Canada writes: Forget about Martin and past stuff carrierre. That is not only non-productive in terms of TODAY - RIGHT NOW - it's damned annoying.
    -------
    What is also 'damned annoying' is also your continuous blame of Harris or whomever else was not Liberal. Your disrespect of people using condescending names and all the other crap. Perhaps you could take some of your own advice.....OK? Give it a try.........
    .
  30. Steve French from Windsor, Ont, Canada writes: Attention all politicians! Let the good times roll!
    You may now begin spending like drunken sailors on shore leave from the Titanic.
  31. various degrees from Hamilton, Canada writes: Lets clear up a few things

    (A) It would appear from most letters over the months that Vern is an idiot.

    (B) As stated in a letter above,when the U.S. gets back on the road to recovery so will Canada. In the meantime we are both in the ditch.

    (C) Iggy is no fool,he no more wants an election now than General Custer wanted more Indians. Odds are the Liberals after a lot of snarling and growling will except this budget
  32. Norm Jom from Petawawa, Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes: Listen folks - cutting income tax for higher income earners is as useless as titz on a bull. It's the lowest income earners who spend ALL their income now. Every week, every month. Get them to spend more not save or repay debt - is in fact spending is the goal of all this stuff. Higher earners have many more tax didges than the low earners in the first place. They do not need tax more breaks. -------------------------------------------------- We seldon agree Vern, but in this case I do. Seems every time the government tries to help low income Canadians the upper middle class and upper class cry foul. Where's my tax break they say! Living as a low income Canadian as I have for the last 4 years due to disability is no picnic. I once was an upper-middle class worker and I did have many tax options to reduce the amount I paid out to the government. As a low income earner (under 12,000 now) it's getting increasingly difficult to maintain any decent standard of living. Everything is getting more expensive and those in my income bracket and into the lower middle class are going to feel this recession first. There's no wiggle room for the low income earners, the choices are to do without the basics. Making choices between food on the table and paying our rent or utilities. At least middle income and above earners are able to cut back on discretionary spending. I'm not saying tax cuts are not important in higer income brackets, but what is of vital importance right now is to ensure that the lowest income brackets are not going to be out in the streets. This will not be good at all for the economy.
  33. Guy Olivier from Columbus, Ohio, United States writes: 'Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: ... Responsible people will need to pay for the folly of the financially irresponsible.'
    ------------

    Hasn't that always been the way of the world? The responsible ones are always the ones who foot the bill.

    We'll b1tch and moan for a while, but eventually we'll stop and go about our lives and work our jobs and pay our bills... governments know this and that's why they expect us to carry the country.
  34. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: Past actions of the LIEbbies are irrelevant Vern? Then why aren't they the Government? :-)
  35. Geriatric Personage from NB, Canada writes: These 'incentives' need to be coupled with mandatory savings. I suggest about 15%, TOTALLY tax free duing saving and redemption, of an individuals wage to be deducted at source and placed in an RSP with no cashout permitted for 15 years from deposit date. Same for self-employed.
  36. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: And, yeah, sometimes federal money will lapse Vern. The feds announce a program...money...and it's up to the municipalities to get their shyt together and get their applications in. So often though, town councils just can't come to an agreement....next thing you know, the program has lapsed. You can't blame that on the feds not acting!
  37. Vern McPherson from Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes: Forget about Martin and past stuff carrierre. That is not only non-productive in terms of TODAY - RIGHT NOW - it's damned annoying.------- What is also 'damned annoying' is also your continuous blame of Harris or whomever else was not Liberal. Your disrespect of people using condescending names and all the other crap. Perhaps you could take some of your own advice.....OK? Give it a try.......... Posted 27/01/09 at 6:45 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment ============================ Point taken. However, as I said, .... if you lived in Ontario in the 90's up to 03 you would have a special insite into these COns tactics. And I repeat it's downloading while a certain govt gets credit. No matter carrierre the budget will be passed IMO. For a variety of reasons - mostly politically made choices on behalf of the libbies and the COns. The other 2 are irrelevant - unless there is simply too much poison contained in it. In which case we'll see some fireworks. stevie has seen to that. But that is not to say it's honest or not political in the extreme. I'll wait though for the actual document to make an evaluation - the devil is always in the details.
  38. Joe Pelletier from St Lazare, Canada writes: What is wrong with Canadians? Why does the media make a circus and fuss about the Finance Minister? He is doing his job! How stuipd is it that he goes to buy a pair of shoes before tabling the budget, and it is put in the press! If you want to drive home to these guys who work for the grteater population of Canada don't follow him to the store! This will send a very loud message that we are not interested in antics that he gets all kinds of attention boosting his ego! Let him do his job! This is a joke! Besides it is obvious that he does not even understand what the significance of buying shoes is before a budget. If he did he wouldn't have bought any shoes at all becuase the saying is 'I can't even afford to buy a pair of shoes for my kids'!!!! Buying work boots means what???

    IT IS A JOKE, and you the media feed into it at a time when that all is very serious!
  39. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Listening to Michael Ignatieff and his 'tests' for the federal budget and his term 'vulnerable' struck me as I thought I had read that somewhere else.

    That 'somewhere else' was an alternative Budget proposed by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives in the beginning of January.

    Their 5 tests:

    1) Extend EI payments
    2) Support the most 'vulnerable'
    3) Impliment a social, physical and green public infrastructure program
    4) Support key value-added sectors
    5) Emphasize spending over tax cuts.

    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/news/2009/01/pressrelease2080/?pa=BB736455

    They also created a 153 page very detailed 'alternate budget' which 'sounds' an awful lot about what we have been hearing from the ConLib Party of Canada

    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/NationalOfficePubs/2009/AFB2009BeyondtheCrisis.pdf

    Or just the brief:

    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/~ASSETS/DOCUMENT/National
    OfficePubs/2009/AFB2009Budgetinbrief.pdf
    .
  40. Steve French from Windsor, Ont, Canada writes: Watch the parasite feeding frenzy, this is gonna be great.
    Reminds me of when the US sent 12 billion in cash to Iraq and 9 of it mysteriously disappeared off the skids.
    I wonder if I can get a bailout for my business selling rabbit meat down on the corner?
  41. John Connor from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes:

    What is all that blabber about connir ??

    stevie has made the budget a liberal budget. He droped hs trunks and sold out his COns support.

    Are you proud of his COns principles now ?? Of yours ?
    -------------------------------
    You wound me o leftist tard. Harper has done what needed to be done. You're just pi$$ed because he caught the Igg-head off guard.
    Please return to the sewers from whence thou came Vern. We see through all of your blather for what it is. Useless tripe from a bitter old tard.
    TTFN.
  42. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    R. Carriere,

    When you post links, the G&M posting software interprets certain characters to italicize or bold text. Thus the links you post don't work.

    The solution you want is to copy your URL into your clipboard, head over to tinyurl.com, and paste your URL into their little generator that will convert your link into something that looks like so:

    So for example, a long URL that looks like this:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127278/Revealed-Day
    -banks-just-hours-collapse.html (which does not happen, in this case, to have any special characters in it, unlike yours above) gets converted to:

    http://tinyurl.com/bz76c2 <-- Note the lack of special characters and its brevity.

    If you now copy and paste the shortened URL into your browser, you will be redirected to the original URL and people can see what you are referring to.

    Hope that helps.
    -Remnant.
  43. 1938371 1938371 from vancouver, Canada writes: My income tax and that of most of my friends seemed to have increase by a thousand dollars last year. I believed it was to help pay for the costly military adventures in Afghanistan. We have just had an extra election to pay for. The taxpayers have agreed to help the auto industry with a bailout. We have the Olymics to pay for, too. I take no issue with these additional tax requirements. I am not worried about government deficit because it is shared by all Canadians directly or indirectly over 50 to a hundred years.. Personally, I can't afford to spend a dime. My property taxes used to be 25 cents a day and now some 30 years later, my property taxes are 25 cents per minute. There are two kinds of Canadians: those with money and those without money -> (debt). Those with debt are maximized and can't spend beyond survival levels and those with money, can't get a return or much of a return on their money when nobody is spending. I am fascinated what our current government or any government can do in a positive way in such circumstances.
  44. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Norm Jom from Petawawa, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Listening to Michael Ignatieff and his 'tests' for the federal budget and his term 'vulnerable' struck me as I thought I had read that somewhere else.

    ----------------

    Are you suggesting 'supporting the most vulnerable' is a wrong policy for government?
    ------------------
    Of course it is not the wrong policy and I didn't try to suugest that. I was just pointing out that the ConLib Party of Canada appears to have adopted the majority of points of the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives alternate budget with little or no citing of the source. This was written well before the leaks and the Iggy 'tests'
    .
  45. J. Michael from Canada writes: Cut at least 30% fat out of the public service. Slash corporate tax. Watch talented public servants move into the private sector followed by a renaissance in wealth creation.

    Move to income splitting for married couples - watch one parent stay home and manage the family - further lowering the burden on government and the community and thereby adding to lower taxes. With all the people leaving the workforce, unemployment will not be a problem. We will need fewer police and psychiatrists, adding to lower costs!

    It is not difficult.
  46. Vern McPherson from Canada writes:
    Mrs Wiggins, I saved the pic in my political file and called it:

    'I told the teacher'.

    Makes for a great cartoon ......
  47. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    The Remnant from Canada: Thanks!
    .
  48. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: Catheeeee, had the election been called when he took those 23 trips? If so, they should be election expenses. BUT, if he took the trips BEFORE the election was called, they are simply legitimate expenses for travel for our Prime Minister. Canadians WANT to see their PM at various events across the Country...in fact, most feel he should do more of them. I suppose you feel he should pay for them out of his own pocket?
  49. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    1938371 1938371 from vancouver, Canada writes: I am not worried about government deficit because it is shared by all Canadians directly or indirectly over 50 to a hundred years.. Personally, I can't afford to spend a dime...There are two kinds of Canadians: those with money and those without money -> (debt)....I am fascinated what our current government or any government can do in a positive way in such circumstances.

    ----

    Taxation is a direct way the State leeches off of your productivity. However, believe it or not, they don't like being so direct. It tends to get us Serfs uppity and we go to the ballot to make a personnel change in the Mafia. In other words, high levels of taxation cause us stiffs to hold the parasite class accountable.

    There preferred method is to print up government debt and sell it into the market or have the Bank of Canada buy it. The money supply rises. When government spends it into the economy, the new money has full value, but as it trickles out over time, inflation results, which appears in your eyes as prices rising, when in reality, the purchasing power of your dollars decline, the value of it being swindled by the government. In this manner, your wealth is being stolen in such a way, not one in a million people can diagnose.

    Remember that deficit spending favours the beneficiaries of the money, while mortgaging the future financial health of generations that did not consent to be burdened or Canadians that lose out through taxation and inflation. It is not shared equally. Even if it was, it doesn't make it right.

    Inflation is a tax, shared by all with money or without. Congressman Ron Paul managed to berate Bernanke to admit it on air. No small feat: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=D4yBrxmEOkY
  50. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: .

    Oh well - no one can accuse Harper of selling himself out solely for the purpose of remaining in power.

    Oh, uh, nevermind...
  51. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: .

    Sounds like a typically 'Fiscal Conservative' budget....

    ooops - just when we didn't need another example to blow this 'myth' out of the water, the conservatives roll out another typical conservative budget to remind us how pathetic they are when it comes to money.

    What exactly is it that conservatives stand for these days? Someone please remind me.
  52. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 'Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.'

    -Ludwig Von Mises
  53. Canadians Write from COAST TO COAST, Canada writes: All the Bank Hand Outs including this Stimie is equal to how much so far for each Child, woman & hubby here in Canada as the USA amount equals $ 10,000.00 per person down there with compounding interest too ?
  54. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Harper is certainly spending. Senate appointments. Increased government spending.

    However, our family will gratefully accept any tax incentives and apply them to the tab for educating our kids.

    Our taxdollars at work.
  55. Geriatric Personage from NB, Canada writes: J. Michael from Canada writes: 'Cut at least 30% fat out of the public service. Slash corporate tax. Watch talented public servants move into the private sector followed by a renaissance in wealth creation.' Talented public servants'????????? I assure you there are none, I worked in contract management (military) and the bozos I interfaced with in the government were either inept or incompetent, just looking for a few free beers at lunch. REALLY pathetic!
  56. Gerry Pankhurst from Bridgetown Barbados (Temp), Canada writes: I note Vern McFartson is monopolizing this forum again. I also note that the put downs he is reaping indicate he has learned nothing about anything and rambles on to impress himself while proving his inability to recognize when his beloved party has been snookered once again.

    He is the most likley candidate, among many, who will find a way to show this approved budget is a product if the IGGY intellect and the death of that exercise in futility, the so called coaltion on which Iggy simply sat on the fence is typical Liberal style, was the driving force that motivated a Harper, Flaherty desperate maneuver.

    The banquet, featuring cooked crow, should be announced in the next few days
  57. Billy Bee from Canada writes: Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk, Canada writes: 'Well the opposition and the left wing media in this country have apparently got what they have demanding....a huge deficit. Obviously PM Harper had no choice if he wanted his government to survive the demands of the left wing parties currently occupying Parliament.'

    Get your facts straight:

    1) The G&M endorsed Harper as PM during the last waste-of-time election.

    2) Harper promised us that there would be NO deficit. The id!ot got himself into this mess by cutting taxes and increasing spending. For a fiscal conservative Harper has taken Canada from record surpluses to deficit. All of this is vote buying, and it might even work as most Canadians are too dumb to realize that sooner or later we as taxpayers have to flip the bill in increased taxes or less services.

    I hope his gamble pays off, but I doubt it. I don't see consumer confidence increasing if they know there is no social net to fall back on should they loose their jobs.
  58. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Harper announces in early January that there will be tax cuts for middle and low income families coming in budget. Iggy then announces that the budget must have tax cuts for middle and low income families or he will take down the government. Harper announces a week before budget that tax cuts are in the budget for middle and low income families. Iggy announces that tax cuts are not the answer and his supporters cry out that they are all wrong. Iggy votes for Harper's budget and supports the Conservatives for the 44th time in just over two years recognizing that the elected government is the best to lead us through the economic crisis as do the majority of Canadians. With the Liberal confidence, the majority of Canadians are represented to the tune of 63% of the voters in the last election. The Separatist and the other party dream on. You will never please them. Liberal supporters then cry out that it is really Iggy's budget and he forced Harper into it. The best budget that we could have. Iggy is a genius. I guess it doesn't really matter in the end. Canada will benefit from the once again unofficial coalition of the elected minority government being supported by the second largest % of voters. A democracy representing the majority. A good thing.
  59. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Credit Card interest? There is none if you pay your bills on time. Lowering the interest rate only encourages people to live beyond the means. How that is going to help the economy is a big question mark. Every Canadian is going to have enough debt to look after with the 64 billion deficit that Harper an Co announced before they even presented their budget. What a farce. King Stephen is determined to keep his post even if he changed his tune a little. He is still not to be trusted, even if Carriere thinks otherwise.
  60. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: What exactly is it that conservatives stand for these days? Someone please remind me
    -------------------

    From: 'M. Stieler'
    To:
    Subject: lies
    Date: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:29 PM

    Tell me lies

    Tell me sweet little lies

    tell me lies, tell me , tell me lies

    Oh, no, no you can't disguise

    Tell me lies

    Tell me sweet little lies

    tell me, tell me lies
  61. garlick toast from Canada writes: 64 billion in two years, what about years three, four and five when we are still in a depression? Nothing left in the larder.
  62. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes:

    Libs will accept this budget ?? And you call me an idiot ??

    -------------------------------------------

    At least Iggy will sit down and digest the budget before making a move - unlike most of the naysayers here.

    Given all of above naysayers obvious psychic powers in that they are so sure the budget will be defeated I'm surprised you're not all millionaires by now because you knew the winning lotto numbers ahead of time.
  63. Vern McPherson from Canada writes: carrierre let me make this point and it's not somethig I have ever subscribed to in my years following the politics game and events. ..... Cynicism. I grow increasingly cynical of all of them - politicians of all stripes. I suppose it's older age and experience and a pronounced lack of trust having witnessed the same old after the same old - again and again and again. And the ignorance is astounding among the hoi ploi. Thankfully I have worked all my life and am contented with what I have - a reasonable income ( not the most), and reasonable health .... (not perfect), which is more than some - yet much less than others. We Canadians have plenty to be greatful for and it's all our doing. It's not because of F politicians. We do need to protect what we have and work hard and diligently to keep it and move forward. We also need to look after the vulnerable and at least make sure there is a level of legitimate comfort for them amongst all our prosperity. That's civility. And a reasonable level field for all of those who follow. Beyond that I am finding I realy don't give a shite. I avoided voting last time because of the ridiculous scam of it all. ( plus stevie really did surprise me after I had made my plans). I travelled instead. Had a good time for 6 weeks. I think we all ought to insist we have a good time for the time we have. For what it's worth ..........
  64. Mark Dip from Canada writes: With an unemployment rate four times the national average, the spouses of Canadian government employees serving overseas lose over $1 million per year from being forced to pay for EI overseas while being ineligible for benefits. The way it goes is that spouses quit their jobs to accompany their partner, but are still forced to pay EI premiums overseas because CRA defines them as Canadian “Factual Residents” due to diplomatic status, but then they later get their EI social benefits revoked afterward because HRSDC says they’re not “Residents in Canada”. This administrative Catch-22 also extends to disallowing these spouses from being able to claim education expenses on their taxes – even if they take Canadian courses from overseas. This also happens to non-government spouses whose residency is classified this way by CRA. If history is any indicator, we’ll also likely be shut out of any EI retraining funding program.
  65. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: It is amazing that Harper's support base is still marching, lock-step, behind him.

    ..............................................................................................................

    Not really that amazing Catherine.

    Iggy is still lock-stepped as he was in the last government supporting Harper yet once again for the 44th time.

    And like Dion, he would not vote agin his conscience would he for the sake of himself and his party over the good of Canada?

    Either he is totally wrong in doing it and you should want him gone or you agree, as he will profess, that he has confidence once again in the elected government.

    Which view is the correct one?
  66. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes: carrierre let me make this point and it's not somethig I have ever subscribed to in my years following the politics game and events. ..... Cynicism. I grow increasingly cynical of all of them - politicians of all stripes. I suppose it's older age and experience and a pronounced lack of trust having witnessed the same old after the same old - again and again and again. And the ignorance is astounding among the hoi ploi. Thankfully I have worked all my life and am contented with what I have - a reasonable income ( not the most), and reasonable health .... (not perfect), which is more than some - yet much less than others. We Canadians have plenty to be greatful for and it's all our doing. It's not because of F politicians. We do need to protect what we have and work hard and diligently to keep it and move forward. We also need to look after the vulnerable and at least make sure there is a level of legitimate comfort for them amongst all our prosperity. That's civility. And a reasonable level field for all of those who follow. Beyond that I am finding I realy don't give a shite. I avoided voting last time because of the ridiculous scam of it all. ( plus stevie really did surprise me after I had made my plans). I travelled instead. Had a good time for 6 weeks. I think we all ought to insist we have a good time for the time we have. For what it's worth .......... ---------------------------------------------------- Well said Vern - thank you!
  67. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: ern McPherson from Canada writes:

    The amount of lapsed funding is likely to increase again this fiscal year (2008-09), given the fact that only a fraction of the $926 million budgeted for infrastructure projects in the Building Canada Fund (BCF) for the 2008-2009 period has been announced, while an additional $1.141 billion allocated for infrastructure programming from previous Liberal budgets is scheduled to sunset. (Budget 2007, Table 5.3, 167)

    That means not only have the COns not spent the allocations -- they have permitted previous liberal funding to lase as well. So, it's not spent either while Municipalities have a list of 2600 projects ??
    Come on carrierre. Get the facts.
    ----------------------

    CONs never let the facts get in the way of a good lie, especially that CON.

    CONs = Liars
  68. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: This is a sad day for Canada. Our inept politicians, the ones that created this budget and the ones that have been advocating for all of this spending.

    We have watched the European countries and the US pump 100's of billions and more to come into their economies and what has been the result? The result is that now they are looking for more money while jobs continue to bleed and people continue to lose thier homes.

    Canada should have resisted this feeding frenzy and presented a more responsible budget viod of all this ridiculous socialist spending.

    For anyone in this country that is a fiscal conservative this has to be a painful reminder of what happens when emotions and irrational thinking take over the government.

    I wish Harper would have stuck to his original plan and let the coalition defeat him. He will regret this day that he allowed the NDP mindset cloud his judgement.
  69. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Vern McPherson from Canada writes: carrierre let me make this point and it's not somethig I have ever subscribed to in my years following the politics game and events. ..... Cynicism. I grow increasingly cynical of all of them - politicians of all stripes. I suppose it's older age and experience and a pronounced lack of trust having witnessed the same old after the same old - again and again and again .............................................................................................................. Vern, I think you are on the edge of coming over the the dark side. That is quite well written and took some guts and thinking. Well done and well said regardless of what you vote next time. .................... I do agree we are fed up with the same ole same ole but I would like to see the elected government given a chance and Harper has shown by his tax programs such as Pension Income splitting assistance for the most vulnerable, the seniors and other tax relief for them, that he does care. The same with child credits and transportation credits and many other changes. Credit card rip off interest rates had to be addressed and it looks like he will be the first to take that on in our history. .................... Anyway keep up the 'good' posts. I don't think any of us (well most of us) are that far apart if we leave the 'root for the home team' out of it and look at it objectively.
  70. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: 7 Billion for infrastructure ....??????

    What was Building Canada Fund 2007 about ??????

    NO Money Flowed

    More talk....more spin....more lies

    CONservatives promising more money that doesn't flow.....

    Isn't that...... just another CONservative lie
  71. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Jake ---- from Canada writes:

    Its time to bring this government down.


    ----

    And replace it with....another looting, plundering, corrupt government?
  72. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Paul Byer: 'Iggy is still lock-stepped as he was in the last government supporting Harper yet once again for the 44th time.' Either he is totally wrong in doing it and you should want him gone or you agree, as he will profess, that he has confidence once again in the elected government.

    Which view is the correct one?
    ..............................................................................................................
    It speaks to the personality of Harper and the Conservatives that the Opposition faced 44 votes of Confidence.

    However, how Mr. Ignatieff squares off with this budget will address issues of greater concern than ego.

    Hubris will be the total downfall of Harper.
    ..............................................................................................................

    And to the personality of Iggy and the Liberals in my view.

    But in answer to my question? Your view on 'Either he is totally wrong in doing it and you should want him gone or you agree, as he will profess, that he has confidence once again in the elected government.'

    Sigh! To get an answer is very difficult. Like Iggy, not to sure what the view is.
  73. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Canadians (outside of ndp supporters) spoke in unison against the coalition.

    If the government falls, the GG is obligated to call an election by July.

    Imagine Ignatieff running for PM as the head of a coalition? That would be the end of the LPC.
  74. Brett Williams from Canada writes: Are you serious!?!?!?

    Permanent tax cuts for individuals AND reducing corporate taxes??? Is he crazy? We're running a huge deficit and this guy is ensuring that we have permanent deficits for years to come.

    This is BUSH all over again - huge spending AND tax cuts = massive deficit.

    I fear the coalition will take over because of this debacle. What a mess these cons are.
  75. Brian C from Canada writes:
    The LPT response to the budget will be much like their previous responses, and virtually identical to the knights attacking the rabbit in the movie Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

    Run away!

    Run away!
  76. Brian C from Canada writes:
    I see Red Suspenders is gone and Vern is back. Too bad. My bet was with Red, not Vern. Too bad Vern. But I'm glad to see that your medication is working. Now you're back to your grumpy old self.
  77. The Remnant from Canada writes: :

    I am thinking of forming a new political party; The Canadian NOTA Party.

    NOTA = None Of The Above!

    We wish to have our candidates placed at the bottom of the ballot.

    Our mission statement:

    - We wish no power over you.
    - We wish that you have no power over us.
    - Where we have power over others, we shall seek to renounce it.
    - Where others have power over us, we shall pray that others renounce it, and so long as it be extant, we shall condemn it.
    - Where there are those who would try to give us power over others, we shall denounce them and condemn them.
    - Where there are those who would try to give others power over us, we shall laugh at them and condemn them.
    - Where others would use force to sustain any putative power relationship over us, we shall condemn them and resist them, and call to our brethren in our struggle against them.
    - Where a tyrant, a majority, a plurality, or a minority presume to grant others power over us, or over anyone else, we shall condemn it, resist it, renounce it and denounce it.
    - Where there are those who are subjugated beneath the boot heel of power, by 'democratic' means or otherwise, we shall support their resistance, their condemnation, their denunciation and their renunciation.
    - We shall make no compromise with evil.

    The Canadian NOTA Party.
    We're not a party. But we have a majority.
  78. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes:

    It is amazing that Harper's support base is still marching, lock-step, behind him.

    -------------------------------

    ...and the LPC's support base is still marching in lock-step behind them, and the NDP's support base is still marching in lock-step behing them and so on....

    The vast majority of us do it so what is your point exactly?
  79. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Brett Williams from Canada writes: Are you serious!?!?!?

    Permanent tax cuts for individuals AND reducing corporate taxes??? Is he crazy? We're running a huge deficit and this guy is ensuring that we have permanent deficits for years to come.

    This is BUSH all over again - huge spending AND tax cuts = massive deficit.

    I fear the coalition will take over because of this debacle. What a mess these cons are.

    ..............................................................................................................

    I guess you haven't seen what the Liberal government is proposing in the U.S.? Obama came out with a similar plan.

    Is he wrong too? Actually, much to some's chagrin, the Bush supporter is now on the other side of the fence here and our government is on the same track as Obama's.

    Ouch. That must hurt.
  80. Brett Williams from Canada writes: 'Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Canadians (outside of ndp supporters) spoke in unison against the coalition.

    If the government falls, the GG is obligated to call an election by July.

    Imagine Ignatieff running for PM as the head of a coalition? That would be the end of the LPC.'

    That's actually not true anymore. Last week's poll had coalition support up to 50% with 10% undecided. That's not an endorsement for Harper at all. And the support for coalition has been steadily growing since the idea was raised. If this budget stinks expect coalition support to increase even more.
  81. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: The Remnant from Canada writes: :

    I am thinking of forming a new political party; The Canadian NOTA Party.

    NOTA = None Of The Above!

    -------------------------------------------------

    A non-political political party - hmmmmmmmmmmm; interesting concept.

    I may be interested in joining your clandestine organisation and subscribing to its quarterly newsletter.
  82. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Paul Byer: Harper attended the economic summit, November, in Washington. Here is a synopsis: 'The Washington declaration is the commitment made by G20 leaders after they met in the U.S. capital last weekend to increase government spending, look at new ways to supervise financial institutions, and keep borders open to trade. ' If you can suggest to me, a taxpayer, what Harper pledged, we can commence a discussion as to how the opposition will react. However, Harper is still playing the 'we are victims', or 'it's not my fault' game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A true Iggy fan. Cannot get a straight answer out of you. Like Iggy, talk in double speak. A coalition but not necessarily a coalition. Bush supporter and supporter of torture but not a Bush supporter and supporter of torture. Tax relief for middle and low income earners. No tax relief. Leader of the opposition during the worst crisis Canada has had in modern history and he is m.i.a. writing ancient history on his family. Leadership gets in the way of his writings. Ah well. You were given the chance. After Iggy supports the Harper government in lock step for the 44th time, I'll ask you once more but I get the feeling you still won't have an answer.
  83. Brandan Matchett from Halifax, Canada writes: Anyone see taliban Jack's interviews yesterday? He admits the new budget is an NDP budget but is going to vote against it anyway.

    Jack Layton has finally shown his true colors. In the middle of this financial meltdown he is going to vote against many of the issue's he knows are important to people feeling great personal hardship.

    Why?

    He says he doesn't trust Harper. But really - why should anyone trust him. The country needs the government working together now more than ever.

    Taliban Jack - against troops - against tax cuts for the little guy.

    Looking forward to the next election Jack - good luck spinning this.
  84. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Paul Byer: Mr. Ignatieff will talk with his caucus and have an announcement tomorrow.

    Mature response, IMHO.
  85. Why do I bother, nothing changes from Montreal, Canada writes: 'programming from previous Liberal budgets is scheduled to sunset.' Please note the plural for Liberal budgets, meaning the Liberals also allowed their funding to lapse whilst in power. Odd that our resident fact checkers not mention that. Could it be that ALL Governments, if run properly, err somewhat on the side of caution when making projections. Wow, who would have thought the essence of Liberal fiscal prudence becomes a crime against humanity for the Conservatives.
  86. Mr Bean from Somewhere in ON, Canada writes: TD Bank must have got the memo about the credit card interest relief because I just received a letter from them regarding my 2 lines of credit. They've increased the interest rate and to thank me for being fiscally prudent they are charging me $35 for each line because I haven't had any transactions for more than 360 days! That's right, it's retroactive, what a crock of sht. Apparently they made 'these changes so that we can continue to offer convenient, competitively-priced credit', give me a f^%ing break. I've been a customer for more than 20 years - countless car loans, RSP loans and my mortgage which is up later this year. They might get this $70 out of me but they will never see another nickle from me. I'm moving everything. Somebody needs to explain customer loyalty to these ivory towers.
  87. Brenton E. from Canada writes: The Finance Minister has said that the top concern he has heard from Canadians leading up to the budget is access to credit. I thought the top concern was job security, silly me. We should expect a wild old time in Ottawa over the next few days, lets see if Iggy's got the stuff to rid us of this stupid government.
  88. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Brett Williams from Canada writes: That's actually not true anymore. Last week's poll had coalition support up to 50% with 10% undecided. That's not an endorsement for Harper at all.

    .............................................................................................................Not true at all. Yesterdays poll shows on the............................Matter of Confidence, Six in ten (57%) Believe Opposition Parties Should Vote For the Harper Budget, Not Against (30%)

    And Catherine

    A mature response would be to answer the question instead of responding in doubletalk.

    I'll give up trying to get your answer. It aint coming obviously.
  89. john may from writes: Vern- please tell me when your local Mayor and/or council complained about the 'lapsed' money for infrastructure ? Never heard a word from my city hall.
    I did hear when they and all the other councils were told they would be get some of the federal gas tax revenue.
    I think you know/tell only half of the story - the half that suits your argument.
    In my abode they used infrastructure money to build a bingo hall and squash courts and called it 'a wellness centre'. Smoking was allowed in the bingo hall and part of the proceeds went to prop up a privately owned mickey mouse hockey club full of plumbers, electricans and truck drivers.
  90. John Connor from Canada writes: Mr Bean from Somewhere in ON, Canada writes: I've been a customer for more than 20 years - countless car loans, RSP loans and my mortgage which is up later this year. They might get this $70 out of me but they will never see another nickle from me. I'm moving everything. Somebody needs to explain customer loyalty to these ivory towers.
    -----------------------------------
    Two words Mr. Bean:

    Credit Union
  91. Ontario Man from Canada writes: Brandan Matchett from Halifax, Canada writes: Anyone see taliban Jack's interviews yesterday? He admits the new budget is an NDP budget but is going to vote against it anyway.

    -----------------------------

    I saw the interview with Jack. He compared SH to GW again. Isn't that getting a little old. Is that all he has?
  92. Chris S. from Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada writes: I continue to get mixed signals from Flaherty and the Harper Conservatives. Are we supposed to all go out and spend money, wracking up our overstretched credit, or should we be saving money? Which is it? Will it be different next week? I don't think I'm the only Canadian who's a little confused.
  93. North Star from Canada writes: Harper's legacy will be the largest deficit in Canadian history.
  94. Mr Bean from Somewhere in ON, Canada writes: John Connor from Canada writes:

    Two words Mr. Bean:

    Credit Union
    ------------------------------------

    JOhn, I know too many people who have had really bad experiences with CUs in my area. I'm thinking about splitting things up between ING and PC.
  95. M Liggins from Perth, Canada writes: Remnant - excellent posts. Read Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1849; legal philosopher who coined the phrase 'legal plunder' in reference to our legislators; never more true than today. He also decried mindless thought (prtisan? ) and the 'sophistry of vested interests'

    R Miller - How apropos put quoting von Mises.
  96. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Paul Byer: Doublespeak? Read the Conservative comments, here. Mr. Ignatieff is a chicken by if he votes with Harper. Or, the Conservative Harper's are victims and need rescue by the Liberals. Pray tell, what is the Conservative script? ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Since you asked me a question, I will answer it regardless of the fact that you refuse to answer mine. That is the mature response. ............. Iggy will vote for the Harper government for one reason and one reason only. ............... To bring down the government would be political suicide for him and the Liberals. The voter backlash at the polls would give the Conservatives a majority and Iggy would be gone faster than you could put his pen to his family history. And the Liberal party is broke and in debt and has been since he became deputy leader. Not that he is responsible but he certainly didn't help the financial crisis of his own party. ................... Not about Canada and his belief in what is right. He doesn't appear to have any at least not that he has expressed. His support will wane very quickly and he will be a great disappointment to his supporters. .................. If he had any concern for Canada (remember he is a self professed American by Heart) he would not have disappeared writing his family history when the country needed his input during the worst financial crisis in modern history.
  97. john dancy from Canada writes: Vern McPherson , How many times did Mr Chretien actually come to toronto and promise BILLIONS for the waterfront. never saw a dime did you.......
  98. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Stevie is smiling because his great big box of Maple Leaf bacon just arrived.
  99. economic slave from Toronto, Canada writes: Don't believe the tax cuts. The last time Flaherty lowered the GST, he increased the CPP payments. Watch for the 'hidden' tax increases this time around. As well, the Conservatives are establishing local 'community' groups (manned by Tories) who will
    distribute the money. How much money will be spent on paying for these local 'community' groups? Answer: millions. Who will get this stimulus money? Answer: Tory supporters. Something tells me this is turning out to be a a multi-billion dollar disaster which will not help the bulk of the people who lose their jobs, but will benefit Conservative supporters who always seem to find high-paying government jobs. If the Liberals were in power we would see the same kind of patronage. They say money corrupts. This is true of politics. The taxpayers will be paying dearly for this deficit spending.
  100. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: 'The vast majority of us do it so what is your point exactly? ' We have had this discussion before, Jason. I accept that you will follow a Conservative through broken promises and no ethics or principles. I accept that your opinin will not be changed. You need to accept that others do not hold that opinion. -------------------------------------------- Yes Catherine - we have had this duscussion (and others before) - and like before you only quote what you want to quote, read what you want to read, and see what you want to see. I very clearly said above the majority of us - meaning NOT ALL - yet you tell me I have to accept that not all hold that opinion. You of course state your amazement that CPC supporters are still marching behind Harper - but of course no reference to LPC supporters still marching in lockstep behind their party and whatever leader after decades of lies and broken promises. I have very clearly told you in the past that I have no problem admitting Harper is a liar - yet I have to shake my head at Liberal logic - 'they lied - oh the horror and the shame - get these liars out so we can replace them with our own liars'. I've also very clearly told you in the past that Con or Lib - there is no difference - it's just a matter of pick your colour. But of course you chose to ignore that. Yes Catherine, we have had this discussion before - and as usual once your deflection, dancing around the subject whenever you've been proven wrong, not quoting entire posts, instead only what you want to see, etc, has been worked in - it's been a waste of time and bandwidth.
  101. john dancy from Canada writes: Stude Ham , North Star, so why are the Liberals and the Bloc supporting this budget? It must be good for the 80% of Canadians that voted for the three parties? I am sorry you are part of the 20%
  102. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:

    A non-political political party - hmmmmmmmmmmm; interesting concept.

    I may be interested in joining your clandestine organisation and subscribing to its quarterly newsletter.


    ----

    Welcome aboard, Jason. Clandestine? You mean like the Masons and/or the Illuminati? Um. No. We are much more prevalent than that.

    We immediately have 40.1% of potential support as that is how many voters stayed home in the last federal coercion...I mean elections. (Source: http://tinyurl.com/4fnyvb)

    We think many disillusioned cynical supporters of other parties will cross the floor, disgusted with their choices. They have come, or will come to the correct conclusion that voting is pointless.

    What do we stand for? In a nutshell, freedom works. We wish to remove State distortions/interventions in the market and reconstruct a voluntary association where individual property rights are enforced, our debt based monetary system repudiated and transitioned to sound money, and stop the endless State subsidies and moral hazards that support connected insiders.

    For example, if you and I do something wrong, we are punished and pay out of our own pockets. If a corporation does something wrong, the decision makers who cause harm are protected by the State via limited liability laws from having their personal assets seized to pay for their wrongdoings. Instead, they socialize costs incurred for wrongdoing to their employees (job losses/pay reductions), shareholders (dividend reductions), and citizenry (tax reductions). That is one example. Just one of thousands of distortions.

    It is incumbent upon us to take into our own hands the risks/responsibilities/rewards of being free. Can we get there? Let's try as damn hard as we can.
  103. john dancy from Canada writes: Chris S., They say spend but you should save. You are still going to buy food , clothes and shelter. During the great depression unemployment was around 30%. That means 70% of people still WORKED. Right now we are around 8%. We have social safety nets now we did not have back then. Thanks granny.....
  104. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You take yourself too seriously, Jason.
  105. john dancy from Canada writes: Paul Byer, and also Sarah Palin had a HUGE support boost , until she spoke. We have not heard anything from Mr Ignatief yet.......
  106. hangin right from Van, Canada writes: hmm sounds like a number of old things they never followed through on to begin with that they are digging up and re-presenting as something.

    And after the GST cut fiasco of misleading the people into thinking they were going to save something when they had to spend what little they had to get that false sense of security and saving....People won't be spending (unless its to pay a bill or something like that ).
    after that stunt and a few others where they broke the trust of the people ,, nope, no way , people will be hanging onto their pennies because they can't trust Harper .
    He screwed them one too many times .
  107. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: I find it disturbing just how easily Jim and Steve are spending our future taxes.
  108. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , did you know that when they poll non voters the numbers MATCH the people that did vote. Its not a huge pool of people that are suddenly going to join you the 20% of Canadians that dont support this budget. Yes the Liberals and the Bloc will support it and thats 80% of Canadians......
  109. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    M Liggins from Perth, Canada writes: Remnant - excellent posts. Read Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1849; legal philosopher who coined the phrase 'legal plunder' in reference to our legislators; never more true than today. He also decried mindless thought (prtisan? ) and the 'sophistry of vested interests'

    R Miller - How apropos put quoting von Mises.


    ----

    Funny you should mention that. Next up on my audiobook list, after 'Blink', by Michael Gladwell. I have recently turned off the inane babble of media and downloaded audiobooks to explore.

    The commute to work whisks by now. Sometimes, I miss my exit.

    Just finished listening to:

    'Economics in One Lesson' - Henry Hazlitt
    'What has Government done to our Money?' - Murray Rothbard.
    'The Case Against the Fed' - Rothbard again.

    In addition, you can download podcasts to the iPod as well. Oh, the choices! I don't think I have ever thought so clearly in my life. I don't know if that is saying much, but I am striving.
  110. John Connor from Canada writes: Mr Bean from Somewhere in ON, Canada writes: JOhn, I know too many people who have had really bad experiences with CUs in my area. I'm thinking about splitting things up between ING and PC.
    ----------------------------------------
    Always remember the following my freind:

    No fee, no service.
  111. James Young from Brampton, Canada writes: If this stupidly devised budget solves the financial crisis, I will start believing in one of the religions.

    Credit and loans and over-spending is what caused the problem is in the first place. This dumb budget is similar to throwing gasoline onto a fire in an attempt to extinguish the blaze.

    The CPC were on the right track, by doing nothing, but now they have been panicked into acting in a irresponsible manner. They should have stood back and judiciously interfered in serious select sectors to ease the pain. And of pain, there will be plenty.

    Durgan.
  112. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , did you know that when they poll non voters the numbers MATCH the people that did vote. Its not a huge pool of people that are suddenly going to join you the 20% of Canadians that dont support this budget. Yes the Liberals and the Bloc will support it and thats 80% of Canadians......

    ----

    Maybe, John. Let's find out.

    The blatant difference is that the 'voter apathy' excuse trotted out by the State/Media cartel might be nullified. Is that what the political parasitic class is afraid of?

    If that were to happen, perhaps new ideas would be allowed into the spectrum of debate. Ideas marginalized or shunned by the cartel might surface. Who knows?
  113. Paul Wilbee from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    'REMEMBER DECEMBER 4'

    My advice to Mr. Ignatieff is very simple:

    You do not prop up prime ministers who do not believe in parliamentary democracy.

    You kick them out of office.
  114. Western Clods from Vancouver, Canada writes:

    One of the big problems with so-called 'income-tax cuts' is that they always seem to be accompanied by payroll tax increases. This year, with my wages frozen, my take home pay has actually gone down $75 thanks to these 'tax cuts'.
  115. Evelyn Campbell from Canada writes: The devil will be in the details of this budget. Baird notes that some of the money will have to be tied to other levels of government coming up with funding as well.
    In municipalities, it is often hard to match what is wanted by the other levels of government both in financial and work commitments. It has been my experience that often the higher level of government demands the gold standard from the lower levels of goverment while making their own expectations much easier. This often means that money is left on the table because the municipality for instance simply cannot do what the feds want.
    I hope the infrasctructure money is easily accessible without the other levels having to jump through too many hoops. Otherwise it becomes a publicity stunt for the feds with little or no help to those it was hopefully intended for.
  116. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: James Young...agreed. But, they have to face up to reality. Had they done nothing, they'd be defeated, and quite possibly the co-alition could have ended up forming the gov't. Wow...THEN we'd have been in the shyt! What with Duceppe demanding billions for Qc, and the NDP'rs demanding to waste money on their ideological idiosyncrasies............ what's the least damaging move they could make? They made it! Give them a break....it shows that they're being responsible..... not driven by ideology!.
  117. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, would you agree that the two big parties working together like adults would be a good thing? Not what they say in public, that is always the perception part of politics, but what they do in private. Like this budget. The deal was done weeks ago I think...
  118. Stan L from Canada writes: Sorry, I am not impressed with what I am hearing and I hope the Igantieff thinks the same way.....I see nothing but a collection of stop gaps and vote buying....there is no greater vision here and seeimngly no plan, I am not sure that they have even looked at the implications of these notions and how they wrok in concert with one another. This is a dud, if it wasn't there would be no need for the pre-budget spin and indoctrination.
  119. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: $64 Billion dollar deficit over two years? $100 Billion more to the debt?

    Golly Stevie Harper, I thought only Bush could make deficits like that!
  120. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: North Star from Canada writes:

    Harper's legacy will be the largest deficit in Canadian history.

    ------------------------------

    You've been typing the same line for days now and I'm more than willing to bet you haven't even read the articles ...

    Forecast deficit for this year is 34B, followed by 30B next year....

    Largest deficit belongs to Mulroney - 42B
  121. john dancy from Canada writes: Evelyn Campbell, when infrastructure is not well thought out you end up with the Montreal stadium. Or environmental disasters.......
    They take time to really work.
  122. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes:

    Jason Roy: You take yourself too seriously, Jason.

    -------------------------------------------

    ...and in mathematical terms that would be still be greater than the amount who take you seriously.
  123. Wendy Stone from Canada writes: This budget has a FATAL FLAW that I wish the media would talk about:

    You cannot cut taxes permanently AND boost spending without going into a deep, deep, deep, dark hole in the future.

    You have to choose: You either cut taxes and cut services and programs to reflect the declining revenues, or, if you want to stimulate the economy with additional spending to pull out of a recession, then you increase taxes marginally now in order to boost services and program spending.

    But it is either/or. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Under the George W. Bush administration, they tried doing what the Harper government is doing right now: Bush made changes to the tax code to effectively reduce taxes in virtually each of the eight years he was in office. At the same time, he was increasing spending with two wars on the go. It was a big disaster, with the United States now sinking in a morass of debt and that is contributing greatly to the prolonged economic downturn for the whole world.

    The Harper government is deliberately putting us in the same boat, and it will result in forced cuts in the future to things we hold dear (like public health care) if we don't elect wiser money managers.
  124. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: Paul Wilbee...you have to have the strength.... and Iggy's smart enough to know he doesn't have enough strength yet. Smarten up in your comments, boy!
  125. m y from Canada writes: people need money and there's no money coming to them....tax cuts don't help on their own.

    money for renos and such....you have money to spend it on that....that's a gift for the rich.

    this budget is going to be such a waste.

    back to mulroney garbage...big deficits to spend on the rich and then the poor pay for it.

    i hope it doesn't boil down to this but it sure doesn't look good so far.
  126. Flander Jones from Canada writes: The Remnant from Canada writes: If that were to happen, perhaps new ideas would be allowed into the spectrum of debate.

    Are you proposing a Pragmatic Party...where one must be disdainful of all ideologies equally and policies must be based on rational thought? Something like that? That would be political heresy?
  127. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: Hahahahaha! Jason, so true! So true! Catheeeeee is something else, isn't she? :-) :-) :-)
  128. john dancy from Canada writes: Stan L, please try to tell us what you think should be done and dont forget to leave anyone out. You would not just help yourself , would you?
  129. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: $51 BILLION is so far unaccounted for! Depending on what else is announced tomorrow, I hope the Opposition Parties ask the tough questions such as WHY this $51 BILLION deficit exists (less the other innitiatives) and WHAT is the government doing to offset this monster negative! Is it an operating deficit? If so, what will the govt. do? ..................................... I'll give you a simple explanantion for this one. It was explained pretty clearly by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky at globalresearch.ca 'The first tranche of the program, for purchases up to $25 billion, was announced on October 10. These purchases will be completed by November 21. Under the initiative announced today, Canadian financial institutions will have access to up to an additional $50 billion of longer-term funding, bringing the total for the IMPP to $75 billion. The extension of the IMPP will be financed through increased issuance of Treasury bills and bonds. The Government will be consulting with market participants about the operational plan in the coming weeks.' Ministry of Finance, Government of Canada Announces Additional Support for Canadian Credit Markets 2008-090 (November 12, 2008) First Tranche: October 10: $25 billion. Already disbursed. Second Tranche: November 12: $50 billion. Take this bailout and the rediculous reduction of the GST and presto magic!!!! There is your deficit. These guys are a bunch of clowns when it comes to money. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007
  130. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:

    A non-political political party - hmmmmmmmmmmm; interesting concept.

    I may be interested in joining your clandestine organisation and subscribing to its quarterly newsletter.

    ----

    Welcome aboard, Jason. Clandestine? You mean like the Masons and/or the Illuminati? Um. No. We are much more prevalent than that.

    ------------------------------------------

    Actually I was being a bit faceteous with my above words - although I do support your initiative.

    The above words actually were Homer Simpson's words from an episode from a looooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg time ago...
  131. M Warren from Canada writes: So many have been promised and subsequently refused that promised funding in the previous budgets that this government simply cannot be taken at their word this time around. The Liberals are going to vote this down, and the coalition proposal will be enacted.
  132. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes:

    Hahahahaha! Jason, so true! So true! Catheeeeee is something else, isn't she? :-) :-) :-)

    --------------------------------------

    No Don - actually Catherine is a good sport on these threads...however if she would actually look at a whole situation or quote instead of what she wants to see she would be a better one.
  133. john dancy from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie, sooooo, explain why he is the longest sitting PM in a minority government? means he must be able to work with others. Is that not what we need right now? The Liberals and the Bloc are going to support the budget and thats 80% of Canadians votes.....
  134. Lyn Alg from Canada writes: Hey, little Jimmy Flaherty - I hope you purchased a new pair of shoes for yourself and Prime Minister Clueless for today's budget presentation.. I also trust that they were a pair of Reebok 'runners', so that you and Clueless can quickly run and hide after your presentation. Oh, and one other thing, Jimmy - ensure that they are not brightly coloured or we will able to quickly find the two of you. Bonne journee, schonen tag noch und viel gluck.
  135. Paul Byer from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Paul Byer: Get real.

    Canadians are not interested in your partisan snipes at Ignatieff.

    They are worried about job losses and their kids' futures.

    Conservatives are out of touch.

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    But that is what the Liberal party is all about right now, isn't Catherine, Iggy?

    The end result is that Iggy, by not having a choice and his political demise if he voted agin the elected Conservative government, is indeed helping Canada with it's economic crisis but again with no thanks to Iggy other than the position he finds himself in. That is the reality of the Liberal party right now.

    Always good to face reality Catherine. But still no answer from you although you received one from me.

    Double speak. Retorts. Insults. But no answer. In the good ole Liberal tradition.

    Have a great day Catherine. Canada will have a great year, at least the best under the present circumstances.

    We can give some credit to Iggy but not through his concern for Canada.
  136. Glynn W from Canada writes: Spend spend spend if the aim is still the same as those of the 'good years' ie. unbridled 'growth' and satisfaction of every material want there is. This of course is only one, albeit the dominant, perspective therefore the methods used. The is the opposite perspective which even before it is uttered is labelled as unworkable....bridled growth!
  137. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Well, Mr. Ignatieff will hear the budget, talk with his caucus, and make an announcement tomorrow.

    That's how decisions are made in the Wilkie house-hold, as well.

    So, Harper apologists, speculate away.

    Reality is, job losses and fears are the reality for too many.

    But, Harper and his supporters enjoy brinksmanship.
  138. Don Adams, the Centrist Conservative from Canada writes: Wendy Stone. To a certain extent, valid fears. BUT, I don't think the Cons will back off on financing things we hold dear.....eg your example, health care.

    They WILL save money in other areas's though.... civil service is one.... they'll find a way to limit the wage and benefit expense yet not get into a strike with the union. There'll be savings on immigration, could be savings on a bunch of Libby pet special interest projects etc.

    BUT, as the economy improves, the take from taxes will rise..... as long as they use the increased revenues to pay down the debt BEFORE going into new spending initiatives, we'll be fine. I don't have that faith though, if the Libs were to be in Gov't. They'd go to deficit financing, add to the debt....as much as the Cons gov't will...maybe more.... BUT I think they'd come up with funding new social programs and not pay down the debt!
  139. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada. This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through Canada Martgage and Housing Corporation At the height of the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper stated emphatically that: 'this is not a bailout... it will cost the government nothing.' (CBC News, October 10, 2008). According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: 'This program is an efficient, cost-effective and safe way to support lending in Canada that comes at no fiscal cost to taxpayers.'(Ibid) Yet Finance Minister Flaherty contradicts his own statement when he acknowledges that the project will drive up the public debt: Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $25 billion. Then CMHC will ask the banks and other financial institutions to ascertain how much debt they would like to sell to the agency, using a process known as a reverse auction. ... The official Ministry of Finance statement confirms that the operation will be financed by the Treasury. Prime Minister Harper claims that 'it will cost the government nothing' because the net public debt from an accounting point of view remains the same. While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation.
  140. Evelyn Campbell from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Evelyn Campbell, when infrastructure is not well thought out you end up with the Montreal stadium. Or environmental disasters....... They take time to really work. ************************************************* I understand that John and frankly it concerns me greatly with all this spending. However that is not really my point. A project can be heavily loaded top or bottom or middle for that matter. Many projects that are simply for publicity make the requirements for the lower level of government onerous and then unworkable. This is a real example: A fund that community organizations could access for small projects usually had money left at the end of the time period. The reason was the paper work, the accounting, the level the project was to adhere too was so high in the end it cost the community organization more money to access the project funds than it was worth. It made for excellent publicity for the municipality, but it was not good for the groups it was intended for. I am in agreement for accountability however the project can be skewed to make it look good on paper, but unworkable in practice. This gives the upper level all the publicity and none of the costs because the project simply cannot be done.
  141. MBguy s from Canada writes: Uh yes a great budget it is.........looking forward for it to be passed finally! And then all the critics can wallow in the sand lost as the economy moves on past them. Iggy will pass the budget because he knows he has to. The others well....who are they again...

    Yes this mess all started from people spending beyond there means......yes that house you are now married to. Or people racking up the credit beyond their means. And of course the finance sector who sold people those 40 year terms with no money down didn't help everything either.

    Its about time the taxes get reduced further.....the GST was only a temp tax.......actually so was income tax when it first came out....every tax that ever came out was called just a temp....tax!!!!! And we keep getting caught with the same story, a temp tax, amazing history always repeats itself. Oh yeah who was that put in the GST tax anyways....any takers.......???? Oh yeah....I think it was the LIBS correct me if I'm wrong.

    Well at least we can all move on and pay some more taxes eh.....and talk about other stuff after this has all blown over and become history in another page of history. Hey have a beer on me...Cheers.
  142. Stan L from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Stan L, please try to tell us what you think should be done and dont forget to leave anyone out. You would not just help yourself , would you?

    ======================================

    john, grow up, you want me to write a budget for you?.....typical conservative, just like Harper.....Like I said, I am not the finance minister, but here's something I think should have been looked at and it is the environmental file, there is money to be had in positioning ourselves as a 'green' provider and I think that this area has been overlooked.....with resepcts to the art, it is well and good the throw money at them (even though you will all slam them for it later) but the truth is that the majority of THEIR issues are to be solved by increasing opportunities for them on a world stage, protecting them in their own country, and providing legislation that looks out for their best interests......that's just a few ideas off the top of my head......tell me what is in this budget so far that is new or even remotely strategic?
  143. john dancy from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie, and when the Liberals Do vote for the budget you will whole heartedly support the government we have?
  144. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    How to start your own country:

    1. Establish of monopoly of violence in an area. Eliminate all your competition.

    2. Collect taxes/tribute from your victims.

    3. Establish a monopoly of money. Replace free market money (gold and silver) with your unbacked paper. Inflate at a carefully controlled rate, so that people's savings are stolen, but not so fast that they get disgusted and boycott your money. Make it illegal to use gold or silver as money. Force acceptance of this money by declaring it legal tender and demanding it in the form of taxes.

    4. Brainwash your victims to believe that your theft is morally just.

    5. Establish a system of fake justice, so that your arbitrary decrees are enforced and given an appearance of legitimacy. Make up a Constitution, so that people have the illusion that their rights are protected.

    6. Establish a monopoly of information, via control of TV and newspapers. Require mandatory schooling/brainwashing for all children.

    7. Establish universities, where biased researchers proclaim the brilliance of your leadership. Policy disputes are allowed; disputing your legitimacy of rule is not.

    8. Now that you have a monopoly of information, allow people to elect their own rulers. Since you control the media, only candidates you approve can be elected. You may rule without anyone being consciously aware of your power.

    9. Engage in wars with other leaders, so you can proclaim to your slaves how you are better than all other masters. This allows connected insiders to profit from war.

    10. Make sure that all workers have most of their productivity drained by taxes. This way, they won't have the resources to oppose and overthrow you.

    11. Establish corporations that control each industry. If any of the people you assign to manage them misbehave, then it is easy to discredit them.

    I think that just about does it.
  145. garlick toast from Canada writes: The Ponzi scheme defined, Tom Thumb's post @ 9:24.
  146. Ob Server from Canada writes: Since he's paying cash for the shoes (good choice btw) does he get a discount or save the taxes?
  147. Brian C from Canada writes:
    To Mr Bean who writes: 'TD Bank must have got the memo about the credit card interest relief because I just received a letter from them regarding my 2 lines of credit. They've increased the interest rate and to thank me for being fiscally prudent they are charging me $35 for each line because I haven't had any transactions for more than 360 days! That's right, it's retroactive, what a crock of sht. Apparently they made 'these changes so that we can continue to offer convenient, competitively-priced credit', give me a f^%ing break.'

    I moved all of my business from TD when they merged with Canada Trust. Prime was going down, and my adjustable car loan rate went up. A lot. Took everything with me. Didn't leave a dime. I talked to them and told them I would leave if they didn't correct it. They didn't. Said it was the ivory TO tower's decision to raise rates on car loans. I had an unsecured line of credit too, but that rate didn't go up. But my car loan that had my car as collateral did. Bizarre!

    My advice is, go and don't look back.
  148. john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, the government is going to make money on the mortgages because the interest rate they get is so good, go look.
  149. SOFA KING from Roblin Ontario, writes:
    If Harper and Flaherty were serious about getting the economy going there is a really sweet and simple program that would accomplish it with very little government cost and bureaucracy.

    Simply remove or reduce the GST on items with a high Canadian content percentage and encourage the provinces to follow suit. This plan is easy to turn on and off and allows the gov't to target specific areas to stimulate recovery and growth.
  150. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 'Who watches the watchers?'

    What has amazed me during this whole 'big picture' process is how there has been almost no dissent, public debate, and serious questions about the world governments spending massive amounts of money and passing on humongous debt to future generations.

    The media has also not done its job of presenting an opposition view and has only fannned the flames of panic.

    For many years, govt. spending was seen as waste-pork-corrupt in many cases, now it has been decided it is the ONLY answer to all that ills us.

    Case in point: Last November, the G20 meets and in conjunction with the IMF, decides massive govt intervention is the OLNLY solution-Intervention to the amoiunt of 2%-3% of a countries GDP by government borrowing massive amounts.

    In another G&M story, here is what some countries have done or plan to do to 'bail-out' whatever:

    United States $825-Billion 5% GDP
    Canada $49-Billion 1.25 %
    China $580-Billion 16 %
    EU $264-Billion 1.5%

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    .
  151. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: 'Catherine Wilkie, and when the Liberals Do vote for the budget you will whole heartedly support the government we have?'

    Blinding support for a political party? Absolutely not.
  152. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Tom Thumb from Canada writes: Prime Minister Harper claims that 'it will cost the government nothing' because the net public debt from an accounting point of view remains the same.

    ----

    You are correct. It never costs the government anything. They produce no wealth to contribute - well, maybe collector stamps and coins they mint. The wealth was looted from the productive sector under threat of violence.

    It never stops costing you and I.
  153. Paul Byer from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie, and when the Liberals Do vote for the budget you will whole heartedly support the government we have?

    '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

    Good luck with that one John. Wilkie won't answer it. Funny, Diane Marie gives the identical responses (no response) on the same question.

    A confused flock.
  154. Ob Server from Canada writes: Wendy Stone...I don't think people are concerned about the dark hole in the future....Canada is in survival mode...haven't you noticed? The future will take care of itself....
  155. The Central Screwtinizer from Ottawawa, Canada writes: Remember, consumers are 2/3 of GDP...THE PEOPLE, THE TAX PAYERS, YOU AND I, we are the ones that spend so businesses can manufacture, export, import, transport, haul, build, install, design, invent, JOBS!! yada-yada... JUST SHOW US THE CASH! According to Ottawa-based Vanier Institute for the Family, 'average Canadian household debt is equal to 131 per cent of household income compared with 90 per cent in 1990.' Statistics Canada says, '40 per cent of Canadian credit card holders regularly pay interest on their monthly balances.' A recent Investors Group survey found 'that 35 per cent of Canadians plan to carry up to $100,000 in debt into retirement.'... how you ask? Read on... From the Globe and Mail of January 5, 2008 'Statistics Canada reported recently that the earned income of the 'average' Canadian -- the so-called median income -- was the same in 2004 as in 1982. After we subtract inflation to keep the purchasing power of a dollar roughly constant, it turns out that median income, before taxes, did not rise at all over those 22 years. Yet during that same time the Canadian economy grew, in real per capita terms, by more than half. But only the very well-paid - those above the 90th percentile of the income distribution - saw any significant increase in earned income; and the higher up the earnings ladder, the greater the growth.' We have been sucked dry except for the 90th percentile of course.
  156. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: R. Carriere: Wholeheartedly agree with your post of 9:35. We are all sheep. Being led in one direction, than being herded in another direction. Our journalists are participants in the exercise, not objective analysts.
  157. Stan L from Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Since he's paying cash for the shoes (good choice btw) does he get a discount or save the taxes?

    Apparently he bought steel toed boots......he may be unaware of the job he has, or perhaps Harper has moved him to be the Minister of the Renovations at 24 Sussex? speaking of which....the renovations there were supposed to be in the neighbourhood of 10 million...wonder if Harper will undig those heels now, surely there are tax breaks to be had.....LOL
  158. john dancy from Canada writes: Stan L , I just wanted to hear what was really in your head not just hes bad they are bad bla bla bla .
    I too think real help for the future has been overlooked here. I agree that we here in Canada could come out of this an environmental leader with investment and tough new rules. Mr Obama just today put car manufacturers on notice for much higher fuel standards for the 2011 year. wow , we dont do that here, all these people wanting things, not wanting to build together. I know we are on different sides of the political fence but that is what makes us stronger. I honestly believe that when we stop being children so will our governments. cheers my friend.
  159. Chris S. from Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada writes: john dancy from Canada: unfortunately Canadians continue to get mixed messages from the Harper government. Do we put money into our Tax Free Savings Account or do we take out another car loan and mortgage? Is sales tax a stimulus or do the savings just get eaten up?
  160. Percy from NL from Canada writes: Wow, talk about the not dealing with reality ...

    I see some delusional posters are talking about the Harper Conservatives not spending big and not going into deficit (absolute lies as the factual record shows from 2006 to today). Then they say the Liberals are big spenders and will go into deficit (absolute lies as the factual record shows for more than a decade).

    The basis for their statements? ... Demographic studies show that a significant percentage of poorly informed people trust to and believe what is said and written, not matter how inaccurate. I guess they're desperately trying to keep some of their grassroot supporters in place. Lies for the gullible.
  161. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: 'Catherine Wilkie, and when the Liberals Do vote for the budget you will whole heartedly support the government we have?'

    Blinding support for a political party? Absolutely not.

    ---------------------------------

    Good then....so if the government falls because of the budget, then we wait another number of weeks for a new budget or go through an election and then most likely end up with an identical budget from Iggy (afterall this is a 'Liberal' budget according to the posters here)...we can look foward to a new round of posts from you but instead substituting Iggy/new finance minister for Harper/Flaherty...'Iggy is a dud', 'waiting too long', etc ?
  162. john dancy from Canada writes: The Central Screwtinizer , 60 billion dollars divided by 30 million Canadians is 2000 dollars each. If you borrowed 100,000 dollars and expect Canada to bail you out you better think again. Go read the wealthy barber , great Canadian book. those rules should be in the Charter. Right Stan?
  163. Brian C from Canada writes:
    To Catherine Wilkie who writes: 'Well, Mr. Ignatieff will hear the budget, talk with his caucus, and make an announcement tomorrow.'

    Seriously Catherine, Iggy has said what he wants to see in the budget, and he already knows most of what will be in the budget, and he's been talking to his advisors for a while now, when he could fit them in between book writing sessions that is, so it stands to reason that he can make a decision in the same time frame as has been done for decades now by other party leaders.

    You and I both know that Iggy belongs to the LPT, and the LPT's announcements are based on what their polls are telling them, so Iggy wants time to run some exit polls to gauge just how big the rock and the hard place is that he finds himself in between.

    And tomorrow morning, he'll announce that he's sacrificing his own strongly held beliefs and doing what's in the best interest of Canadians by once again supporting the CPC for the 44th, 45th, 46th, and potentially 47th time in a row.

    Spin that Catherine.
  164. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, the government is going to make money on the mortgages because the interest rate they get is so good, go look.

    Quite frankly they are going to also lose money on interest paid on the debt. Maybe break even. As well, I don't want to see them take on more public debt in my name. Pay down the day for the sake of future generations.
  165. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: I have voted different political parties. And you, Jason?
  166. Flander Jones from Canada writes: Chris S. from Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada writes: john dancy from Canada: unfortunately Canadians continue to get mixed messages from the Harper government. Do we put money into our Tax Free Savings Account or do we take out another car loan and mortgage? Is sales tax a stimulus or do the savings just get eaten up?

    Do people really need a government to tell them what to do with their money? That is a bit scary. I suggest people start doing their own research and take responsibility for their own lives. Failing that, send all your money to me and I will take very good care of it. No, really. I will.
  167. john dancy from Canada writes: Paul Byer, yes and they never post at the same time, hmmmmmm
  168. steve allan from Canada writes: No corporate tax relief! Enough is enough. Every time you give corporations tax relief they use the money to ship jobs offshore. Corporations in Canada are already some of the least taxed corporations in the world and that fact hasn't made them more competitive or efficient.

    If there's even one dollar of tax relief for corporations, the opposition has no choice but to bring the government down.
  169. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: I can see it now - Like John Thain some scumbag from the backwoods of the government is gonna get caught taking your 'stimulus' money to redo his office, house, cottage, car, truck, etc and we'll get a bill for 2 million dollars.

    Jesus people wake up. The elites have you totally suckered.

    The economy needs to be re-started the govt is guaranteeing zombie businesses, banks, people who live on the dole.

    Why innovate and create new businesses when you can dig ditches for twice as much.

    Further, just wait till the tax bill comes in in 2-3 years. You think you're poor now.....
  170. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: Here's a good stimulus program spend 2 billion like the gun registry on a teddy bear registry to help IT guys get off the dole.

    Cripes I can see it now. Some stiff in the govt will take this idea and put the country to work.
  171. Paul Byer from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Paul Byer, yes and they never post at the same time, hmmmmmm

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Either working different shifts at the spin control centre or......................yes there is another answer.

    Definitely the same twists, evasion and identical responses. Circle talk. No answers.
  172. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: There are back room politcos all over this country licking hteir lips waiting for this boondoggle.

    I might as well join the lip licking crowd cause you people are being played as fools.

    Sign me up I need my cottage painted on your dime.
  173. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes:

    Jason Roy: I have voted different political parties. And you, Jason?

    ---------------------------------

    Yep - PC, Reform, CPC

    Reform in 1993 when I knew our PC candidate didn't have a hope in hell and now way in hell was I voting for that Liberal pillar of tolerance and compassion Roseanne Skoke.
  174. john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, I agree, I wish they were not spending anymore of my children's money. Mine was spent by Mr Trudeau.
    They should have invested in the future, environment, education, technologies that work. We have social safety nets that are going to help people AND start to cost billions extra. Just wait a few years and you will see hundreds of billions added to the debt.
    We could have come out of this a world leader but we will just follow our friends down south.......again.
  175. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: Thanks for the response. I thought as much.

    I've voted for three different parties. Political parties lose my support when they cast aside their principles.
  176. john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, yes they do, and that is because we have minority government right now.
    I agree Canadians will be better off when we do for ourselves more and stop asking for someone else to do it for us. Mommy and Daddy are gone. Read the wealthy barber and do what granny always said, live within your means and save for a rainy day. Its raining...
  177. C McPherson from Ontario, Canada writes: WHO CAN AFFORD TO EAT:

    Leave it to the Harper gov. to drum up this one
    50 million to expand slaughter capacity ????????????
    Who can afford to eat????????
    4 million grant already wasted 2006 > Natural Valley Farm - Sask. -
    slaughter house - who in 2008 went into receivership shortly after their horse slaughter horrors was aired on CBC - June 2008. With the parent company (Belgium) taking it over - changing the name.
    28 pages of violations when located in USA and on and on
    No funding for extra inspectors to control these places leads to turning a blind eye.
    See what this gov. allows from transit > behind close doors
    www.Defend Horses Canada.org
    So much for tough on crime!
    I can surely bet - that 98.9 % of this debt will go to Harper's stomping ground
  178. Counterspinner tells the truth from Canada writes: Compliments to the globe for running that great picture of the 5 conservatives. That's the leadership i want to lead my country. It sure beats a picture of the Separatist Coalition lead by duceppe holding hands with his two prince regents.
  179. Chris S. from Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada writes: Flander Jones from Canada -> Do people really need a government to tell them what to do with their money? Certainly, both the government and the corporations that form the pillars of our consumer society are charged with the responsibility of perpetuating the growth economy. Otherwise all hell would break loose. End of the world. Those guys on horseback and all the rest...
  180. a l from Toronto, Canada writes: The photo: one big happy family or keeping his enemies close?
  181. Joe Dick from Kingston, Canada writes: Coalition times are tough times indeed.

    $1.95 went to $30 billion awfully fast.
  182. Seasoned Warrior from Been down so long it looks like up to me, Canada writes: Opponents and self-professed experts can carp and complain and yap endlessly about their better alternatives, but this budget will pass. So I am going ahead with my plans to hire a contractor and get some major work done on my house. This budget will help my self-employed business as well as my clients and my community.
  183. Cross the Border and up the Hill from Canada writes: 'Earlier this month, a blue-ribbon panel endorsed Mr. Flaherty's long-held goal of replacing the country's 13 provincial and territorial bodies with a single entity.'? One state eh? I guess that'll make the paperwork the more easier when they try and add us as an American state then. I can only imagine how much corruption there'll be then and how much more certain areas will get screwed over. I guess the days of openingly favouring one province over others is gone so now it's onto the next scheme. The days of provinces being quiet and without voice now replaced with voices challenging the decisions in Ottawa has got them scrambling.
  184. Chris M from Canada writes: Where is the call for responsibility -- why is this budget geared towards getting Canadians to simply spend their way out of this mess.

    Is that not what got the global economy here in the first place -- unchecked borrowing against capital that wasn't really there.

    This budget is no solution! Its more of the same, a startling lack of imagination -- and I don't just blame the conservatives, if this budget was designed in consultation with the liberals as well then Canada is in trouble.

    Where is the funding towards renewables? The wholesale, forward-looking push towards alternative energy and the next big boom?
  185. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Joe Dick from Kingston, Canada writes: Coalition times are tough times indeed.

    $1.95 went to $30 billion awfully fast.


    -----

    Wait for the massive incoming inflationary tsunami that takes $30 billion to have the same purchasing power of $1.95 ;-)

    OK. I am joking. Let's ask the folks in Zimbabwe.
  186. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: Thanks for the response. I thought as much.

    I've voted for three different parties. Political parties lose my support when they cast aside their principles.

    ------------------------------------------

    Good then...so I'll assume you'll be joining the cause The Remenant proposed above - a None of the Above Party.

    Afterall, the LPC & CPC's principles went out the window long ago, Layton just threw away any principles he and the NDP had when he agreed to leave in place the corporate tax cuts he was so opposed to as a condition of a coalition government, as did Ms May when she brought up the possibilty of a senate seat.
  187. J M from Calgaristan, Canada writes: Interesting that since Obama came in with his plan in the AUS the Dow is up 883 points where as in Canada where Harper hase done ..... nothing, the TSX is down 765 points. We're poorer than we think and if Steve has his way, we'll have nothing left. I wouldn't be suprised to see a future trial for kickbacks that came from US investment houses after they pick up Canadian resource assets for peanuts.
  188. tiiu u from toronto, Canada writes: I think the Finance Minister should set up a registry for professional renovators before handing out any money to that industry. This summer I had a high efficency gas furnace, central air conditioning, energy efficent windows, pink insulation, 2 appliances and a porch replaced, and I had difficulty with renovators who never showed up when arranged, who showed up and never gave me estimates, who gave me very high estimates($750 for a basement window by a large, well known contractor). I had to do all this after work at around 6:15 pm on workdays. This same contractor(name starting with S)was described as a business partner of a participant in the Ontario Enersave program, but would only supply me with an 80% gas efficency furnace and the sales man told me that a 95% efficency furnace could not be installed in my 18 foot frontage semi-detached home. In the end, they could not even install the 80% efficency furnace and left my front door open and the lights on while I was at work. Another smaller, family firm did the job. I even paid a fee to join a club for homeowners seeking such services, and you have to phone the club twice to even get any renovators to call you there.One woman sent me an email asking me to send her a picture of my porch so that her husband could do an estimate. I have hunted the internet, the community newspaper and personal contacts.The big box stores of this world are very selective about the kind of jobs they will do(no porches, no replacement of the back of your house, no bannisters inside your house). Services that send out contractors will only send them out to jobs that only one person can complete. My dry cleaner gave me the number for his renovator and he has been excellent.
  189. Percy from NL from Canada writes: How did Harper get his minority on October 14th, 2008 you ask? Well, an online survey currently shows that 38% of Canadians do not believe he made the following statement:

    'The only way there is going to be a recession is if they (the Liberals) are elected and that's why they're not going to be elected.' - Stephen Harper, September 26th, 2008.

    38%, misinformed? Shameful!
  190. Tom Smith from Canada writes: And just how is a home rennovation program going to fix the economy? What if one does not own a home?

    As I understand this economic bailout package, the Government of Canada is spending 34B dollars per year for the next two years. The Governments of GWB and Obama together have forked out something like 2 Trillion dollars and still it has not worked. Since the USA has something like 10 times Canada's population, surely 200 Billion dollars in the span of one year would match the American bailout.

    The question: is this measure by Harper enough or is it just a paltry drop in the bucket?
  191. Bob Dylan's Voice from Canada writes: JM from Calgaristan, Caught you in another lie. TSX has gone up in sync with Dow since Obama inauguration. Could you please quit making stuff up. If you must lie do a little homework to make sure your lies are in the ball park.
  192. Pete H from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Well, Mr. Ignatieff will hear the budget, talk with his caucus, and make an announcement tomorrow.

    That's how decisions are made in the Wilkie house-hold, as well.

    So, Harper apologists, speculate away.

    Reality is, job losses and fears are the reality for too many.

    But, Harper and his supporters enjoy brinksmanship

    Careful, your partisanship is showing. Iggy and the liberals in particular never participate in brinkmanship do they. Everyone knows the liberal party only makes decisions based on altruism. Too funny.
  193. okanagan pakman from Canada writes: budget 2009 = convenient method to hide deficits from 2008
  194. Ken Walter from Canada writes: So the liberals are going to get whatever they want in this budget. Wise move on the Libs’ part if it does not work it’s the Tories problem if it does they are the ones who pushed the Tories to do it either way they win HARPER. But no lets worry about the country.
  195. Cameron Jantzen from Canada writes: I've never compared Harper to Bush, but increasing spending while decreasing taxes smacks so obviously of failures South. How on earth can we expect to do both successfully. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.
  196. Cameron Jantzen from Canada writes: Joe Dick,
    And I think the deficit went from $12 bil to $34 bill. It was just the lying economic update that said we'd have a $1.95 surplus.
  197. B. Goode from Canada writes: It appears that the infrastructure plan is designed to fail right from the start. The requirement of 1/3 contribution from the municipalities and provinces will mean that the municipal taxes and provincial taxes will have to be increased to come up with their shares. That will result in consumers having less money to spend at a time when consumer spending is needed.
  198. Bob Dylan's Voice from Canada writes: Ken Walter from Canada writes: So the liberals are going to get whatever they want in this budget. Wise move on the Libs’ part if it does not work it’s the Tories problem if it does they are the ones who pushed the Tories to do it either way they win HARPER. But no lets worry about the country. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I guess its a win win situation. The Liberal think they won and the CPC think they won because they are still the government. Nice to see these parties working together.
  199. Percy from NL from Canada writes: Get ready for the Harper Conservative's disclaimer to avoid being responsible for governing. Here they are in the order of Harper precedent I expect:

    - Ignatieff made us do it
    - Obama made us do it
    - the premiers made us do it

    Now wouldn't that be real responsible adult-like?
  200. Henry Fiunkle from Halifax, Canada writes: Did anyone else notice how ridiculous the picture of the PM and his 'top' advisors is? Is this supposed make everyone in Canada feel good that their politicians are 'hard' at work for them? This represents, yet again, another attempt by the Conservatives to stroke and groom their battered image... So sad...
  201. The Central Screwtinizer from Ottawawa, Canada writes: John Dancy...nonetheless, if Canadians' incomes are locked at 1982 rates over the past 27 years it seems that the only choice consumers have is to borrow to keep up with expenses which keep rising i.e. heating and gas prices, food costs, clothing, utilities, basically the essentials etc... To me it appears as a conspiracy between governments and financial institutions if you take a look at profits garnered by financial institutions, even having the highest dividend payments of any business , for example, they are in the triple figured $billions$ of dollars from interest rate and service charges nickle and dimed from everyone trying to cope not to mention our rate of taxation. Life goes on. Debt becomes inconsequential once your dead.
  202. Flander Jones from Canada writes: Chris S. from Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada writes: Flander Jones from Canada -> Do people really need a government to tell them what to do with their money? Certainly, both the government and the corporations that form the pillars of our consumer society are charged with the responsibility of perpetuating the growth economy.

    Actually Chris, all I require is a modicum of transparency, stability and rational (re. not ideology) policies from politicians so I can continue to build a successful business. To expect people with virtually no common sense, or real business experience, (politicians) do create growth in the economy for me is a bit like expecting a feral dingo to fetch my slippers. Hence my distaste for Mr. Harper. His personal vendettas keep getting in the way of me earning a living by creating uncertainty. If he wants to lead, then he should lead. If he does not want to lead he should quit. But I have no faith in any of them. By accepting responsibility for my own well being I take it out of the hands of those I consider to be inept.
  203. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: R. Carriere: Wholeheartedly agree with your post of 9:35. We are all sheep. Being led in one direction, than being herded in another direction. Our journalists are participants in the exercise, not objective analysts.

    ---------------------------------

    So you agree with Rob C that we are all sheep, yet you try to convince me you're not one...

    Talk about going in one direction then the other...

    Sheesh!
  204. Evelyn Campbell from Canada writes: B. Goode from Canada writes: It appears that the infrastructure plan is designed to fail right from the start. The requirement of 1/3 contribution from the municipalities and provinces will mean that the municipal taxes and provincial taxes will have to be increased to come up with their shares. That will result in consumers having less money to spend at a time when consumer spending is needed.
    ****************************
    B. Goode: That is the point of my post (Posted 27/01/09 at 9:24 AM EST). I have seen this happen before. It becomes impossible for lower level of government to access the money because the upper level have set the rules in such a way that it is to expensive to access the project. That is why often there is money left in funds that have not been accessed. The uppper level of government can then say well we have had that available for ahwile.
    I fear this might be the case with this spending package.
  205. Comments closed, censored, hidden, deleted, disappeared from Mini Bush-Obamatieff village, Canada writes: On the brink of the precipice... yet still charging forward with more of the same, and expecting opposite results! --- Stay tuned. Don't go away. So much to learn in the coming months...
  206. Farhad Fadavi from Thornhill, Canada writes: We have to make sure first that there is an income and after give a tax break or incentive for home renovation. Sincerely, all of that in south border did not produce a damn thing, because simply people does not have any income to spend on it. In two GST cut that the PM proposed the effect was that I am paying more in my coffee, at Starbucks, than before and I lost most services that I can not get it in some other way, so you figure out a penny how much affect my life. Naturally, growing the number of pizza business is not equal of the growth.
  207. john dancy from Canada writes: The Central Screwtinizer, I dont know where you are getting your numbers for income but they are wrong. Better go look at the statcan website.
    I for one am happy the banks are healthy and part of my savings are with them. Granny always said live within your means and save for a rainy day. its raining, me and McDonalds are expanding and Im jumping onboard.
    The debt you talk about goes to your children from the government. Just another Canadian who went to woodstock and wants everthing for ME.
  208. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: WOW, the best we can hope for is that this budget passes and the government fails to deliver on most of this spending.

    The world is gone nuts and the socalist are crying for handouts to maintain their lifestyle.

    Please Ignatief don't defeat this budget and lets get on with saving our kids future by not spending these promised dollars.
  209. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You are endeavouring to be a trickster today. Telegraphing Harper's budget?

    I wholeheartedly agree with R. Carriere in respect to the discussion that government should be participating in with the nation.

    We are entering a paradigm shift with the economy. Capitalism, unguarded, has propelled the global economy unravelling at a pace that is no longer able to predict and seemingly unmanageable.

    Are we discussing societal requirements in balance with corporate goals?

    No.

    Leadership is more than ability to win, Jason.
  210. Brian C from Canada writes:
    To Cameron Jantzen who writes: 'I've never compared Harper to Bush, but increasing spending while decreasing taxes smacks so obviously of failures South. How on earth can we expect to do both successfully. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible.'

    Well then, you can start comparing Harper to Obama now. Obama's plan to tackle the recession that started in his country is, believe it or not, increased spending while decreasing taxes for 95% of all Americans.

    Can you smell the irony? Mr. Change is Coming is introducing more of the same. I love it!
  211. Dan Zenderman from TO, Canada writes: What the heck are you people dong down there at the globe and Mail putting a smiling picture of Stephen Harper on the front page ! Couldn't you find one with a grimace or a scowl ? Get a Grip !..or are you just sucking up , hoping to get a great big handout from this budget ? ..come on now ..come clean !
  212. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: North Star from Canada writes:

    Harper's legacy will be the largest deficit in Canadian history.

    ------------------------------

    You've been typing the same line for days now and I'm more than willing to bet you haven't even read the articles ...

    Forecast deficit for this year is 34B, followed by 30B next year....

    Largest deficit belongs to Mulroney - 42B
    ------------------
    Guess Brians record is safe....

    Harper.....returning CONservatives to the Mulroney tradition.......deficits
  213. john dancy from Canada writes: Percy from NL, and 70% did not believe the green shift was a good idea. Your 70% was worse than his 38% so your fellow Canadians went with him.
  214. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: That photo of PM pro tem Steve surrounded by his MINIsters makes me think of the still shot of Robert DiNiro playing Al Capone surrounded by his capos in The Untouchables.
  215. garlick toast from Canada writes: This socialist isn't crying for handouts to maintain my lifestyle. This budget is a feast for grifters and hucksters.
  216. G L from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes: Tom Smith- Tom the vast majority of Canadians own a home or condo I can appreciate that when your of age and start working you too will be in position to purchase a home. Most Canadians at some point in time will want to make renovations to their homes, particuarly those residing in older homes. This is a plus and just may encourage those of us who do own older homes and condos to renovate sooner rather than later. It's a win win The owner gets a tax credit and it employees local people(Most of the renovation work is done by small businesses sometimes a single operator and if they get too busy they probably will hire people to keep up with calls. Based on what we've been told this appears to be a good budget, with many programs advocated by the opposition. It will help stimulate the economy. In the end however we need the American Economy to recover and the American consumer start buying t hose commodities that Canadian workers produce. or assemble. Canada also needs the world price of oil per barrel to get back to a dollar. That's the key here and until that happens,our economy will continue to suffer. and jobs will be lost and layoffs continue.
  217. john dancy from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie, No actually people thinking they were smarter than their parents and wanting everything now is what has gotten some in trouble. We should give nothing to these woodstock losers....
  218. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You are endeavouring to be a trickster today. Telegraphing Harper's budget?

    I wholeheartedly agree with R. Carriere in respect to the discussion that government should be participating in with the nation.

    We are entering a paradigm shift with the economy. Capitalism, unguarded, has propelled the global economy unravelling at a pace that is no longer able to predict and seemingly unmanageable.

    Are we discussing societal requirements in balance with corporate goals?

    No.

    Leadership is more than ability to win, Jason.

    --------------------------------------

    Nice try Catherine but you did tell R Carriere one thing and me the other...

    As for party principles I stand by what I wrote above....none of the mainstream parties have any left...if you think otherwise then you've only cemented the arguement you are a sheep in one way or another...

    As for the budget...like you I'll be waiting and seeing. As I said, we'll get the same thing either from Harper or Iggy...and in either case the sun will still rise on Wednesday...
  219. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: .

    This isn't a budget, its cash-diarrhoea.

    And we know where that ends up.

    .
  220. J Kay from Canada writes: To borrow a phrase from Susan Powter: Stop the Insanity.

    The more I hear about this budget the less convinced I am that it will do anything positive. It seems to be a mixture of populist measures, that will have little if any effect on the economy: credit cards? Please what a transparent attempt at deflection by 'attacking' something generally vilified. The measures will accomplish nothing.

    The tax cuts, while I would be happy to have when the economy is humming and we aren't running a deficit, are foolish under these circumstances. They will do little to stimulate the economy, in the near term, unless they are made retroactive, are unlikely to spur a huge amount of spending and even if they do it's highly questionable as to if such spurred spending provides even a modicum of benefit to the economy, either in the near or long term such that it's even remotely reasonable to request future generations to pay for it. At best I expect the cuts might mean an extra $4 per week in someones pocket. Worse, they will make balancing the budget in the future ever more difficult, creating a downside pressure on revenues. It's simply incompetent fiscal management.

    Hell if they want to just spur spending, put a 1 year moratorium on the GST. It would only prolong the problem I suspect but it would do more to spur spending.

    The corporate tax cuts were already in place and planned along time ago. In fact they are simply the corporate tax cuts proposed under the previous Liberal government on a slightly accelerated schedule from 2006. Fine in theory but disingenuous to pretend it's something new.

    On a side note, it appears as if the G&M is suggesting the budget deficit is going to be $30 billion for 2008-09? I believe that to be incorrect but would like to clarify. Since this is a budget for 2009-10 and forward it should not be able to modify the finances for the remainder of the 2008-09 year. So those numbers should be 2009-10, 2010-11.
  221. john dancy from Canada writes: garlick toast, the socialist wants paradise for himself and wants everyone else to pay for it. We are all equal little Bobby its just some are more equal than others.......and lazy
  222. Flander Jones from Canada writes: garlick toast from Canada writes: This socialist isn't crying for handouts to maintain my lifestyle. This budget is a feast for grifters and hucksters.

    Indeed. I just wish I had the morals of a politician and could figure out a way to fleece my flock as well. Oh well. At least I can sleep at night.
  223. john dancy from Canada writes: J Kay, they have taken a page from the red book haven't they!!
    we will help everyone , to the tune of 50$ per line item. even if some were promised before.
    You better start helping YOUR SELF.
  224. B. Goode from Canada writes: Evelyn Campbell from Canada writes:
    **************************
    B. Goode: That is the point of my post (Posted 27/01/09 at 9:24 AM EST). I have seen this happen before. It becomes impossible for lower level of government to access the money because the upper level have set the rules in such a way that it is to expensive to access the project. That is why often there is money left in funds that have not been accessed. The uppper level of government can then say well we have had that available for ahwile.
    I fear this might be the case with this spending package.
    ============================
    Yes, unfortunately that seems to be the case.
  225. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: .

    Interest relief on credit-cards??? Isn't this supposed to the 'free market' people??? Shouldn't the credit-card companies decide for themselves what is best - that's the conservative way.

    What exactly is it that the conservatives stand for these days anyway?

    Why bother with a cheap-imitation version of the Liberals when we can have the real thing?
  226. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: I'm not sure what has ruffled your feathers.

    You support Harper.

    I judge leadership differently than you do.

    The budget will be spun by you, with or without merit, simply because it is written by a Conservative.

    Others will judge it on the merit of the ideas.
  227. Brandan Matchett from Halifax, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada: You vote for another party after ethics are what? This is interesting Catherine your ethical standards are one thing but the Libs were actually convicted of criminal acts.

    Who did you vote for after the gomery inquiry?

    How ethical is running a campaign with a promise not to form a coalition with the other opposition parties, and then 6 weeks after the election trying to form a coalition.

    Catherine your gun has no bullets, your arguements have no substance and your credibility is gone.
  228. Super Farmer from Canada writes: Vern, Stude, Catherine and Jansen have rendered this thread of comments unreadable. Thanks. Typical Liberal discourse; yell the loudest.
  229. J Kay from Canada writes: Central Screwitzer: Central you regurgitate this same stuff on almost every story, kind of like Mark Dip and his EI babbling.

    You don't seem to understand the numbers though since you frequently misinterpret what the Stats Can report you are quoting says. It notes that between 1982 and 2005 that real median incomes remained roughly unchanged; there was in fact a modest increase but not substantial. What this indicate is that peoples incomes have kept up with inflation so your suggestion that peoples incomes have remained stagnant and therefore they had to borrow for the increasing costs is incorrect. What it means by real incomes is that peoples incomes have kept up with inflation and thus people have the same purchasing power today as they did in 1982, that their money goes just as far and that we are no worse off.

    Is this a big deal? Not really. At some point the ability of wages to outgrow the economy is limited and cannot continue forever. Improvements thereafter are generally slow and incremental, as we have seen over the past 27 years. This is neither shocking nor should it be distressing.

    Granted yes the median incomes remained fixed but the upper incomes grew, but this too will eventually stabilize and modest growth over the longer term will be the norm.
  230. john dancy from Canada writes: B. Goode, yes lets hope not a dime is spent. If you cant afford your home , get out. If you cant afford your car, sell it. Start by reading the wealthy barber and start saving like granny told you....
  231. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Brandan Matchett; I voted against the Liberals, after the Gomery Inquiry.
  232. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes:

    Forecast deficit for this year is 34B, followed by 30B next year....

    Largest deficit belongs to Mulroney - 42B
    ------------------
    Guess Brians record is safe....

    Harper.....returning CONservatives to the Mulroney tradition.......deficits

    -----------------------

    I think Mulroney is safe for now... don't forget, his 42 Billion was in 1993 dollars as well. I wonder what that would equal to today?

    But yes, Conservatives are definetely trying to conserve their reputation as being completley incompetent when it comes to the budget.

    I have no idea what the conservative party is supposed to stand for, do you?
  233. Hound Dog from Canada, Canada writes: First it would be interesting to know how big the deficit for the next fiscal years would have been if there was no stimulus package.

    My guess is the Conservatives are covering up the fact that the federal government would have gone into a sizeable deficit for the next two fiscal periods, even without a stimulus package being introduced.

    Second, there is no mention of what the current fiscal period deficit will be. Everybody agrees that the November fiscal update was pure fiction.

    Again come this March, at the end of the current fiscal period, I would not be too surprised to learn that the deficit reaches $10 billion dollars; this is without any impact from the proposed stimulus package.

    Maybe the stimulus package is pure fiction too
  234. john dancy from Canada writes: Dave Jansen, the credit card thing is a huge jab at Mr Layton. Next election he can say I did what you said, anything else you would like me to do....
  235. james m from Canada writes: Forget the article and the comments - that picture truly tells a thousand words - befuddled, uncertain, smug, dim-witted, lost, and resigned.
  236. john dancy from Canada writes: J Kay, nicely said.....
  237. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes:

    We are entering a paradigm shift with the economy. Capitalism, unguarded, has propelled the global economy unravelling at a pace that is no longer able to predict and seemingly unmanageable.

    No.

    Leadership is more than ability to win, Jason.


    ----

    Catherine, with all due respect, capitalism isn't really the root cause of the issue.

    The real root cause is our fraudulent monetary system our government is beholden to as are we.

    What tempers lending under normal circumstances? If you or I lend out our money to someone, what limits our greed? Risk, capital restraint, and our willingness to forgo the current pleasures of our money for future reward.

    In the above cases, fractional reserve banking in concert with a central bank's control of our money has eroded those restraints.

    When a private bank grants a loan, it does not borrow the money from the BoC nor does it take it from its depositors. That loan represents brand new money - minted out of thin air - and injected into the economy - with interest attached. Interest rates are artificially set. Low interest rates entice borrowing, high interest rates discourage it.

    Our private banks are the birthplace and slaughterhouse of our money and artificially set interest rates CAUSE the boom/bust cycles in our economy. Political parties are simply a ruse to distract us from the people behind the curtain.

    I'll follow up with a better example.
  238. john dancy from Canada writes: Hound Dog , when all the social safety nets start working expect the deficit to go to 100 billion, yes, 100 billion.
    Remember less people working and spending , less taxes collected too.
  239. Matthew Bowyer from Vancouver, Canada writes: I would like to make a comment to those who keep spouting that credit cards charge 0% interest.

    This is true, IF you CAN pay them off. I have NEVER carried a balance before in my life... but my fiance was laid off four months ago. We stopped paying them off about a month ago. His EI runs out in two weeks. He's not even applying for work he wants anymore, just anything that pays.

    And... he's an Engineer.

    I know how important it is to pay off those bills each month, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise. We had an emergency fund for two month's income. I doubt many of you have even that... and yet, that dried up pretty damned fast when you have less than 50% of the income you used to.

    So those of you who rant about 'only the stupid paying interest' on credit cards, please get off your soapbox, and realize that many of us are non-unionized... and have no way to fight to keep our jobs.

    Oh, and have I mentioned he was laid-off because he was gay... and we can prove the whole matter. We just cannot afford the lawyer's retainer to do so.

    Gotta love Canada.
  240. diane marie from Canada writes: Well, I am very unhappy with the tax cuts - horror of horrors, PERMANENT tax cuts - for all but the lowest brackets. Is the picture accompanying this story supposed to instill confidence? The fiscal conservative in me thinks that much of this budget is a big mistake, though I guess I ought to wait to see if there's any more budget to table.
  241. Robert von from Calgary, writes: I will believe the 34 billion dollar deficit figure next year during the fiscal update. Is this not the same government which said we would be having modest surpluses back in October? So how can we trust their figures now? It makes me worried that this could also be a fake number and it could be much larger than this. If so I guess the Conservative Party can forget about forming government for a long long time.
  242. SAYNO2PROPAGANDA SPINNER from Toronto, Canada writes: Can't run a country on debt. $600 billion must be repaid. And our Government? Our Politicians? They appear determined to have 'someone else' pay, 'some other time'. Anyone with a job should be paying huge taxes, to pay off the debt and deliver minimal services while supporting those who deserve our support. Canada has been a private piggy bank for the past 50 years, that debt has supported the growth of businesses and personal fortunes. Time to start paying it back folks. If not, you won't enjoy Canada after we default. No credit, all our resources bought, a worthless dollar, huge inflation, few meaningful jobs, even fewer services, negligible tax revenues, tiny pensions. This is what huge national debts do. Now, you economists at TD, CIBC, and RBC, tell us how it's 'acceptable' to spend $0.60 of every tax dollar for interest payments on our $600 billion debt. How about $0.80? Go ahead, explain it...
  243. K Ottawski from Ottawa, Canada writes: I hope the tax cuts are substantial this time around. Ignatieff and the Libs, please do not mess up the future of Canadians. You really do not have an idea how to run the country especially with the other clowns from the coalition with their stupid demands
  244. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: new announcements including $7-billion in new infrastructure funding showcased by Transport Minister John Baird
    ----------------

    Announcing money that doesn't flow is just another CONservative lie

    Remember the Building Canada Fund 2007 ?????

    No funds flowed.......connect the dots.......

    CONs lie
  245. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: I'm not sure what has ruffled your feathers. You support Harper. I judge leadership differently than you do. The budget will be spun by you, with or without merit, simply because it is written by a Conservative. Others will judge it on the merit of the ideas ----------------------------------------- This is where the gloves come off... The only thing that has ruffled my feathers is you reading only what you want to read.... I have told you very clearly before that despite being a CPC supporter I have my days where think Harper has to go... I have told you very clearly that Harper has been a liar and will continue to be one... I have told you very clearly that NONE of the parties have principles when it comes down to it - you're going to get the same no matter what - just pick your colour... I have told you very clearly that I was going to wait for the budget...even though we'll get the same budget from either Harper or Iggy You DID agree with R Carrier (9:35) that we are all sheep, yet you say you're not one on other posts... TAKE OFF YOUR F'ING BLINDERS AND READ THE ENTIRE F'ING POSTS INSTEAD OF EMPLOYING SELECTA-VISION AND READING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.
  246. J Kay from Canada writes: Hound Dog: Almost certainly we would have run a deficit over the next two fiscal years without a stimulus budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has indicated next years deficit before stimuls would be $13 billion simply due to past fiscal management decisions and the downturn in the economy.

    We will be running a budget deficit at the end of this fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009. Assuming none of this spending will be occurring as line items in the 2008-09 fiscal year then the budget deficit for 2008-09 should be solely reflective of past fiscal management decisions. We currently have a meagre $202 million surplus, but revenues have been seriously deteriorating over the past few months and will certainly continue to do so, especially GST and corporate tax revenues. Add in significant capital losses being reported and I will expect personal income tax revenues to stagnate or decline. This will almost certainly result, regardless of stimulus expenditure, with the Nov - Mar month budget deficits for an overall budget deficit somewhere around $1.5 - $3.0 billion, possibly more, before any stimulus spending.

    Off balance sheet as of Oct, the government is already running a deficit of $34 billion and has added $46 billion to the interest bearing debt this year, as a result of the bank and auto loans as well as it's own borrowing to improve its cash balances.
  247. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    Canada, as all nations with a central bank model, has an unfair monetary system. The BoC is immoral. Debt-created money is a fundamental structural flaw in a completely corrupt monetary system.

    Even if I personally have no debt, debt-based money affects me. As the rest of the economy is wracked by boom/bust cycles, that affects my ability to make personal economic decisions. Any cash savings I have are consistently eroded by inflation. Even stock investments don't yield a positive inflation-adjusted return!

    The BoC credit monopoly is a price fixing cartel. The power to finance new businesses is stolen from individuals and given to financial industry insiders. A bank can easily issue a loan, because it can borrow from the BoC at the going rate and issues loans, profiting from the spread times the leverage ratio. As an individual, I don't have the magic money-printing power of banks, so I can't profitably lend money at the same rate as a bank.

    Large corporations receive massive State subsidies in the form of negative real interest rates. The CEO of a large corporation may borrow at 6%-8%, while a small business owner must pay much higher rates or cannot borrow at all. If I walked into a bank and said 'I'd like to borrow $100k so I can start a business.', the banker would laugh at me. If the CEO of a large corporation does the same thing, asking for $1B-$10B or more, the banker is eager to pay because the CEO has a State licensed monopoly/oligopoly to run his business. The State-licensed corporate monopoly guarantees the large corporation's ability to repay its loan.

    (con't)
  248. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, WHOA there big fella. what PRIVATE bank are you referring to that makes money out of thin air?
    A bank only lends money it already has. When loans go bad and the depositors want there money back, that is when banks get in trouble.
    The bank of Canada, can Make new money and give it to the banks but that amount is public knowledge and drops the value of the Canadian dollar correspondingly.
  249. Malcolm Thistle from Canada writes: As one of the other papers wrote, 'name one thing that is conservative about this NDP budget'. The only thing different about this budget and one the NDP may have produced is the name of the people presenting it. Unfortunately that is all that will be needed to make the debate a partisan one rather than intelligent one and accordingly we will continue to fall further behind the rest of the world in developing national goals and a national spirit.
  250. B. Goode from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: B. Goode, yes lets hope not a dime is spent. If you cant afford your home , get out. If you cant afford your car, sell it. Start by reading the wealthy barber and start saving like granny told you...
    ============================================
    If you don't know how to run the country, step aside. Dance off into the sunset. Harper's barber is the wealthiest of all.
  251. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: >> Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: The budget will be spun by you, with or without merit, simply because it is written by a Conservative. Others will judge it on the merit of the ideas.

    Well. Some others will. Non-politically involved Canadians will, certainly. But as for people passionately involved in politics in Canada? Not a chance. They will say they will, but bitter partisanship has long since driven reason out of the door in that crowd's heads. We have one party who decided the merit of it a month before a word was put to paper, for instance.
  252. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    When an individual starts a business, he typically raises venture capital. The terms of investment usually make the startup founder the employee of the venture capitalist. Funding a business via my reinvested earnings places me at a handicap compared to corporate insiders.

    The BoC credit monopoly encourages consolidation of industries. Negative real interest rates encourage corporations to borrow and buy out their competitors. State restriction of the market prevents new competitors from competing with the established oligopoly/monopoly.
  253. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes:

    I have no idea what the conservative party is supposed to stand for, do you?

    --------------------------------

    Partisanship aside I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?
  254. The Economist With Different Ideas from Canada writes: There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut. Just a different tax.
  255. G L from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes: Re my earlier posting should have read The owner of the home/Condo gets the tax credit and CONTRACTOR get employment.
  256. Helen Highwater from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: Incentives for homre renovations is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Here we are going into a recession and what does Harper want us to do? Renovate our homes. What about those of us who don't even HAVE homes? Hello Mr. Harper, what planet are you living on?
  257. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: ... I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?

    =================

    Why are the other parties crowding the Liberal brand like that? Must be the right formula.
  258. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: I have told you very clearly that Harper has been a liar and will continue to be one.
    -------------------

    ???????? Jay must be cutting back on the stinky brown slurry Harpers been giving him to drink..........whats it like Jay ?????? telling the truth for a change.......having any withdrawal pains ?????

    ------------------------------------------

    Too bad you can't see your own party is also a bunch of liars in addition to trying to tell the truth for once yourself in a post instead of being proven a lying sack of crap in one way or another every day on here.

    Now get lost troll.
  259. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, WHOA there big fella. what PRIVATE bank are you referring to that makes money out of thin air?
    A bank only lends money it already has. When loans go bad and the depositors want there money back, that is when banks get in trouble.

    ==============

    Actually, no, that's not right.

    Banks are supposedly on a 'fractional reserve' basis, meaning they only have to actually have a fraction of the amount they lend.
  260. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: 'Anyway, quite apart from the budget, here's what parliament needs to bear in mind:

    1. No-one who breaks the law should be allowed to lead the government.

    2. No-one who seeks to buy MP votes should be a minister of the crown.

    3. No-one undermines health and safety regulation can be relied on to protect us.

    4. No-one who circumvents election rules should hold public office.

    5. No-one who lies in your face can be trusted. '

    Agreed. That's why the Liberals are no longer in power.
  261. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, have you ever asked for a raise at work?

    its the chicken and the egg thing, you want to make more. the company has to charge more. or if you work for government, they have to raise taxes. Its a circle, get it.
    Only when you are left with something like a house or a car from your effort is their progress.
  262. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You have stated that you have voted for PC, Reform, and Conservative. Tunnel vision in situ. No expletives required.
  263. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: Pete H from Canada writes: 'Careful, your partisanship is showing. Iggy and the liberals in particular never participate in brinkmanship do they. Everyone knows the liberal party only makes decisions based on altruism. Too funny. '

    What's truly hilarious is all you hysterical ideologues too blind to see that your beloved party is almost indistinguishable from that other party on which you blame all of the country's ills. We should Unite the Left and Right, the Conservative Liberal Party of Canada.
  264. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: I can't believe all these Liberal followers and their crap they dish out. After all the lying , dictatorships, scandals, brown bags, cheating that has been done over a 16 year period by the Liberals and you have the audacity to slam the Conservatives.
    As for us going into such a deficit blame jerks Like Vern and Catherine and marie and Stan L.
    Come on idiots and start rebuilding this Country instead of slamming anyone who wants to try.
    The Conservatives didn't want this deficit. It was pushed on us by your idiot leaders of Layton, unelected Iggy, and Separatist Duceppe.
    Give you heads a shake and wake up.
  265. Flander Jones from Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes:Partisanship aside I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?

    Well said. And I have to say, out of all the posters who admit their allegiances, you are by far the most forthright with criticisms of your party. Integrity. What a concept.
  266. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    If there is any inactivity in your electoral responsibility within the next 360 days you will be charged an additional tax of $35.
  267. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes: Well, I am very unhappy with the tax cuts - horror of horrors, PERMANENT tax cuts - for all but the lowest brackets. Is the picture accompanying this story supposed to instill confidence? The fiscal conservative in me thinks that much of this budget is a big mistake, though I guess I ought to wait to see if there's any more budget to table.

    ----------

    Diane the only thing in this budget for the middle class is the tax cut. People in that middle braket of around 80,000 are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes in this country and we are the ones who are not going to see 1 benefit from this budget.

    This is a budget for the unemployed...even if they don't qualify, the elderly, homeless, people who have spent them selves into oblivian.

    The only thing in this budget that I support are the tax cuts and possibly a small amount of infrastructure spending. Not the socialist parade of endless handouts to people who look to the government for everything.
  268. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Diane Marie should learn to read. PERMANENT tax cuts for anyone making LESS than 80,000 dollars. LESS THAN also includes the lowest income earner. God some people are stupid.
  269. john dancy from Canada writes: B. Goode, so the longest serving PM in a minority government doesn't know how to cooperate? sounds like he knows how to work with others to me...
  270. The Economist With Different Ideas from Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, WHOA there big fella. what PRIVATE bank are you referring to that makes money out of thin air?
    A bank only lends money it already has. When loans go bad and the depositors want there money back, that is when banks get in trouble.

    ==============

    Actually, no, that's not right.

    Banks are supposedly on a 'fractional reserve' basis, meaning they only have to actually have a fraction of the amount they lend.

    _________________________________________________________

    Fella's Google FIAT Currency...
  271. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes:

    Jason Roy: You have stated that you have voted for PC, Reform, and Conservative. Tunnel vision in situ. No expletives required.

    ---------------------------

    Different parties Catherine...

    Even the CPC bashers say the CPC is not the PCs or the Reform/CA

    Next...
  272. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: SAYNO2PROPAGANDA SPINNER from Toronto, Canada writes: Can't run a country on debt. $600 billion must be repaid. And our Government? Our Politicians? They appear determined to have 'someone else' pay, 'some other time'................................... Exactly! Just imagine how easy it would be to weather the storm right now and how much more money would be available if there was no debt. We should be running a balanced budget right now and when times are good again and the money starts flowing back, we should be trying harder to pay down the debt. My children are going to have to pay for our governments incompetence at this time. It's sad that we are mortgaging their futures for our greed. I would gladly make sacrifices now to make up for the mistakes of the past and to benefit future generations. Running a deficit right now is inexcusable. And anyone that thinks that these bunch of jokers are conservative have got to take the blinders off. A fiscal conservative would never table such a disgusting budget. They should have never bailed out the banks(mentioned above) or reduced the GST, or even increased spending as much as the conservatives have during Harper and Flaherty's watch. We would have had a sizable surplus to use for stimulus and infrastructure spending as well as debt repayment. These guys are a joke!
  273. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You're always 'right.'
  274. john dancy from Canada writes: Red Suspenders, fractional reserve banking A banking system in which banks hold minimum reserves of cash or highly liquid assets equal to a fixed percentage of their deposit liabilities.
    They are not making money.
  275. sammy mazola jr from Edmonton, Canada writes: They're all standing around with their jackets off, looking like they're working hard.

    And Stockwell Day is on a coffee break. Ha ha!
  276. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: ... I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?

    =================

    Why are the other parties crowding the Liberal brand like that? Must be the right formula.

    --------------------------------------

    First of all Red Suspenders...apologies for our exchanges of last evening...

    Second of all...to answer your question it's the way Canadian politics works...what's viewed as bad on behalf of one party all of a sudden becomes sound policy when enacted by the other parties...and the repsective supporters defend what they previously attacked and vice-versa.

    Catherinw Wilkie excluded of course because she's so objective and open-eyed....
  277. The Economist With Different Ideas from Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Diane Marie should learn to read. PERMANENT tax cuts for anyone making LESS than 80,000 dollars. LESS THAN also includes the lowest income earner. God some people are stupid.
    _______________________________________________________
    Pete the lowest income earner does not pay taxes other than the GST but they get a portion of that back. Careful who you call stupid...
  278. Flander Jones from Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes:The Conservatives didn't want this deficit. It was pushed on us by your idiot leaders of Layton, unelected Iggy, and Separatist Duceppe.

    Actually I think that is wrong. I think this budget was pushed on Mr. Harper by the G20 at the conference in Peru. This whole charade, the political funding debate, all of it, was just a diversion so Mr. Harper could push a massive deficit budget down our throats and save face.
  279. J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: That's such a load of bunk. I wonder when people post stuff like this if they have ever filled out their own taxes before. YOU do not need a rate cut to the middle or top brackets for you to benefit. EVERYONE benefits from a rate cut to the bottom bracket. EVERYONE.

    Likewise everyone earning more than the cutoff for the bottom two brackets benefits from both bracket cuts. It's actually quite absurd the way the article was written to suggest the tax cuts would be targeted solely at those earning less than $80K. Unless their are corresponding surtaxes introduced to ameliorate any savings from the bottom bracket cuts for those earning above $80 it's not really possible to prevent those earning above $80K from benefiting.

    I see people make this fallacious statement again and again and it's mindboggling, since I would assume those earning more than $80K might be intelligent and informed enough to know better.
  280. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Getting a porion of the GST back is still a tax cut. And I am careful.
  281. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: I can't believe all these Liberal followers and their crap they dish out. After all the lying , dictatorships, scandals, brown bags, cheating
    ----------------------

    Pete please explain away these few concerns that I have.

    In and Out, Bernier, Income Trusts, Security Leaks, Funding Cuts for Women's Rights, Cadman Affair, Attack Ads, Frigates, Homophobia, Right to Life, Water Sales, Unregistered Firearms, Kyoto Accord, Kelowna Accord, Biker Broad, Listeria Outbreak, Looming Deficite, Fort PMO, John Baird, Big Oil, Bush Jr., Transparency, Accountability, $100.00 annual Daycare Costs, Afghanistan, CBC Funding Cuts, Cultural Funding Cuts, Conservative label used by Reformists, Tailings ponds, Pristine lakes, Mutant Fish, Zenn Vehicles, Taser Deaths, Religeous Fundamentalists, Attending Democratic Convention in US, Absent at Olympics, GG told to Forego Paralympics, Internet Copyright Legislation, Mulroney Affair, Nobel Winners Ignored, Only Bush Calls SH Steve, Atlantic Accord, Rona Ambrose, Information Data Base, Militarization of Arctic, Outsourcing Policy Research, Fixed Election Date, Ambassador's reports on Human Rights Overseas Made Secret, Attempt to Stop Same Sex Marriage, Advertisement Budget Doubled, Almost All Legislation Posed as Confidence Motion, Support for Biofuel, Insufficient Support of Alternative Energy, Failure to protect Canadians Abroad, Support for Guantanamo, Lost Nato Documents, Wheat Board Muzzled, Caucus Muzzled, Ontario Ignored, Canadians Executed in America, Cancelled National Childcare, Fired Nuclear Watchdog, Embarassment on World Stage.'
  282. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Jason Roy: You're always 'right.'

    --------------------------------------

    ...as long as one votes Catherine it doesn't matter what one is...

    ...voting is what counts.
  283. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Two things:

    80k a year is nowhere near 'high income.' 80k AFTER tax would be doing alright. If you think 80k is huge you should get off the internet and start doing something productive to increase your income.

    Corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations COLLECT taxes. Those that pay are... wait for it... YOU - in the form of higher prices. Lower corporate taxes means first and foremost less lost jobs. It also means the value of your retirement funds, pension and savings will increase so you can retire. Freedom 95 isn't attractive for most people. For an illustration of this, think Ireland. For centuries their biggest export was people. Now they're the economic powerhouse of Europe. Reason? Stellar corporate environment.
  284. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: The Economist With Different Ideas from Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Diane Marie should learn to read. PERMANENT tax cuts for anyone making LESS than 80,000 dollars. LESS THAN also includes the lowest income earner. God some people are stupid.
    _______________________________________________________
    Pete the lowest income earner does not pay taxes other than the GST but they get a portion of that back. Careful who you call stupid...

    --------

    The lowest income earners (WHO PAY TAXES) lets not get carried away here. Why would someone who doesn't pay income tax get an income tax break.
  285. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Flanders..I am definitely not wrong. The Harper gov't has had to lower itself to this level to prevent Layton, unelected Iggy, and Separtist Duceppe, from usurping power from the elected PM, regardless if it is a minority gov't. And now the people od Canada has not even had a chance to vote on the possibility of Iggy being PM because he has not been successful yet in a leadership vote.
  286. mike sty the Coalition Centrist from Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes:
    why will Mr. Harper not stand up for his conservative principles and attempt to force an election
    -------------------

    Stephen Harper is desperate to hold on to power...at ALL cost.
  287. B. Goode from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: B. Goode, so the longest serving PM in a minority government doesn't know how to cooperate? sounds like he knows how to work with others to me...
    ===============================
    I doubt if even Mr. Harper would include that'accomplishment' on his resume. It's like being the least ugly in a beauty contest.
  288. john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, I agree with you about our childrens future. But 60 billion is 2000 per person. Thank god we dont have any more room to borrow. And thank god most of this wont happen. Empty promises. We should make new laws to force savings. Us and the government.
  289. J Kay from Canada writes: JP Warwick: Well that very much depends on how you qualify high income. Is someone who is making $80K substantially, orders of magnitude better off than someone earning $50K. No. Someone making $80K however is in the top 10% of income earners in the country. In fact they are closer to the top 7%. Does that qualify as high income in that sense? Yes it does. $80K may not sound like much but it is in fact high income relative to the income distribution in Canada, or the US for that matter.
  290. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: America - middle income defined as less than $200 k per year.

    Canada - middle income defined as less than $80 k per year.

    We have been screwed again, or should I say as per usual.

    Modest tax relief? Keep it. Or shove it Flaherty. Take your pick.
  291. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mike Sty has stated every reason why I vote for the Conservatives except for his foolish staement on Bush Jr. I know Mike next you're going to be saying Harper is in Obama's pocket.
    Harper is the first leader to stand up to the USA and the first PM for years that the USA coul dactually pronounce his name except for Martin's short (thankfully) term.
  292. G L from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes: Helen Highwater says What about us. Well what about you Helen? Your in the minority. your personally going to get a tax break(assuming you pay income tax) and your province or community may benefit from the Infrastructure funding in the Stimulus package. IF they apply for it. Most Canadian do own a home/Condo.Many Canadians own homes/Condos that are 20years plus old. At some point in time they will require renovations and this tax credit may encourage many to start the job sooner rather than later. In addition it creates addition employment for your local home renovation contractor and additional customers for those business that supply the materials and hardware and may in fact create addition jobs for those who have been laid off in the home building sector. That in my mind makes this a win win situation. I think it's a great Idea.
  293. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, WHOA there big fella. what PRIVATE bank are you referring to that makes money out of thin air?
    A bank only lends money it already has. When loans go bad and the depositors want there money back, that is when banks get in trouble.
    The bank of Canada, can Make new money and give it to the banks but that amount is public knowledge and drops the value of the Canadian dollar correspondingly.


    ----

    That's what the banks want you to think. More accurately, they are not exactly eager to disclose that information. However, this is no conspiracy. It is fact, easily checked on the Federal Reserve's website. The BoC used to define reserves, but that was phased out in 1994 and ceded to the OSFI.

    Our private chartered banks practice fractional reserve banking. This simply means that they only have to have a small portion in reserves to the amount they actually lend out. For simplicity, at a reserve ratio of 10%, our private banks can issue up to $900 of checkbook money if they keep $100 on reserve for a $1000.00 deposit. If that $900 is deposited in the same bank or another, they can now lend up to $810 on that, keeping $90 dollars in reserve, and so forth. Due to the money multiplier effect, that $1000 will become $10,000 if fully leveraged or lent out. That $9000 is privately created new checkbook money now in circulation.

    However, that money has interest attached to it. When that $9000 dollars is paid back over time, it is taken out of circulation PLUS the interest, which causes a net depletion in the overall money stock. Unless, of course, new money is loaned into the economy faster than the old ones are being paid off.

    The staggering thing is, at any given moment, our banks are technically insolvent.
  294. JP Warwick from Canada writes:
    B. Goode

    'least ugly' accurately sums up our electoral system on many levels.
  295. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: Two things:

    For an illustration of this, think Ireland. For centuries their biggest export was people. Now they're the economic powerhouse of Europe. Reason? Stellar corporate environment.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Really?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/3135607/Irelands-Celtic-Tiger-economy-is-dead-and-its-cubs-are-thinking-of-emigrating.html

    From the Economist magazine:

    The budget deficit is forecast to reach 6% of GDP in 2009. Reversing this will dominate economic policymaking. It would be unprecedented for a sitting government to breach the EU budget ceiling of 3% of GDP by such a margin.
    We expect the Irish economy to contract in 2008-09, mainly because of the ongoing downturn in the property sector and stagnant private consumption in 2008.
    Unemployment will rise sharply over the outlook period. The level it reaches will depend on the proportion of recent immigrants who choose to remain in the country.

    http://www.economist.com/countries/Ireland/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast

    Their economy is tanking. What are you talking about??
  296. john dancy from Canada writes: diane marie , and your horse would do differently? really. B. Goode, He also was able to make another party get rid of TWO leaders and give him someone who would work with him. Mr Ignatief will vote for the budget and Mr Harper will still be PM, pure genius.
  297. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: This budget will give the Libs to defeat the Gov't and an election will be called and there will be no doubt Stephen Harper will get his Majority.
    The Libs will fall under the unelected Iggy and the NDP will be decimated.
  298. Peasinour Thyme from Edmonton, Canada writes: The main difference between this budget and an NDP or Liberal budget is the intent to carry through with commitments.

    The only thing Harper wants is the tax cut. Everything else will be jettisoned. There will be no money for Arts, nothing for Forestry, nothing for Auto. Nothing for anything Harper doesn't personally like, and that is not much.

    Harper's whole reason for announcing the vote candy earlier is to get people's hopes up and put more pressure on Ignatieff as he makes his decision whether to support the budget or not.

    In doing so, Harper is playing head games with the public and with the opposition. Objectively, it is not a bad strategy, but I agree with Ignatieff that is has been irresponsible, primarily for its obvious attempt to influence decisions that should otherwise be independent of falsely generated sentiment. But this is typical of Harper who will not lose an opportunity to monopolize the media and the message.

    I find myself in agreement with Layton and Duceppe in their categorical opposition to the budget. Not because of the content but because of the author. Harper's past behaviour has cost him any credibility and trust that could support the confidence of reasonable opposition leaders.

    Hopefully, Ignatieff will rise to the occasion, bring down the Conservative government, and with the GG's blessing lead us out of this morass.
  299. Flander Jones from Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Flanders..I am definitely not wrong.

    Really? Connect the dots. Check out Mr. Harper's comments. Look at his sudden reversals. Brilliant really. In Peru he was briefed on the precarious state of the world banks. He knew he would have to go into deficit. So...lets create a diversion. Then we can say the Liberals and the NDP made me do it. The only thing that went wrong was the Liberals skipped the leadership convention and Mr. Ignatieff was proclaimed. He didn't count on that....my theory and I'm sticking to it. All of them are liars and thieves.
  300. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, I agree with you about our childrens future. But 60 billion is 2000 per person. Thank god we dont have any more room to borrow. And thank god most of this wont happen. Empty promises. We should make new laws to force savings. Us and the government. >>>>>>>>>>>

    I hope your correct and it's just empty promises, but it's still irresponsible to table this budget.
  301. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What is this fixation with tax relief for low income earners?

    Are the burger flippers being laid off?

    Are the coffee slingers shutting down?

    Can't any political party grasp that it is the middle income and upper income Canadians that are being hammered, and that is where tax relief must go to?

    Ford and GM are shutting down their facilities, not Tim Hortons. Suncor and EnCana are cancelling multi-billion dollar projects, not McDonalds.

    We all know the NDP is chronically clueless when it comes to the economy, but this is getting, quite frankly, ridiculous.
  302. Systemic Risk from Canada writes: What an adorable picture - all my CPC homies hanging out in the lockup. And Harper does even have that awful forced smile - he just looks bored and impatient, which is the Steve I know and love!
  303. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: None of these companies or industries need bail-outs. If people lose their jobs then let them go on EI until these companies can pull their heads out of their butts and restructure.
    Why should the Canadian people have to pay for the greed that has created this problem in the firs place.
    Maybe if the CEO's of these big corps. started losing their homes and vehicles and have to go on EI they might look at a different business plan.
    But thanks to the Libs and the NDP we have to put ourselves in a deficit to pull these companies out of the self-created problems.
  304. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: Tom Thumb from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: Two things:

    For an illustration of this, think Ireland. For centuries their biggest export was people. Now they're the economic powerhouse of Europe. Reason? Stellar corporate environment.

    _____________________________________________________

    What are you smoking - they are the basket case of Europe. They implode as I write. Read much.
  305. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Peasinour Thyme from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'The main difference between this budget and an NDP or Liberal budget is the intent to carry through with commitments.'

    Your threading on thin ice when you talk about Liberals ever intending to carry through on budget commitments. Let's wait and see what the CPC does. We already know from the past what Liberal governments do.
  306. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, that is correct but the big banks are public company's. And, the central banks back all those loans and use the M1 ,M2, M3 supplies to keep control and public the amounts.
    It would be fool proof of course if we had a zero reserve system but then only a few of us would own a home....
    The whole world uses this system. 200 years ago countries used to go bankrupt , england , france , spain but things keep going. It really is a game of sorts. A confidence game at that.....
  307. donald patterson from Canada writes: You really must be dreaming in technicolor if you think for one second that any of this money will get past the hoards of rubber stamping bureaucrats. You can bet your booties that they are all huddled in panic mode over how to skim off a big chunk for their own use.No doubt as I speak the rubber stamp makers are being flooded with orders for new 'reject' stamps.
  308. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mike Sty is the retarded one and by the way he is on here all the time would represent that he is either working for the Libs or not working at all and therefore is not elligible for the under 80,000 dollars a year tax cut.
  309. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: Tom Thumb from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: Two things:

    For an illustration of this, think Ireland. For centuries their biggest export was people. Now they're the economic powerhouse of Europe. Reason? Stellar corporate environment.

    _____________________________________________________

    What are you smoking - they are the basket case of Europe. They implode as I write. Read much.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Read my whole post!!! I was trying to illustrate exactly that. Their economy is tanking. I read quite a bit!! Goof!
  310. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: Systemic Risk from Canada writes: What an adorable picture - all my CPC homies hanging out in the lockup. And Harper does even have that awful forced smile - he just looks bored and impatient, which is the Steve I know and love!

    ______________________________________________________-

    Anal retentiveness is conducive to fascism someone once said. Looks like someone just picked up a bar of soap
  311. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes: 'Well, I am very unhappy with the tax cuts - horror of horrors, PERMANENT tax cuts - for all but the lowest brackets. Is the picture accompanying this story supposed to instill confidence? The fiscal conservative in me thinks that much of this budget is a big mistake, though I guess I ought to wait to see if there's any more budget to table.'

    I'm shocked, simply shocked that you would already be panning the budget. I was waiting for your usual balanced and objective commentary on the budget. I was sure that you would give Mr. Harper the same opportunity to evolve as you gave to Mr. Ignatieff to 'evolve' his views on US imperialism and torture.
  312. JP Warwick from Canada writes: J Kay

    actually, the difference between 50 and 80k is a lot less after you take the higher taxes off the difference. If you've ever worked on a per/hr job and worked overtime, you are gleefully happy about that double-time 1/2 until you see how much the government takes. This is why so many people stop bothering. If the government takes it, there's no incentive to work for it and the time off becomes more valuable than the gross pay.

    The same is true in the case of marginal income. For each dollar you earn as you move up tax brackets, you get to keep less of it. So 80 may be 30k more than 50 but the after tax difference is a lot less. Are you better off? Yes. Are you hugely better off? No.

    Another issue is your stats. If x percent of CDNs are not working (young, old, students, raising kids, etc.) then you should re-state the number to include only those CDNs working full time. The numbers would look very different.
  313. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: It was directed at JP Tom not you.
  314. john dancy from Canada writes: Tom Thumb, but the other option is not to work with the other parties and have the NDP and the Bloc's hands in the bank of Canada.
    The Liberals would be fine. And really they are working together for the betterment of Canada. its a coalition with 70% of Canadian votes.
  315. Linda Dial from Canada writes: Step 11 on the Stations of the Budget: Summon Messengers for Last Kawkus Klatch, check messenger costumes for blue shirts, new shoes, short hemlines and confiscate sunglasses. Select media to record portrait. While making kawkkee, spill out beans and broadcast. So far this eleventh hour photo-op appears to reveal the stage nerves of the repentant and contrite, but Mrsharples sword hand however lays across the sheath hand ready to attack swiftly.
  316. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: That's such a load of bunk. I wonder when people post stuff like this if they have ever filled out their own taxes before. YOU do not need a rate cut to the middle or top brackets for you to benefit. EVERYONE benefits from a rate cut to the bottom bracket. EVERYONE.

    --------

    I know that but there is a big difference between getting a tax cut on your first 38,382 dollars where we are taxed at 15% and the next 38,382 where we are taxed at 22% and the portion between 77,664 and 80,000 where we are taxed at a rate of 26%.

    That is just the federal rate.

    So the best scenario would be to cut all three rates. Just cutting the lower rate screws the middle class again.
  317. J Kay from Canada writes: r b: I don't know who is defining middle income for you but it is nowhere near $200K in the US. Not even remotely close. In fact median incomes in Canada are higher than the US. Compared to Canada the US has more people at the far right of the income distribution way out in the tail but few make $200K. Only 5% of the US population earns more than $100K per year and less than 1% earn more than $200K. By comparison 4.35% of Canadians earn more than $100K and 0.91% earn more than $200K

    The median income in the US is $24,325 and the mean income is $35,499. In Canada the median income is $26,500.

    The income disparity between the countries is nowhere near what you suggest.
  318. Luke Ellis from Sudbury, Canada writes: LOL i like Harper PR photo here.

    Shows him actually working with other people in one of those 'teams' he's heard so much about.

    Even took off his jacket so it looks like hes working real hard.

    LOL
  319. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: It was directed at JP Tom not you.

    >>>>>>>>>>

    Thanks, sorry I saw my name attached at the begining and thought that was directed at myself.

    Cheers.
  320. john dancy from Canada writes: Cognitively Cogitative, what do you think the Conservative budget WOULD look like in a majority situation? really....
  321. john dancy from Canada writes: NL Patriot, J Kay, forget the percent stuff. Tell me in dollars how much each Canadian should get back to help out.
  322. james west from Canada writes: don't they look committed? stock has a cuppa and they're all huddled together like a great little team. stevie's sayin', 'we've tried everything. ya think they're gonna buy this one? it's a liberal budget, but i'll try anything!'
    if stevie and stock lost their seats, they'd be unemployed. stock would have to go back to 'work' as a treasurer at some rich church. stevie'd get a job with preston.
  323. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Harper government has announced a $64 billion deficit. Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit. The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise. It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election. Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $75 billion. Selling government bonds to the banks at principal interest so that the government can now lend this same money back to the banks and the TAXPAYER NOW OWE’S IT. SWEET ISN’T IT. This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history. The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers’ expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged 'to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity.' (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analyzed. Meaning-This is just the beginning! Let’s summarize for all the brainwashed Canadians who think Government ‘helps’ the people- The Canadian Bank Bailout is exactly like the USA’s TARP EXCEPT- The Canadian people are not told about it. Unlike the US there was no debate in our house of commons on this issue. Where is the opposition? It is bigger than the US bailout in terms of per capita or GDP. Does it make you mad? It sure as hell should!
  324. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: The Libs and the NDP are forcing this country into a welfare state. Instead of having us stand on our own 2 feet they have forced the Gov't to go into such a huge deficit so Large corp. as the auto sector and forestry can get welfare paid to them from the Canadian Citizens.
    Layton and Iggy totally responsible for this deficit.
  325. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Harper government has announced a $64 billion deficit. Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit. The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise. It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election. Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $75 billion. Selling government bonds to the banks at principal interest so that the government can now lend this same money back to the banks and the TAXPAYER NOW OWE’S IT. SWEET ISN’T IT. This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history. The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers’ expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged 'to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity.' (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analyzed. Meaning-This is just the beginning! Let’s summarize for all the brainwashed Canadians who think Government ‘helps’ the people- The Canadian Bank Bailout is exactly like the USA’s TARP EXCEPT- The Canadian people are not told about it. Unlike the US there was no debate in our house of commons on this issue. Where is the opposition? It is bigger than the US bailout in terms of per capita or GDP. Does it make you mad? It sure as hell should!
  326. matt s from Canada writes: $2b for social housing. $1.5B for job retraining. $7B for infrastructure. Sounds like a great Liberal budget except for the $64B deficit part. That was Steve's idea!!

    Don't we elect leaders to lead? Steve obviously doesn't have any good ideas of his own. If we are going to have such Liberal budgets maybe we should just elect the Liberals.....
  327. Flander Jones from Canada writes: wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada:Does it make you mad? It sure as hell should!

    In some respects one must tip their hat to Mr. Harper. It is brilliant politics. For a fiscal conservative to pass a massive deficit budget and be able to put all the blame on the Liberals and the NDP is perhaps the most amazing piece of pure politics I have ever witnessed. Fantastic in a purely Machilevilian sort of way.
  328. Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: 300 mil for an election or 64 bil created by the coax.
    Do the math. I prefer an election.
  329. john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit , you better go back to school because the government is making more in interest than it is paying. we are making money.
    And it did not cost the government a penny of tax dollars.......the Americans had to give cash to bankrupt bank company's. we did not. Your grandmother made sure we had strong banks. better go kiss her. And thank her for E.I, CPP, Welfare, RRSP's .......
  330. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: NL Patriot, J Kay, forget the percent stuff. Tell me in dollars how much each Canadian should get back to help out.

    ---------

    John I don't know that number but what I do know is that I am against all this so called stimulus spending which is likely to run huge deficits and not stimulate the economy long term.

    This is a feel good budget to make the sheep in canada think that the Federal Government is doing something when in reality they can do nothing.

    The Canadian economy will not improve until the US gets his house in order. They are the people who buy our products and resources. They are at 1.7 Trillion now and counting and they continue to bleed millions of jobs.

    The best thing the Canadian government can do is keep corporate taxes low to maintain the jobs we have and invest in some infrastructure jobs to keep the construction industry going and stop trying to subsidize everyones pensions and increasing dependence on welfare and EI.
  331. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Now the political strategists are becoming honest. Recently we have had the 'Conservative-biased' even suggesting that because the Govt. Party has lost all its principles, people should stop donating to it until it returns to what it once was. I think that is a splended idea because we have witnessed an awful waste of money because of the easily obtained contributions from some of you who are so blinded by your belief that you should vote Conservative 'even if a yellow dog was running' that we have ended up with negative ads, an unusual amount of new Fed. Govt. employees -many unnecessary like the extra staff to protect the Prime Minister and all its ancillary costs. Maybe if they did not get all the money they are seeking even at this time to incur more waste for political purposes only, we might just end up with better government eventually. Money corrupts. Just think of all the litigation started by the Conservative Party or involved in through their misdeeds and you will see where so much of your contributions is going. Do you want to contribute to this kind of folly?
  332. Tom Thumb from Canada writes: wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Harper government has announced a $64 billion deficit. Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit.

    A good link:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

    Sums it up pretty nicely!
  333. john dancy from Canada writes: matt s, Flander Jones, ya and he made them get rid of two leaders who would not work with him. pure genius. I guess the next step is to make Mr Ignatief say, we made them do it. I cant wait to see how Mr Harper completely runs over him.....
  334. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, that is correct but the big banks are public company's

    I am glad that you now recognize the banks do indeed create money, as opposed to your initial post. How does being a public company change the defects in the practice?

    And, the central banks back all those loans and use the M1 ,M2, M3 supplies to keep control and public the amounts.

    Let's say they did (they don't). If I had a central bank to back all of my loans and step in as a 'lender of last resort' (or 'donor of the first' depending on how you look at it), what prudence would I exercise over my lending requirements if I know 'mommy' is going to bail me out?

    It would be fool proof of course if we had a zero reserve system but then only a few of us would own a home.

    I assume you mean a 100% reserve system? This is a fallacy, but too long to go into over these posts.

    The whole world uses this system.

    Does that validate it as a sound system? How's that all working out?

    200 years ago countries used to go bankrupt , england , france , spain but things keep going. It really is a game of sorts. A confidence game at that....._

    Nothing can stop the effects of reckless spending. We still have businesses, industries (Savings and Loan), cities, and States going bankrupt.

    Our system is broken. It doesn't work. The structural flaws in it are not debated in the layperson's public sphere. The Statist apologists say, 'This time we will get it right.' at our expense. Time to scrap it, and move on.
  335. G L from Thunder Bay ON., Canada writes: P Bailey from Vancouver- Hush P Bailey Our Liberal and NDP friends do not want to bring up the subject of Mr Ignatieff's interview in the NY Times. That never happened. He after decades of self imposed exile in GB and the US. Soon after his arrival in Toronto and after a conversation with Mr Davies prominent Liberal advisor and recruiter made a miraculous conversion to Liberalism.Now that's what I call a miracle is it not, from a George Bush Conservative to a J.Chretien Liberal in a matter of weeks. Yes Veronica Miracles do take place, particularly when your looking for a job in Ottawa. and opportunist.
  336. P T from Victoria, Canada writes: Because of course if the Libs were in power, their budget would have gotten us out of this mess, tax cuts for everyone, not one job loss. Please.

    Why I bother, I have no clue.
  337. B. Goode from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: B. Goode, He also was able to make another party get rid of TWO leaders and give him someone who would work with him. Mr Ignatief will vote for the budget and Mr Harper will still be PM, pure genius.
    ======================================
    You may consider Harper a 'genius', but there are many who wouldn't use that particular word to describe him. Of course, you don't know the difference between 'there' and 'their', so we have to make some allowance.
    But, yes, based on what we have seen so far I'm thinking that the budget will probably pass with amendments. Harper got quite a scare a couple of months ago and so he is now pretending to play nice. The look on his face in the group photo says it all: he was forced to put things in the budget that he doesn't really believe in for the sake of staying in power. But of course that doesn't mean he will implement all of them
  338. Flander Jones from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes:I cant wait to see how Mr Harper completely runs over him.....

    I rather think Mr. Harper had planned to be dealing with Mr. Dion through this period.
  339. joseph archibald from Halifax, Canada writes: The sad fact is Harper and Baird have already started playing tricks, and are up to no good. Harper likes to pick fights.
    there is a great site that disects yesterdays announcments , it's kind of shocking when you listen closely
    http://truenorthstrongandliberal.blogspot.com/
    Baird boggles the mind
  340. john dancy from Canada writes: NL Patriot, quite right. The social safety nets granny put in place already cost us everything we have and 30 billion a year will not fix us. only we can do that. I am most disappointed that new investments and rules are not part of the package. Make sure we can not do this to ourselves again, make Canada a leader in the industries of the future. sustainable energy, clean energy, the list goes on..... make the Canadian banking system the one everyone else wants in on. Though it is good now.
  341. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: To John Dancy. Go back to school? Do you know how Governemnt t-bills work. Let me educate you. Make sure you do some research before making quick replies. The Government-Liberals in ths case need some money for their budget. They tell the Bank of Canada that they need 64 Billion. The bank of Canada prints up 64 billion in government bonds that they then sell to our chartered banks(I.e. RBC BNS ect) The chartered banks then 'give' as in 'create out of thin air' the money and give it to the Bank of Canada who gives it to the government to spend. The government(WE THE PEOPLE) now owe the chartered banks the 64 BILLION INTEREST. The Government bonds sold to the banks for CASH are simply the promise to the banks that the goverment can tax the people to pay back this money. DO SOME READING BEFORE YOU LECTURE ME. Its is a real mind bender but you will get it if you are not too ignorant to read. Here is a video if you can't read-

    http://sprword.com/videos/moneyasdebt/
    It is a start.
  342. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: Pete Sake from Vancouver, Canada writes: 300 mil for an election or 64 bil created by the coax.
    Do the math. I prefer an election.

    ===================

    Your assumption must be that the result of any election would result in a CPC majority! Any other result would bring us right back to a stimulus budget, after spending the $300 million. I think a CPC majority is a slim chance indeed after November's foolishness by Harper and Flaherty, and Ignatieff subsequently becoming leader of the Liberal Party.

    You are also ignoring the fact that a lot of the deficit that Harper is announcing is due to the previous mismanagement of the country's finances by the CPC. Harper is attempting to bury that core deficit in the additional deficit caused by the stimulus package.
  343. David Gehring from Kingston, Ontario, Canada writes: Our economic problems were created by excessive demand, creating a real estate bubble as well as high oil prices and the production of junk that we should not buy (as its beyond our means), all of which must now be corrected through a long recession. And yet, US and Canadian policy makers have decided that the solution is to get us spending even more, and bring us back to the excessive demand that created these problems in the first place. Lower taxes! More government debt! More spending!More consumer debt! Higher prices! More junk! Spend! Spend! Spend!
  344. diane marie from Canada writes: Pete Sake:-- The Liberals enabled Mr. Harper's three-year joy ride. He came to power on a surplus, with money rolling in. He then increased spending, gave piles of money away to buy votes, and cut the GST, and now he is in a fiscal pickle. Of his own making, in case that wasn't clear.
  345. J Kay from Canada writes: J P Warwick: There is nothing wrong with my stats, they don't include non working Canadians. I could exclude part time workers though it's unclear as to why that should be done, since they too earn a living and are representative of the types of incomes people in this country earn and more over many of them pay taxes.

    Regarding the tax differences, yes someone earning $80K pays more taxes than someone earning $50K but it also isn't as stark as you paint it out to be. I've always found the 'argument' that there is a disincentive to working more absurd. The marginal tax rate tops out at 46% (Ontario) so one still earns more money for each hour they work. Someone earning $50K pays $9707 in taxes of 19.4% of their income in Ontario, assuming only basic deductions. Someone earning $80K pays $19985 in taxes or 24.9%. More yes, substantially more no. On the extra $30K of income one still retains $19,722 of it. This makes the average marginal tax rate on the additional $30K, 34.2%. This compared to a marginal tax rate of 32.0% at $50K, not the substantial increase you suggest.
  346. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm still of the opinion that we haven't even heard the budget read yet. All we know is what Steve wants us to know or what he wants us to think that we know. We'll all be in a better position to comment tomorrow.
  347. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Banks ARE PUBLIC COMPANIES??????? THATS IS POSSIBLY THE MOST IGNORANT THING I HAVE EVER HEARD.

    http://sprword.com/videos/moneyasdebt/

    ROTHCHILD
  348. james west from Canada writes: if anything goes wrong it's the liberal's fault! if everything is just sweetness and light? why it's the 'genius' of stevie wunderkind!
    stevies turning canada into a socialist state and it's the fault of the 'coalition(?)!'
    if you buy yourself a plaster saint and worship it, you're a harmless nut.
    for Pete's Sake, buy some plaster.
    make stevie your saint.
    wreck the economy.
    hail victory!
  349. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Yes, Ireland is tanking, unlike the rest of the EU countries I compare them to...

    And 3 months is an economy. Take the last decade's worth of numbers and get back to me.
  350. Charles Brown from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: The credit card companies are charging LOAN SHARK interest rates are getting away with it. Lets see what the government will do. The three businesses with worst ethics in the society: banks, credit card and oil companies.
  351. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , The money is balanced by the pay back of the loan. The total amount of expansion IS controlled by the % of hold back and the number of banks in the system.
    When things go bad it is the government that steps in just like in october and sells bonds. This expansion and contraction room is really just a way of easing ups and downs. Like a credit card....
    It does not matter what system of trust is used. when we produce something, that is the goal. Some humans will always produce more than they need. Others will try to do nothing.....
  352. Anti Fascist from Canada writes: Let the government borrow from the Bank of Canada and no other. If interest is to be paid at least it will be paid back to a Bank that is owned by Canada.

    No more truck or trade with banksters. Free Canada!
  353. Can't believe it from Canada writes: 'We need to be prepared should an election be forced by the opposition parties. That's why I'm asking all of our dedicated supporters like you to make a donation of $200 or $100 right now,' Mr. Gerstein wrote in an e-mail.

    ---
    These guys are 'still' on the hustings ????? Christamighty, give it a break...If they were really sincere with the 'working together attitude' a statement like that woulkd not have entered their mind.....Same ol' same ol'!!!
  354. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Harper government has announced a $64 billion deficit. Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit. The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise. It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election. Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $75 billion. Selling government bonds to the banks at principal interest so that the government can now lend this same money back to the banks and the TAXPAYER NOW OWE’S IT. SWEET ISN’T IT. This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history. The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers’ expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged 'to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity.' (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analyzed. Meaning-This is just the beginning! Let’s summarize for all the brainwashed Canadians who think Government ‘helps’ the people- The Canadian Bank Bailout is exactly like the USA’s TARP EXCEPT- The Canadian people are not told about it. Unlike the US there was no debate in our house of commons on this issue. Where is the opposition? It is bigger than the US bailout in terms of per capita or GDP. Does it make you mad? It sure as hell should! Here is some more reading. Sorry no video on this one. You will have to read John Dancy!
  355. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: The Harper government has announced a $64 billion deficit. Where is the bulk of the money going? These budget allocations do not explain the dramatic increase in the budget deficit. The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise. It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election. Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $75 billion. Selling government bonds to the banks at principal interest so that the government can now lend this same money back to the banks and the TAXPAYER NOW OWE’S IT. SWEET ISN’T IT. This is the most serious public debt crisis in Canadian history. The bank bailout potentially destabilizes the federal fiscal structure. It leads to a spiraling budget deficit, which must be financed at tax payers’ expense. The entire structure of public spending is affected including federal-provincial transfers. It is worth noting that in addition to the $75 billion, the government has pledged 'to backstop more than $200 billion in interbank lending so banks can boost their lending capacity.' (Toronto Star, December 13, 2009). The implications of this decision remain to be carefully analyzed. Meaning-This is just the beginning! Let’s summarize for all the brainwashed Canadians who think Government ‘helps’ the people- The Canadian Bank Bailout is exactly like the USA’s TARP EXCEPT- The Canadian people are not told about it. Unlike the US there was no debate in our house of commons on this issue. Where is the opposition? It is bigger than the US bailout in terms of per capita or GDP. Does it make you mad? It sure as hell should! Here is some more reading. Sorry no video on this one. You will have to read John Dancy!
  356. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: Here is an extract from the blog that joseph archibald references: 'Last night I decided I need TiVo. Well for a minute I did. John Baird dropped a bombshell. Don Newman, in referencing his talks with Mayors and officials from cities and towns, said he had heard the big issue for the municipalities was that they couldn't afford their 1/3 of most infrastructure projects. That's when the shocker hit, this isn't a direct quote, but Baird told Newman he has never heard of this issue. Newman looked puzzled, and asked again, it seemed like he was trying to correct Baird, and rightly so. Anyone who has any interest what so ever in current affairs knows the reality. We hear it over and over again on the news. Municipalities have infrastructure needs they can't meet because of costs. They agree they need the pay their share 1/3, but until now the Harper conservatives won't front end load the cost, which would help get all these projects going.' I speak from personal experience of John Baird being asked questions at a school meeting during the dark days of the destruction of the Ontario educational system under Harris and when Baird was our local MPP. He essentially ignored the questions he was asked and spouted the party line. It seems like nothing has changed since his move to federal politics except that he has become more belligerent and obnoxious.
  357. john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, he wanted to fight an election against him but today he needs someone to agree with him and Mr Ignatief is going to do that.
    Sarah palin had a huge boost before she spoke. We have not heard much from Mr Ignatief and we will see. I hope he is the leader the credentials show.
  358. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes: Pete Sake:-- The Liberals enabled Mr. Harper's three-year joy ride. He came to power on a surplus, with money rolling in. He then increased spending, gave piles of money away to buy votes, and cut the GST, and now he is in a fiscal pickle. Of his own making, in case that wasn't clear.

    --------
    diane I am no fan of Harper but what you just described is a pile of bull. I agree that he increased spending but it was necessary. The Liberals had the nerve to send our soldiers to a war with absolutly no equipment. WE have a bunch of soldiers showing up in the desert with GREEN fatigues.

    They had almost no vehicles and are still sorely lacking in necessary equipment as they are currently being killed in Afghanistan.

    Our Coast Guard vessels are crumbling, our navy ships are old and useless. The manufacturing sector is in shambles as well as the Auto sector.

    Harper can be blamed for a lot of stuff but this economic crisis is not the doing of Canadians or the Canadian Government. In fact we are better positioned then any country of the G8 to handle this.
  359. john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit, so how come I can buy a bond and make interest.
  360. matt s from Canada writes: wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: To John Dancy. Go back to school? Do you know how Governemnt t-bills work. Let me educate you. Make sure you do some research before making quick replies. The Government-Liberals in ths case need some money for their budget. They tell the Bank of Canada that they need 64 Billion. The bank of Canada prints up 64 billion in government bonds that they then sell to our chartered banks(I.e. RBC BNS ect) The chartered banks then 'give' as in 'create out of thin air' the money and give it to the Bank of Canada who gives it to the government to spend. The government(WE THE PEOPLE) now owe the chartered banks the 64 BILLION INTEREST. The Government bonds sold to the banks for CASH are simply the promise to the banks that the goverment can tax the people to pay back this money. DO SOME READING BEFORE YOU LECTURE ME. Its is a real mind bender but you will get it if you are not too ignorant to read. Here is a video if you can't read-

    =========

    ........so we should all buy shares in the Canadian banks. Get our interest back, complete the circle....
  361. JP Warwick from Canada writes: john dancy

    You need not wait for Count Iggy to speak. Spoken he has.

    Google 'empire lite' or go to http://empirelite.ca/ to read Iggy's own words from the New York Times.
  362. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    Hey Flaherty. Who's your tailor?
  363. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: Tax cuts for the middle class? Where have I heard of that before? Oh... wait... George Bush did that too and look where that got him. Deficits there are now measured in the trillions.

    Tax cuts at a time like this will not boost spending but will result in a structural deficit that will be impossible to eliminate unless taxes are raised again at a later time which usually means when the Liberals are forced again to repair the damage of another incompetent Conservative administration. We never seem to learn....
  364. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Whoops! Dancy got me so fired up I forgot the link.

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty24.htm

    READ.
  365. Rant N. Rave from Whitby, Canada writes: To toss Canadian tax dollars into 'shovel in the ground' projects that propose to stimulate jobs/infrastructure/economic benefits to the Canadian economy and taxpayors is like 'peeing in the non-peeing end of the pool'! When I watch seven construction workers leaning on shovels while another is haphazardly tossing asphalt into a pothole, I really have to wonder if these are the kind of jobs that we Canadian taxpayors will be supporting? Is THIS the kind of 'infrastructure stimulus' that I want to support? ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN' NOT! I believe that the first demand made by our government (BEFORE they fritter away OUR money) is that non-union operations will receive FIRST priority for contracts issued. The idea of union shops exploiting this very volatile bailout initiative (funded and paid for by Cdn taxpayors) for their own personal gain is almost as heinous as the actions of Wall Street villians like Merrill CEO Thaine issuing lucrative bonus' just hours before the BofA deal was struck. ACCOUNTABILITY IS EVERYTHING. IT WAS THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY COMINGLED WITH COPIUS AMOUNTS OF GREED AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OTHERS THAT GOT OUR WORLD IN THIS FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE MUST LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES. OTHERWISE, OUR 'MISTAKES' WILL JUST BECOME RE-OCCURRING 'INCIDENTS' AND WE WILL BE STARING AT FUTURE BAILOUT PROPOSALS BEFORE THIS ONE IS EVEN COMPLETED. ACCOUNTABILITY IS EVERYTHING!
  366. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Unacceptable. Harper and his utterly incompetent gang must go.
    I'm counting on the coalition, led by Ignatieff.
    Yesterday on the news: MP's in parliament 13 times since last June. Harper and his Conservative attitudes are exactly that - doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
  367. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    For all the men in the picture of G&M's main tag photo

    1. Whiskey in the Jar
    2. Western Hero
    3. Theme from Barney
  368. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Elmo Harris

    Actually, as the left has been telling us, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

    Obama has promised $275 billion in tax cuts to the middle class. So Harper is just going with Obama's plan.
  369. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: READ_ ON MONEY, LAW, POWER, AND POLITICS by Connie Fogal October 22, 2001 In the Spring of 2001 in the province of British Columbia, Canada ushered in a government with only two opposition members as citizens punished the preceding party tossing them almost into oblivion. In its overweaning power, the new government quickly exposed its subservience to the altar of international financial greed. On September 18,2001 the Hon Mr Gary Collins, B.C.'s Minister of Finance, showed his ignorance or worse yet his submission to the interest of banks in priority to those of the public. Collins sent a BC constituent to the website of our Bank of Canada to answer why BC would not use our Bank of Canada to fund public needs, (like infrastructure or education or health). Rather than familiarize himself with the existing law in Canada that was put into place precisely to assist governments and the citizenry, Mr Collins basically told the citizen, there is no help or tool for us in the Bank of Canada. This is just incorrect. For the Bank of Canada website and our elected representatives to withhold the information on the law is unacceptable Such position is presented over and over by officials and government. It could be called treasonous at worst, stupidity at best. It could be called a conspiracy to fool the people. A Canadian statute called The Bank of Canada Act gives our governments capacity to use our own central bank to fund our needs. Our elected people refuse to do it and give us endless excuses for failing us. Why is this? Are they betraying us, or are they simply stupid? Money is a Federal jurisdiction, but the provinces and the municipalities could assert demands for assistance through those acts. The Feds, provinces, and municipalities have a choice. It is an issue of political will which is related to the question of whose interest is to be served.
  370. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Continued- Section 18 of The Bank of Canada Act sets out the Bank's powers of lending to our governments. S 18(J) says the Bank of Canada may make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province (municipalities). The reason our governments do not maximize the power of our own Bank of Canada is because to do so would be contrary to the command of the globalization process, the privatization of the world, led by the IMF and the World Bank. Canada now uses the Bank of Canada for only about 1% to 5% of its financing of the nation's needs. The rest is borrowed from private banks and hence the escalating exponential interest growth on the national debt. Many countries have had a central bank like the Bank of Canada that was owned by the people which was used to put money into the system for infrastructure etc at no or very low cost to the money. Any cost that did arise goes/went back to the countries' coffers. Private banks like TD, CIBC, Royal etc charge high interest and keep it for their own profits. The mandate of globalization requires that all the national banks be privatized in order that there remains no competition for the private banks, except among each other to practice their usury. One of the terms of conquest of the illegal war against Yugoslavia was the demand by the IMF and NATO (read U.S.) that Yugoslavia give up its central national bank which it was forced to do. A constant term imposed by the IMF on every nation in trouble with their money is to get rid of their national bank. It is a central part of what Michel Chossodovsky calls the Globalization of Poverty.
  371. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Nuke spill at Chalk River:
    http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2009/01/27/8157826-sun.html

    Sure hope Harper leaves a little in the kitty to pay for this! 7,000 litres of radioactive water spilling into the Ottawa River per day for a month so far, and only now are Canadians finding out about it. Ms. Keen knew about it, tried to have the water pumps repaired, backups installed, and was shown the door for her efforts. Wonder if there is a budget line item for the lawsuit Ms. Keen will no doubt win.

    Just what Canada needs right now, a disaster like a meltdown...

    Another reason Harper shuffles his ministers like a deck of cheap cards: plausible deniability anyone?
  372. john dancy from Canada writes: matt s, No I believe Canada's safety nets, already in place use so much of our capital that we have no real room to do much.
    What is happening in the house is pure politics. They did not like the outcome of the election. They were going to vote down whatever budget he came out with. He turned the table on them using the Canadian system to the fullest. He made them get rid of those two and give him a reasonable man. Now we have the two parties working together and off we go.
    What i do know is that there is a public face that they present and then there is what happens behind closed doors. This deal was done weeks ago.. all the talk now is for the next 6 months....
  373. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: We desperately need a force of politicians somewhere who will take up the power of the Bank of Canada while we still have it and before it is destroyed, as it surely will be because that is the demand of the IMF and the World Bank and all their globalizers. The current call for a common dollar in the Americas, i.e., the US dollar, will be the fruition of that plan. Our Bank of Canada of necessity will disappear and we will be completely controlled by the federal reserve which in turn is under the command of the World Bank which is over 50 % US controlled. Next we will see a battle between the Euro and the US dollar for supremacy in the world.

    Once there is a common dollar in the Americas, Canada will have lost our capacity to use our own money supply to support our own economy. As Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King said in 1935: 'Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations' laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile' .
  374. Blake Johnston from Vancouver, Canada writes: Everyone crying that their last budget wasn't good enough..now they get what they want...ha

    You lefties make me sick. You love playing the game and not governing.
  375. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Continued- We have no current federal nor provincial politicians with the guts or understanding to educate Canadians on the power we actually have to support all our social programs and certainly our infrastructure. Since infrastructure is so crucial to municipalities, it is logical Councillors could be the leading edge in this challenge. They could lead other municipalities in a charge on the federal government to return to the use of the Bank of Canada to fund transit as a start . Michel Chossudovsky, economist, University of Ottawa, refers to the 'privatization of urban space' in the process of municipal integration. Municipal integration is part of the globalization agenda- i.e. privatization of everything. That process is now accelerating in BC with our new Liberal government. Total privatization (or briberization as Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, callsed it)of everything including all financing tools is the agenda. Whose agenda? The globalizers. William Krehm, in 'The Bank of Canada , a Misused Tool', appendix, to It's Your Money, by William Hixson, page 121 writes: ' The central banks of Europe came into existence to finance wars or to help assimilate the booty of wars: the bank of England in 1694; the Bank of France in 1800; the German Reichsbank after the 1871 victory over France. Like the U.S fed they were owned and controlled by private banks- the Bank of England was finally nationalized by the Labor Government only after World War II.' 'But the Bank of Canada (section 17 of the Act)has a single shareholder, the government of Canada. It had been set up by an arch - Conservative government in 1935, but in the elections of that year the Liberals under William Lyon Mackenzie King promised to nationalize it. And nationalize it they did. The process was completed in 1938 when the 12,000 shareholders were bought out at a handsome profit.'
  376. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- 'As a result the interest on any federal debt held by it finds its way back to the Government- not as 'funny money' but as the respectable institution of the dividend. By contrast, when private banks hold such debt, the interest on it remains with them.' 'Section 14 of the Act adopted in 1961 after the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker had fired the second governor of the Bank, James Coyne, establishes the ultimate responsibility of the Government for the general policy of the Bank. In the event of a disagreement between the Finance Minister and the Governor of the Bank, the Minister need only give the governor 30- day notice in writing of the course to be followed. If he does not comply he has his walking papers.'...... '.... How a central bank chooses to handle money creation can shape our destinies.' '...In 1991 an elaborately orchestrated campaign was conducted by the Mulroney Government and the then Bank of Canada governor John Crow to replace the preamble to the bank of Canada with a single goal- 'zero inflation'.. the high inflation rates that were to flatten out prices would have consequences in every nook and cranny of the nation's' life- undoing the social programs that have become part of the very identity of Canadian society.... However , the caucuses of the three parties in the Banking Subcommittee of the Commons joined in turning down the initiative. This was never reported in the media, nor did it prevent Governor Crow from advertising the supposed 'independence of the Bank of Canada from the government' and the bank's espousal of 'zero inflation' on all continents..'
  377. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: Liberals are so stupid that it is mind bogling.
    If you are looking at the facts and you can't see them, you are a Liberal
    If your IQ is below 67, you are an natural Liberal.
    The best plan for the west is,'SEPARATION'!
  378. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- The provinces and municipalities could pressure the federal government to apply the power it has to activate those sections to obtain interest free or low interest money. They could lobby for the return of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act which provided that municipalities could borrow money at 2% interest rate to enable them to carry on their necessary programs. Canada successfully used that mechanism before. William Krehm points out that after a decade of depression and no savings, Canada used The Bank of Canada to provide money at low interest rates which mobilized the real resources of the nation- labour, materials and plant -to win the war. When Canada reached full employment, Victory Bonds were issued to soak up purchasing power from the public and thereby prevented inflation. Low interest rates in an expanding economy between 1946 and 1972 made possible the reduction of Canada's federal debt as a proportion of its Gross National Product from 142% to 22.7% despite the burden of financing the war and gifts of $3.4 billion made to our allies. Low interest rate loans from the Bank of Canada refurbished infrastructures, facilitated new technologies which transformed Canada from a semi rural to an industrialized country, and which housed and assimilated penniless immigrants to standards undreamed of before the war. One can understand that private banks do not like this. To utilize the Bank of Canada effectively would cut into commercial bank profits. Walter Stewart (Bank Heist: How our Financial Giants Are Costing you Money, Walter Stewart, p. 138) reports that in 1995 the Big Five banks made $4,933 million profit, up 21.8 % from 1994. In 1996 they made $6.3 billion profit.. It is absurd to refuse to put at least some of that interest money into general revenue by using the Bank of Canada.
  379. JP Warwick from Canada writes: wally rabbit

    Posting 800 posts of drooling tin-hat lunacy which no one will read is just annoying. Just post a link and be done with it.
  380. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- The Bank of Canada has the authority to create (i.e. lend to the federal government) the money Canada needs (which creation, whoever does it, is as a result of secure government deposits), but our government chooses to use the Bank of Canada less and less (only 5% in1996), preferring to pay interest to the commercial banks as the creator of the money instead. In 1995, the Bank of Canada held $25 billion of Government of Canada bonds, received $1.7 billion in interest from the government, (its only income in 1995), had operating expenses of $200 million, and turned over $1.5 billion in profits to the receiver general at the end of the year. An expense of $200 million on $25 billion worth of borrowing works out to an interest rate of only 0.8%. (P. 82 Bank Heist quoting Ruben C. Bellan, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Manitoba.) The Big Five banks earned $1.8 billion in service charges during 1995, up 19% from 1990, while the Consumer Price Index rose 11%. The banks are slicing off nearly double the general rise in prices. (P.188, Bank Heist). It is a question of asserting political will to use the powers in The Bank of Canada Act and The Bank Act for our benefit. The question is, why will our governments not assert their authority? Why are they increasingly relinquishing their own power? William Krehm answers,'That strange blackout of our national memory (of the period when we used the Bank of Canada effectively) is due largely to a brilliantly organized world campaign of speculative finance to regain the hegemony it had lost due to its excesses in the twenties'. (P.125, It's Your Money).
  381. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: MY grandfather was a Liberal, my dad was a Liberal, I have always voted Liberal.
    You can't cure stupidity!
  382. Flander Jones from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, he wanted to fight an election against him but today he needs someone to agree with him and Mr Ignatief is going to do that.
    Sarah palin had a huge boost before she spoke. We have not heard much from Mr Ignatief and we will see. I hope he is the leader the credentials show.

    Now Mr. Dancy, really, drop the party patois. I lived in Alberta for 25 years, with Myron Thompson as my MP for 15 years (...ugh...now that was a burden to bear). It is pretty obvious what Mr. Harper 'wanted' and got. Perfect politics perhaps. Moral? No. As for fighting elections? One cannot spend $300 million every time one wants to validate their life, now can they?
  383. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- It is clear that B.C.'s 'honourable' Minister knows nothing about money, its role or its history, nor of our existing laws that provide for its creation, nor of the capacity of our Bank of Canada legally to meet the public needs of the society. What a tragedy for all of us that we never seem to be able to elect anyone who knows the score. If they do, they are willing dupes to global financial interests who obviously pull all the strings. Gary Collins and all other elected people need to read Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank. Stiglitz was interviewed by Greg Palast in The Observer, London October 10,2001. If B.C.'s Minister of finance would even read that interview, he would learn important information. Stiglitz tells us from his experience that the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO have a four step program that destroys economies and even condemns people to death. For example, the imposition of impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicine shows the IMF, World Bank and the WTO 'don't care if people live or die' The four steps are privatization (briberization), capital market liberalization( deregulation), market led policies (raising prices), and finally 'poverty reduction strategy' (Free Trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank.) Stiglitz says that like the Opium wars, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading their own markets against Third World agriculture. Stiglitz tells us via Palast that he quit the World Bank because 'the banks and US Treasury would not change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four- step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.'
  384. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- The Liberal government of British Columbia has bought into the IMF and World Bank's four step program for British Columbians despite a growing realization by enlightened people that it does not work. Stiglitz said in that same interview with Greg Palast 'Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural 'assistance' has gone to hell in a handbag.' and that the only African nation which avoided this fate was Botswana because:'They told the IMF to go packing.' So why are the governments of Canada and the provinces all falling lockstep into the World Bank IMF programs? Why would our elected representatives commit rich Canada to the four step program designed as an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation? Because we entered the World trade agreement (WTO ) which compels us to fall into line.Why would our representatives do that? Why would they in effect give up our capacity to make our own decisions. It can only be explained by human greed. Stiglitz talked of that force overpowering the representatives of poorer nations under the commands of the IMF and the World Bank. In his interview with Greg Palast in The Observer, London October 10, 2001, in discussing Step One, Privatization 'Briberization.', Palast wrote: 'Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. 'You could see their eyes widen' at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.'
  385. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- Part of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO privatisation scheme includes the elimination of national central banking control by sovereign governments. So when our elected people of every stripe tell us over and over that the Bank of Canada cannot be used to build roads or provide education or medical care or housing for our people, they are either totally ignorant or totally conquered by their real masters- not us the people. They have either betrayed us or abandoned us. Take your pick. The effect is the same: The reduction of our standard of living. We are slowly but surely being turned over to third world conditions. Look at the emasculation of our medicare, our public broadcasting, hospitalization, education, public transit, etc etc Come to Vancouver's downtown eastside where third world conditions now prevail for masses of condemned humanity. Our elected representatives have submitted to the Command of the international financial agenda for whatever is their rationale. Whether they will acknowledge it or not, they are colluding with the international financial powers to deprive Canadians of an existing tool that could prevent descent into the paradigm of globalization of poverty as described by Professor Michel Chossudovky. The international agenda in effect is to impoverish the world except for that financial elite who are to have all the resources of the world and the rest of us can go to Hell!. The thing is, people are catching on. The massive protests around the world in the past few years are testament to that. But the powers do not like that. The exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy in New York to destroy civil liberties is also a part of their evil agenda. One could dismiss my arguments as 'paranoid conspiracy theory'. Well, facts are not paranoia if they are really happening.
  386. Ontario Man from Canada writes: So, who is going to pay for this lavish spending spree? Next time you are near a school and see kids playing thank them for the money, for it is these children who will end up indebted by the NDP & Lib demands.

    How very noble for this generation to spend their kid's money. How very liberal of us.
  387. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: continued- Whether they will acknowledge it or not, they are colluding with the international financial powers to deprive Canadians of an existing tool that could prevent descent into the paradigm of globalization of poverty as described by Professor Michel Chossudovky. The international agenda in effect is to impoverish the world except for that financial elite who are to have all the resources of the world and the rest of us can go to Hell!. The thing is, people are catching on. The massive protests around the world in the past few years are testament to that. But the powers do not like that. The exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy in New York to destroy civil liberties is also a part of their evil agenda. One could dismiss my arguments as 'paranoid conspiracy theory'. Well, facts are not paranoia if they are really happening. Furthermore, what is conspiracy? Law does not arise in a vacuum. It arises because of a demand from some group in society (usually the superior group) to meet a challenge or an economic loss to its authority. concept of 'conspiracy ' emerged. In this way it became illegal to organize the workers. Workers were jailed and hanged for organizing. Now we have anti terrorist laws emerging in Canada and elsewhere in harmony with the US government's reaction to the 9/11 incident(another abdication of our own sovereign capacity as we jump to the command of President Bush.) These terrorist laws are written so broadly such as to catch lawful protestors in definitions of conspiracy and labels of being terrorists. What a convenient mechanism to stop the growing world awareness of and opposition to the most heinous conquering and exploitation of the whole world without a world war! Ironically by the illegal new 'war' imposed by the US government on the world in reaction to the events of 9/11we may now be on the brink of World War 3.
  388. john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit, you are the fool if you do not own bank stocks. That is how the money comes back to you.............The world knows we have the best banking system.
  389. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Continued- In Turning the Tide, Confronting the Money Traders, January 1997 by John Dillon of the Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice, at p.31 Dillon says,'If one concedes that financial markets largely rule the world, then all that is left for governments and central banks is to try to please these markets by pursuing the policies the bond traders demand: low inflation enforced through monetarist policies of high real interest rates and high unemployment, and policies of fiscal austerity. Ultimately, this represents an abdication of power to wealthy investors and their interests. It means that governments must give up any pretense of truly working for the common good. In essence, this means abandoning the most basic principles of democracy' It is time we called a spade a spade. Let us use our Bank of Canada for ourselves. We have to say no to the agenda of the IMF and the World Bank. That will take courage because the powers of those forces is incredible. But there are some brave elected souls. Such are few and far between but they do exist. We must rally round them. George Galloway is Labour M.P. for Glasgow Kelvin in Great Britain. Speaking in The Guardian Saturday October 20, 2001, he says 'We will not be silenced. MPs must be free to speak out against this absurd and potentially disastrous war' . What he is doing is challenging the new world order. He says a small coterie of unelected powerful people calling the shots has to stop on all fronts. We have seen in Canada (as elsewhere in the world) that our constitutions and laws are violated and ignored in this globalization process. In Canada our Prime Minister and a few officials and maybe some favored cabinet members have become a small clique in power in the country who have taken unto themselves all control and are getting away with it. It is not our Parliament that runs Canada any more. It is our Prime Minister responding to an outside command. In England, Galloway says 'No more'
  390. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Continued-

    Galloway says, 'Churchill and Chamberlain both would have scorned the idea of their actions being licensed by whips, as if we were circus dogs whose duty was to perform tricks for the ringmaster. I too have now been summoned to see the chief whip. Next week, over tea and biscuits at 11 Downing Street, I will have to courteously explain to my old friend Hilary Armstrong that I, for one, will not be gagged. This bombing has to stop - and the war is too important to be left to ministers and generals in conclave.'
    Oh for a Galloway in Canada!
    'Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power'...Benito Mussolini
  391. matt s from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: What is happening in the house is pure politics. They did not like the outcome of the election. They were going to vote down whatever budget he came out with. He turned the table on them using the Canadian system to the fullest. He made them get rid of those two and give him a reasonable man. Now we have the two parties working together and off we go.

    ========

    Sorry, could you qualify your comments please? How are you so familiar with the interworkings of the Liberal party? Are you a member? Or do you sit in on caucus meetings? Or are you just making it up as you go? A little ego stroking....
  392. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:

    There's no way they used the term 'funny money'.

    That's all Putin/Kruschev beguiling.
  393. james west from Canada writes: j p warwick - obama has promised $275 billion in tax cuts to the middle class? when did this happen? republicans want tax cuts even if it doesn't work.
    give us the source, please.
  394. john dancy from Canada writes: JP Warwick, yes very easy when you have time to formulate. I meant listen to him on the fly. I have heard he does a lot of finger pointing at the stupid people in the room. That might not go over well with us.
  395. I'm Stephen Harper and I'm not Lion from China writes: After the fiscal update, or budget speech will Harper be running and hiding under the GG's skirt ????? will Harper prorogue parliament again ???
  396. D T from vancouver, Canada writes: This deficit spending will have next to no impact on our economy, but we will be $100 Billion more in debt and it will undue in 2 years almost 10 years of hard work and progress. How about cutting the number of people working for Government?

    Canada basically has full employment at 6% unemployment rate. Just try to get a trade to do some work on your house in Vancouver or Alberta? Next too impossible and when they do come, they rip you off. If you want to work, there are lots of jobs out there.
  397. diane marie from Canada writes: NL Patriot:-- So, let me get this straight. We are at war because our lives are at risk, but we should not be prepared to pay for that war. Instead, we should just go for some 2%-off shopping, perhaps so that we don't think too much about our lives being at risk. And, furthermore, we should not question the budget because that would be unpatriotic. Does that cover it?
  398. john dancy from Canada writes: matt s , I think you and both know the Liberal party would love to get rid of the Conservatives. Its a hard place to be between the Bloc and no money for an election. In 6 months this will be different. I hope Mr Ignatief turns out to be a leader. this country runs best with two strong parties. And yes , i know the deal was made weeks ago....and, thats ok.
  399. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Tin Hat? Good One. 'Ignorance is bliss' -

    until it becomes a boot stomping on your face for eternity!

    Enjoy Fella's(and ladies) At least you are vocalizing your right to free speech and seem to be interested and better yet pissed off.

    Please Educate Yourself. 'We need more Educated and less Schooled'
  400. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: This should placate any coalition supporters out there who ever doubted for one minute that Harper and the Conservatives wouldn't be able to deliver a 'Big Fat Liberal-NDP budget.'

    Never thought I'd see the day when the NDP would vote against tax cuts for middle and lower-income Canadians.
  401. steve allan from Canada writes: No corporate tax cuts. Corporations in this country are already some of the least taxed corporations in the world yet it hasn't made them more competitive and efficient.

    If there's as much as ONE dollar of tax cut for corporations it will be justification to bring down this government.
  402. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: Bank Stocks?? Why do you think they need 75 BILLION???? THEY ARE ALL DEAD MEN WALKING!

    Please stop with the quick replies and take some time to read.

    GOLD AND SILVER BULLION
  403. V Patterson from Freddy, Canada writes: Wally Rabbit, no one is reading your posts. I hope if you do have a point you wish to get across, that you will put it in a form that someone will read it (maybe even get informed, have a laugh, disagree, or dare to say agree ) vs skipping your entire diatribe. If you loved reading all that stuff on someone elses website or blog, post a link.

    Otherwise, it's just clutter and spam for all to ignore and doesnt further your cause or belief.
  404. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes: And in the distance,
    the rocket's red glare
    The bombs burst in the air
    This time
    we're never going back

    Through the (days)
    he changed somehow
    He's different now
    He's different now

    Open fire,
    here comes the western hero
    Standing there,
    big money in his hand
    Sure enough,
    he was a western hero,
    Sure enough

    --Neil Young
  405. The Innocent Ghost Of Patrick Whelan from Canada writes: .
    Wow, talk about deja-vu.

    I just had the funny feeling that I've seen all this before when the Liberals announced their demands after Harper/Flaherty's economic update.

    Wild eh?
  406. john dancy from Canada writes: diane marie, your not asking questions or giving other suggestions. The fact is there is no more money to save us. Only we and some time will fix this. We could make new laws to make sure this does not happen again, we could encourage industries that will help the planet in the future. But no we have to listen to you say how bad everyone else is.....are you 10 years old?
  407. Joe Dick from Kingston, Canada writes: I'm Stephen Harper and I'm not Lion from China writes: After the fiscal update, or budget speech will Harper be running and hiding under the GG's skirt ????? will Harper prorogue parliament again ???

    ============================================

    What is it about the left, that constantly feels it necessary to demean and degrade women with negative and derogatory comments directed towards the female GG and her choice of clothing?

  408. john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit , good luck with that. 30 years ago they said buy gold at 1000 dollars an ounce. Still has not got past that yet.....
    Your retired, the bank stocks pay dividends every month at low tax rates. stop complaining make yourself right.
  409. john dancy from Canada writes: Joe Dick, how CANADIAN of them............
  410. Mooney Pilot from Smartville, Canada writes: Who is certain that Harper WILL get an election if defeated. The GG has bailed him out TWICE. Send this loser back to Alberta...that way the dipstick can be with the oil.
  411. john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit, I have read many articles , of course. but I don't believe them to be the truth. just someone else opinion. even when they talk of history.....
  412. john dancy from Canada writes: Mooney Pilot, but the Liberals support the budget. The deals been done.......
  413. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    Re: Nationalism

    It ain't worth it.
  414. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Joe Dick from Kingston, Canada writes: I'm Stephen Harper and I'm not Lion from China writes: After the fiscal update, or budget speech will Harper be running and hiding under the GG's skirt ????? will Harper prorogue parliament again ???

    ============================================

    What is it about the left, that constantly feels it necessary to demean and degrade women with negative and derogatory comments directed towards the female GG and her choice of clothing?

    -------------------------------------------------------

    The poster you quote is none other than Mike Sty...

    Really now...would you expect anything less?
  415. J Kay from Canada writes: john dancy: I'm not quite sure what you mean by what Canadians should get back to help out. If you mean what would be enought o help out that's a huge question and one I'm not sure anyone can answer. If you mean what would one get depending upon possible tax cut scenarios then I can help answer that but it's very much predicated one assumptions since we don't know what the government is proposing yet in terms of tax relief.

    If we assume that there is a 1% cut to the bottom bracket and a 1% cut to the middle bottom bracket, then the following tax savings would be seen by Canadians assuming only basic deductions for the given income level:

    For someone earning $50K, they would see a $248 savings from a 1% cut to the bottom bracket, $111.68 from a 1% cut to the 22% bracket or a $360 savings with 1% cuts to both.

    Someone earning $80K would experience a $248 savings due to the 1% bottom bracket cut, a $388 savings due to a 1% cut to the 22% bracket (only), or $636.74 with cuts to both.

    I don't however expect we'll see those kind of rate reductions as the cost to the treasury would be fairly significant and above what I believe they are estimating.
  416. matt s from Canada writes: Ontario Man from Canada writes: So, who is going to pay for this lavish spending spree? Next time you are near a school and see kids playing thank them for the money, for it is these children who will end up indebted by the NDP & Lib demands.

    How very noble for this generation to spend their kid's money. How very liberal of us.

    =========

    Just an off hand calculation. If the Libs maintained power, there would have been no cut to the GST. So add $12B for 2008, $12B for 2009 and $6B for 2007. Hmmm....$30B.

    The Libs and NDP demanded action on the economy. I am not sure that amounts to $64B deficit over 2 years. If the Libs had power, I highly doubt they would run huge deficits and undo their long-running legacy of fiscal prudence. I don't think pointing a finger at Liberals is entirely justified....
  417. JP Warwick from Canada writes: james west

    From the Boston Herald:

    'Obama’s aides worked with House Democrats to craft their version of an economic stimulus package. The package, unveiled last week, includes $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. It would leave the Bush tax cuts in place.'

    'Obama announced last week that he would convene a 'fiscal responsibility summit' in February to focus on long-term problems with the economy and the skyrocketing costs of benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.'

    Or this:

    'Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats in charge of the House Ways and Means Committee are poised to approve a $275 billion tax cut as part of the $825 billion economic stimulus bill sought by President Barack Obama'

    'The $275 billion tax cut would be largely concentrated in the next two years. Its largest provision would give individuals and families about $145 billion in tax cuts by reducing payroll taxes withheld from paychecks for individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year and married couples who earn less than $150,000 annually.'
  418. JP Warwick from Canada writes: matt s

    By liberal fiscal prudence, are you referring to the 77 billion the libs added to the national debt in their time in power or the health, welfare and education cuts they downloaded to the provinces?
  419. matt s from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: matt s , I think you and both know the Liberal party would love to get rid of the Conservatives. Its a hard place to be between the Bloc and no money for an election. In 6 months this will be different. I hope Mr Ignatief turns out to be a leader. this country runs best with two strong parties. And yes , i know the deal was made weeks ago....and, thats ok.

    ======

    I wasn't questioning the grand motivations of the LPC, i was questioning how you know so much.

    (Ignatieff John, 2 f's)
  420. john dancy from Canada writes: J Kay, That is my point. Some talk of lavish budget gifts. 328 dollars is not going to fix things over the next 5 years but it would add to what we owe. We are the ones who will fix it by going to work and saving and paying of mortgages. Maybe play with our children in the free park across the street......
    My grandma who went thru the last depression always said live within your means and save for a rainy day........we did not listen. we should now and we should change laws so it never happens again.
  421. Crazy Canuck from Canada writes: FDR's New Deal failed to end the Depression. Deficit spending will not help the Canadian economy. We are only hurting future generations with debt and eventually high inflation.

    Cheers.
  422. J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: Ok so that explains the modicum of spending increase for defense that has occurred over the past 3 budgets. Can you explain the 12% per annum spending increase last year on other departments and agencies, that is government department spending, which is separate from transfers to provinces or people. These are among the largest spending increases in the past 3 years budgets and had nothing to do with cuts by the Liberals.

    Nor did transfers need to be increased in the manner in the way they have been, considering that the Liberal budget of 2003 reversed all of the spending cuts to provincial and personal transfers that occurred during the 1990. In fact provincial transfers were increased 43% in 2003 to reverse the cuts that occurred and bring spending back up to inflation adjusted levels. Thereafter the Liberal budgets allowed those areas of spending to grow at inflation adjusted levels. Harper has been increasing it well beyond that since taking power, unnecessarily in my opinion.
  423. Bruce Orr from Canada writes: Surprisingly no mention of government cutbacks. California is proposing to give all civil servants 2 days off per month without pay beginning Feb 1, 2009. This is essentially a 10% temporary government workforce reduction. Reminiscent of the Bob Rae days in Ontario in early 90's.
  424. john dancy from Canada writes: J Kay , I meant think of an amount a Canadian would need to really bail themselves out. then multiply by 30 million Canadians . Not much we can really do as a government.
  425. Logic is full of Epic Win from Canada writes: Oh the tripe in this thread.

    Wait for the full budget to be released, then despite the circumstances of its origin, judge it on its standalone merits.

    This 'All (insert party name here)'s are dumb' stuff completely destroys the credibility of the poster that states it.

    As for the Infrastructure spending, if the provs/munici's can't afford their 1/3 share each, and that makes the projects unlikely to start or let alone be completely, is it possible that the $7B pays 100% of the cost of the most needed/shovel ready projects? At least some of then will get done then, instead of none. It could even be a loan from the Feds if needs be.

    Surely there is a way that the brighter members of whatever stripe of the political spectrum they are, can find a way to get something positive and meaniful done?
  426. matt s from Canada writes: No, JP Warwick, I am referring to them not running $40B deficits year after year...
  427. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: diane marie from Canada writes: NL Patriot:-- So, let me get this straight. We are at war because our lives are at risk, but we should not be prepared to pay for that war. Instead, we should just go for some 2%-off shopping, perhaps so that we don't think too much about our lives being at risk. And, furthermore, we should not question the budget because that would be unpatriotic. Does that cover it?

    ----------

    No that doesn't cover it.

    The military spending didn't come in this budget. That happened before and it was absolutly necesasary. Did you not read my post?

    You were complaining that Harper had this big surplus.....I was just simply stating that Martin created those surpluses on the backs of Canadians. Everything from downloading Federal responsibilities to Provinces to selling off Military equipment and not buying new stuff to illegally collecting 52 Billion dollars from workers in EI premiums.

    I didn't agree with the GST cut and I don't agree with this current so called stinulus spending. I would much rather impliment some tax policy that makes sense and let people fend for them selves.
  428. If I had a million lobsters from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: Yes, Ireland is tanking, unlike the rest of the EU countries I compare them to...

    And 3 months is an economy. Take the last decade's worth of numbers and get back to me.
    _____________________________________________________

    JP their growth was based on credit and debt not growth. Why else would their govt have to nationalize their banks?

    They are bankrupt - nuff said.
  429. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: wally rabbit, you are the fool if you do not own bank stocks. That is how the money comes back to you.............The world knows we have the best banking system.

    ----

    Where it goes right back out the door again to service shareholder debt.

    Our banking system is both the birthplace and the slaughterhouse of our money. Since the money emanated from the banks in the form of a loan, they retain full custody of that money, unless the borrower(s) default. Its ultimate destination is back into the bank over time as the loan is retired, plus the interest that had to be retrieved from future loans. It is utterly a Ponzi scheme. Madoff's scam is nothing compared to this.

    When a loan is created, there are two entries made on the banks balance sheets. One entry goes on the asset side as it is an interest bearing vehicle. The same entry goes on the liability side as it is a deposit either in the same bank or another. It all comes out in the wash.

    Banks have been bestowed the legal right to counterfeit money. However, it appears that the bank is running a legitimate operation. Revenues are collected from outstanding loans, plus whatever other assets they purchase (i.e. the interest collected on government securities) or whatever. Salaries are paid. Bonuses parceled out. Dividends allocated. Taxes remunerated. Shareholders cheer them on, totally unaware that they are the vampire at the core of our monetary system, that stands on present and future citizens.

    Infinite economic growth is required to service the ever compounding debt. No major party politician I have seen (save for Ron Paul in the United States) even brings this up. They are (a) ignorant or (b) hopelessly wedded to the current corrupt monetary system.
  430. Systemic Risk from Canada writes: Woo hoo! $2000 for each and every Cdn! I can SOOOO be bribed....I love democracy!
  431. Mooney Pilot from Smartville, Canada writes: John Dancy...how can you support abudget that hasn't been presented yet. Iggy will give his answer on Wednesday. If he votes for it...it's just to keep Harper in the position of cleaning up his own mess. In 6 months even his own Tories will be willing to trash him.
  432. john dancy from Canada writes: matt s , Its all out in the open as well. If you look past the emotional information. This forum for instance. Its what they do and what they say. And what has happened, and what will in two hours.
    The unknown is in 6 months. Two f's it is. no offense intended.
  433. pole cat from Canada writes: Crazy Canuck you are right on the money,it wont do any good at all.
  434. J Kay from Canada writes: john dancy: Oh I absolutely agree that tax cuts at this time are completely imprudent and I don't believe an extra $4-$5 per week is going to make much, if any, of a difference. In fact I expect that given that people are concerned about their jobs the opposite will happen, and perhaps that's part of what they hope to prevent, people will stop spending, they'll start saving and this contraction in consumption will actually hurt the economy and prolong the pain, but given that people have been consuming beyond their means, not to the extent that they have in the US mind you but still enough, I dont see these proposed tax cuts as being effective at all in stimulating the economy, they would need to be significantly larger. As such I agree that all this will do is add unnecessarily to our debt, increase the cost of government going forward and reduce it's revenues making balancing the budgets in the future more difficult.

    It's not a prudent course of action in my mind and I have yet to read anything to dissuade me of that belief at this point. But it sure is populist.
  435. elizabeth vann from victoria, b.c., Canada writes: Let's remember we have Jack & Gilles & Stephan to thank for this. The coalition aka the grab for power by a collective of losers.

    Saw Jack on the TV yesterday and his buzz words have morphed from last year's 'change direction' to 'change' and 'hope' which we all know are two of the new US president's favourite words.

    His stance on the budget, vote against before even reading it is disgusting. Do the other members of the threesome really think they can rein Jack in, or what? He's about as insightful as Joe Biden.

    Anyhow, we'll know all the budget details in a few hours. I think I'll check my supply of tums.
  436. mike h from Canada writes: Steve Allan - 'If there's as much as ONE dollar of tax cut for corporations it will be justification to bring down this government.'

    Good logic Steve - lets take it even further - those greedy corporations - lets tax them more! It's not like wouldn't rather spend the money on growing the country, employing people, creating wealth - heck, the governments much better at doing that, isn't it? ????
  437. Brian C from Canada writes:
    To Bruce Orr who writes: 'Surprisingly no mention of government cutbacks.'

    Last budget did, and so did the economic update in Oct. Surprisingly, the opposition didn't like it and want to replace the government with a coalition that has the Bloc holding a gun to its head. Surprisingly.
  438. james west from Canada writes: j p warwick - i owe you an apology. i shot first and asked questions after. doubt hit about 2 seconds after i posted that and i checked.
    that loud hissing sound is the sound of an ego deflating.
    you are very right.
  439. john dancy from Canada writes: Mooney Pilot, rarely do these guys do anything without having all the chickens in a row.
  440. If I had a million lobsters from canbabwe, Canada writes: Tom Thumb - yah no worries it looks like I meant it that way - my issue not yours.

    Folks the most troubling thing around this is this. You pump 64 billion into the system to create 'jobs'

    What do you after those projects are finished. You pump another 64 and another 64 and another 64 till your broke.

    And for what- if they'd let the system do what it needs to do - clean the crap out, we'd be well on our way.

    Now we're gonna end up like Japan with zombies everywhere.

    I can imagine what the next gun registry scandal is gonna look like.

    Since we can't change it - nor it seems to be that people want to. An economy cannot be base don consumer spending it has to be based on production and sales of goods and resources. We're lost if we rely on consumers to buy TV's and cars.

    It is very clear that one must look after their own interests and invest and protect their assets as individuals.

    Fair enough I will. I suggest you do the same cause this is gonna get ugly
  441. Flander Jones from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: But it sure is populist.

    Yes it is. Doesn't really matter how you vote does it? A politician will sell his/her soul for a handful of votes and another term in office. The Conservatives win, the Liberals win, even the NDP wins. Only average Canadians lose.
  442. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes:

    I have no idea what the conservative party is supposed to stand for, do you?

    --------------------------------

    Partisanship aside I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?

    ----------------------

    True enough. But considering the conservatives have introduced another record spending increase (3rd year in a row - or 2 of the last 3 years). it's time to kill myth that the conservatives somehow stand for fiscal responsibility and smaller government to rest.
  443. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:

    ....a piece of paper, upheld by which court?.....
  444. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Nor did transfers need to be increased in the manner in the way they have been, considering that the Liberal budget of 2003 reversed all of the spending cuts to provincial and personal transfers that occurred during the 1990. In fact provincial transfers were increased 43% in 2003 to reverse the cuts that occurred and bring spending back up to inflation adjusted levels. Thereafter the Liberal budgets allowed those areas of spending to grow at inflation adjusted levels. Harper has been increasing it well beyond that since taking power, unnecessarily in my opinion

    -------

    I agree with you that Harper has been a spending crack pot. I don't agree that all of the programs that were downloaded to provices were reversed, especially the Healthcare spending.

    The Federal contribution to healthcare used to be almost 50% and currently the provinces claim that the Feds are paying about 16%. Now the Paul Martin feds disputed this claim and actually said it was 33% which they arrived at through adding up several differetn transfer programs.

    That is just 1 example however a significant one
  445. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: Bruce Orr from Canada writes: Surprisingly no mention of government cutbacks. California is proposing to give all civil servants 2 days off per month without pay beginning Feb 1, 2009. This is essentially a 10% temporary government workforce reduction. Reminiscent of the Bob Rae days in Ontario in early 90's.

    -------------------------

    I always thought it was a shame that people completely discredited the Bob Rae 'rae-days' - what those days did was spread the burden on everybody equally instead of simply laying people off. Who wouldn't take a 1% pay cut in order to save your co-workers from being let go.

    Now governments are afraid to offer this for fear of being ridiculed. I would jump at the idea of getting 2 unpaid days off a month - unfortunately my employer won't allow it happen. They would rather lay people off.
  446. JP Warwick from Canada writes: If I had a million lobsters

    France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Spain, and many others all bailed out their banks but most didn't have the same run-up. Iceland is bankrupt.

    Ireland has 7.8% unemployment (all the way up to the EU average.) It's 16% in Spain. I'd quote France but their numbers have been fraudulent for decades (as is the EU average.) France can loose half the jobs in the whole country and they'd admit unemployment rose .1% They hide the real numbers in the participation rate.
  447. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , hopelessly wedded to the system is what we are. It's as good as any other though. Checks , balances, govt coverage of deposits. Could you imagine trying to switch over. Sometimes its easer to just use your knowledge of the system to not get hurt by it than to change it.
  448. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes: Here's the LPC poison pill in the budget.

    They have to support the CPC human management program.
  449. Flander Jones from Canada writes: elizabeth vann from victoria, b.c., Canada writes: Let's remember we have Jack & Gilles & Stephan to thank for this. The coalition aka the grab for power by a collective of losers.

    Oh yeah, that's right. Let's blame somebody else. Give it a rest. I have never seen so many people blaming other people for their actions. If the Conservatives are incapable of thinking for themselves, which is what you are implying, perhaps they should all just resign.
  450. Sebastian Lind from Ottawa, Canada writes: BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

    YOU ARE BEING LIED, A LOT!
  451. john dancy from Canada writes: Dave Jansen, the RAE days were to combat a problem he made by bailing out the teachers pension plan to the tune of 30 billion dollars.
    Funny they are in trouble again. just like the country after the last great depression. maybe just changing the rules so it wont happened again and not spending money really would be the answer....
  452. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: 'Anyway, quite apart from the budget, here's what parliament needs to bear in mind:

    1. No-one who breaks the law should be allowed to lead the government.

    2. No-one who seeks to buy MP votes should be a minister of the crown.

    3. No-one undermines health and safety regulation can be relied on to protect us.

    4. No-one who circumvents election rules should hold public office.

    5. No-one who lies in your face can be trusted. '

    Agreed. That's why the Liberals are no longer in power.

    ================

    So far as I can tell, no Liberal candidate in the last election had done any of those things. But Stephen Harper did them all.

    So if you agree, am I correct that you don't support Harper?
  453. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: ...

    I always thought it was a shame that people completely discredited the Bob Rae 'rae-days' - what those days did was spread the burden on everybody equally instead of simply laying people off. Who wouldn't take a 1% pay cut in order to save your co-workers from being let go.

    ==============

    Public Sector Unionistas.
  454. Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: Ireland has 7.8% unemployment (all the way up to the EU average.) It's 16% in Spain. I'd quote France but their numbers have been fraudulent for decades (as is the EU average.) France can loose half the jobs in the whole country and they'd admit unemployment rose .1% They hide the real numbers in the participation rate

    ------------------------

    The United States does the exact same thing. The official unemployment rate in the United States is deceivingly low since it doesn't reflect those who have given up looking for work. Apparently if you can't find a job after a certain amount of time, you are no longer considered unemployed.

    Some experts think the real number in the US is actually 2-3% higher than they state it. The numbers used in the great depression actually included people who held temporary, contract, and part-timers. If they used those numbers today, the US would be half-way to a depression!
  455. Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - The Progressive Centrist from Canada writes:

    I have no idea what the conservative party is supposed to stand for, do you?

    --------------------------------

    Partisanship aside I don't think any of us have any idea what any of the parties stand for - other than what is convenient at the time to get elected, n'est pas?

    ----------------------

    True enough. But considering the conservatives have introduced another record spending increase (3rd year in a row - or 2 of the last 3 years). it's time to kill myth that the conservatives somehow stand for fiscal responsibility and smaller government to rest.

    --------------------------------------------

    ...as well as the myth that any of the parties are concerned about the people first.
  456. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: J Kay - Obama was elected on a promise to lower taxes for all American taxpayers making less than $200 k per year. This is a fact.

    The campaign reaction of Americans, via the Joe the Plumber fiasco clearly showed that most Ameicans do not view $200 k per year as wealthy - in fact far from it. Joe the Plumber became a cause celebre as Republicans tried to show how out of touch the Dems were with regards to definitions of middle class.

    Meanwhile here in Canada we consider over $80 per year as wealthy. This is outrageous.

    $200 k per year is in fact middle class - it allows a couple of cars, a nice home, a vacation and some savings. A nice comfortable middle class lifestyle.

    $80 k per year? Quite frankly I would consider that as near poverty line subsistence.
  457. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Well let's hope the interest rates allowed on credit cards do get hammered because with the fed. rate so low there is no way banks should be charging the blood sucking rates they do...not that irresponsible use of credit is wise but there are times when credit needs to be accessed and the banks should not be gouging!

    It sounds like an NDP/Liberal budget with a few Conservative items...and Jack will vote against and Gilles is totally silent....oh yes for Gilles it is not a Canadian budget but a Quebec budget.....Jack and Gilles went up the Hill to try and catch the budget....
  458. wally rabbit from Zeitgeist, Canada writes: To: The Remnant

    Atleast there is one more guy who knows what is going on.

    All the best- but I am coming to believe the quote by Henry Kissenger that we are all just 'useless eaters'.

    There is a sucker born every minute.
  459. john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, Its not blame its the truth. These guys did not like the outcome of the last election and had decided to vote against anything Mr Harper brought to the floor. He came up with a plan for the OTHER party to get rid of two leaders and give Him someone who would work with him. Mr Ignatieff [ two f's ] Now the deals made the Liberals and the Conservatives are working together.
  460. Dan xxxxxx from Canada writes: Ok, now. Everyone who refers to a person who is laid-off as 'loosing' their job please pay attention. They do not LOOSE the job, they LOSE it. please use the proper word. Loose means to untighten, OK.


    Ok, you can go back to your arguing.
  461. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    Never betray the Family.

    #1 I don't usually look this good at this time of day. I like getting my cashback where they buy work boots.

    #2 My Mom still keeps calling me about those stocks I recommended. Make sure they call you SAtephen.

    #3 Apocalypse How? It's on the Discovery Channel RIGHT NOW.
  462. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , hopelessly wedded to the system is what we are. It's as good as any other though. Checks , balances, govt coverage of deposits. Could you imagine trying to switch over. Sometimes its easer to just use your knowledge of the system to not get hurt by it than to change it.

    -----

    Sorry John, I don't buy that fatalistic point of view. I will fight for freedom. I owe it to my family and myself, and my future descendants. If I save your freedom along with it, so be it.

    There is a better system. I am working on the details of its implementation. Unfortunately, if I moved into a position of power to implement it, I would be virtually or physically assassinated - or vetted out of the political system by the incumbents. I've got to try. Do you know what happens if I don't?

    Nothing.

    Thanks to the Internet, information to the public is readily available like none before. There is a mass awakening going on out there; I have witnessed it first hand. I used to be so cynical thinking that I was the one who was alone in the way I thought. Not so. Information is no longer disseminated through mainstream media.

    The revolution will not be televised.
  463. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair,
    The Liberals did every single item that you listed and a few more that you didn't. So, yes I agree with you.
  464. matt s from Canada writes: All this talk about how Martin offloaded all those costs onto the provinces. You all know that offloading was at the request of the provinces, don't you? After the offloading, Martin continuously cut federal taxes as it became possible. Provinces and consequently, municipalities, have been ramping up taxes to cover their shortfalls.
  465. john dancy from Canada writes: r b from Calgary, that is exactly the thinking that got us into this mess. Young people wanting everything now and borrowing beyond their means.
  466. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Dave Jansen

    Actually, all countries do it to some extent. But France makes a mockery of it by taking it to absurd lengths. Most countries are at least roughly comparable. France (and to a lesser extent Germany) post number way off the believable.

    Canada's numbers don't include those no longer looking either and no country includes the 'under-employed.' A PhD driving a cab is employed. A part-timer who can't find full-time work is employed, etc.
  467. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, is there a Cole's Notes version you could tell me? and a little of how it would help the people? thanks
  468. JP Warwick from Canada writes: matt s

    The provinces ASKED for more expenses? You say that like we're supposed to believe you. You say it as if our mockery of the very idea would be unwarrented.

    You're nuts.
  469. J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: In terms of spending, health care and social transfer spending has been brought back up to inflation adjusted levels. I cant comment on a per capita basis if they have been fully restored but strictly on an inflation adjusted basis, spending is above where it was before the 1990's cuts.

    Regarding the distribution of spending, health care is a provincial responsibility as is education and other social transfer spending. In fact it is one of the main raison d'etre of the Bloc as they strongly argue for maintaining provincial responsibilities.

    The so-called downloading of the 1990's to a degree reflects that it is provincial governments responsibility to pay for those services and to that end a number of provinces have raised their health care related funding, such as Ontario's health care premiums.

    Personally my preference is for health care and education to be federal areas of responsibility and to avoid duplication of resources with each province having their own set of departments, etc.

    I'll do a bit of research for you in a bit and determine who is telling the truth Martin or the provinces but my bet is on Martin.
  470. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:
    #2 I told you. Hold those stocks.
  471. Al Gorman from Canada writes: While balanced budgets, and budget surpluses, are obviously preferable a budgetary deficit in the projected amount equates to roughly 2.5% of Canada's GDP and is modest within the context of the Canadian economy. While $30 billion sounds like an awful lot of money to most of us in terms of developing infrastructure it will not stretch very far. By comparison when Pierre Trudeau was spending and taxing during the 70's the federal deficit was running in excess of 8% of GDP. If the tax reductions and federal spending result in containing the contraction of the economy into recession these are wise investments in Canada's future. I think the risk is that Jim Flaherty has probably overestimated tax revenues in the current budget. It would not hurt to also have a hard look at reducing the cost of government services and the size of government.
  472. james west from Canada writes: r b from calgary - i think i know what you're talking about. i don't know what i make annually, i just let my accounting firm look after these things.
    must leave, now. seems i need to look into a problem with one of my yachts.
  473. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair,
    The Liberals did every single item that you listed and a few more that you didn't. So, yes I agree with you.

    ==============================

    You agree that Stephen Harper should not be PM?

    As for the Liberals, I don't know of any Liberal candidate in the last election who did any of the things on that list, but please tip me off if I've missed someone.
  474. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Oh really John Dancy? And how did you arrive at that fanciful conclusion?

    What do taxation rates have to do with '...Young people wanting everything now and borrowing beyond their means...'

    Do try to follow the discussion.
  475. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant, is there a Cole's Notes version you could tell me? and a little of how it would help the people? thanks

    ----

    John, I can't do that without building the proper framework of a historical roadmap, dispelling the innumerable fallacies shared by people from the cradle to the grave system indoctrination apparatus.

    Telling people the solution would just cause them to balk, without proper information and education. It would be the equivalent of you writing an exam without taking the course. Please do not interpret what I said as belittling or patronizing you, nor is it me refusing to disclose it to you.

    One interesting piece of work I found along the way that I found did a pretty good job of the analysis, although I confess I have not seen the conclusion as of yet is 'Crash Course' by Chris Martenson (chrismartenson.com).

    Have a look.
  476. matt s from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: matt s

    The provinces ASKED for more expenses? You say that like we're supposed to believe you. You say it as if our mockery of the very idea would be unwarrented.

    You're nuts.

    ========

    Why would I make that up? It was prominent in newspapers fifteen years ago.....

    Provinces felt they could serve the people better with greater control of the services being provided. As opposed to Ottawa making large decisions, each province could make decisions more applicable to their own jurisdictions.
  477. Point Blank from Vancouver, Canada writes: Everything but the tax cuts. Also what about the millions of renters in Canada? A program for home owners, but nothing for the renter... perhaps an equivalent tax credit there - you know to be fair?
  478. Laughing at you Not with you from Canada writes:

    #2 to # 3 Go watch the car Stock.

    #2 to #1 I know it was you Fredo. I know it was you.
  479. J Kay from Canada writes: r b: What does any of that have to do with reality. I don't care if people think $200K per year or $2 million per year isn't wealthy. That's highly irrelevant. What people think to be true and what is true are not always the same.

    The fact is that roughly the same percentage of people in the US and Canada earn more than $200K per year. Similar percentages earn $80K per year. In fact the US and Canadian income distributions are roughly similar. Our median point is higher than theirs but theirs has a slightly higher degree of kurtosis.

    $200K is no more middle class in the US than it is in Canada. When only 1% of the population earns more than $200K it is without a doubt not representative of the majority of income earners. In fact 95% of Americans earn less than $100K per year, 83.3% earn less than $75K and 71% earn less than $50K. Statistics that are similar in Canada.

    Quoting Obama's tax proposal or the beliefs of Americans or Canadians as to what is middle class is quite simply irrelevant since it has been my experience most don't have the slightest clue what is typical. What people actually earn and where the bulk of them reside on the income distribution is the only thing of relevance.
  480. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair,
    Do your own research. Every single one of those items was done by the Liberal party. Hint: start with Google. Type Liberal Party of Canada and then type corruption. Report back in a couple of days after you've read the many, many articles.

    Thanks
  481. Flander Jones from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, Its not blame its the truth. ....Now the deals made the Liberals and the Conservatives are working together.

    How about this scenario instead:
    Mr. Harper finally realizes that the world economy is on the verge of collapse.

    He realizes there is no way he can balance the books. Unemployment is going to skyrocket, revenue will plunge.

    He creates a diversion...say...threatening to do away with the political party funding, which in turn creates an artificial crisis.

    To solve the 'crisis' he agrees to a huge deficit budget to 'appease' the other parties.

    He ends up being able to absolve himself and his party of all guilt or responsibility for said deficit. 'They made me do it.' Poor Mr. Harper. Always the victim of circumstances.
  482. john dancy from Canada writes: The Remnant , thanks I will......
  483. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: matt s from Canada writes: '... All this talk about how Martin offloaded all those costs onto the provinces...'

    Yeah that one always gets me. The biggest cut was to health transfers.

    At the time the arrangement was 50/50 funding.

    The provinces however, refused to give the feds any say in how the money was spent, so from their perspective each dollar they invested materialized another dollar out thin air that they could spend.

    Naturally this encouraged massive inefficiencies and ballooning costs.

    Now is there even a single person here who wants to defend that?
  484. james west from Canada writes: matt s - you're embarrassing. expenses were offloaded to provinces. weather stations were cut. 45,000 civil service jobs were hacked. many services were gutted.
    the budget was balanced.
  485. Wayne Morrison from Toronto, Canada writes: Vern McPherson - back at the beginning of this long list of posters you claimed that the City of Toronto had not received any money from the federal Conservatives. Not true! Not only have they received money, in many instances, but the rest is there to be had when the province, and the city, ante up their share. Generally the lack of funds comes about because the city, and the province, are constantly engaged in financial turf wars. The Federal government has allocated a definitive amount of money, and it can be spent when the other partners get their act together.
  486. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...the ultimate proof of the miserable failure of good governance by Stevie and his gang of ideologues......
  487. john dancy from Canada writes: r b , really are out there.........median incomes.

    statscan= Two-parent families with children 71,700
    Economic families, two persons or more 55,800
  488. james west from Canada writes: p lailey - i typed in 'conservative' and then 'dumb' and my notebook caught on fire.
  489. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: The pic on the front page, of Stevo surrounded by his team, ostensibly leading them, is far from candid.
  490. matt s from Canada writes: james west from Canada writes: matt s - you're embarrassing. expenses were offloaded to provinces. weather stations were cut. 45,000 civil service jobs were hacked. many services were gutted.
    the budget was balanced.

    =======

    C'mon James, don't just cherry pick the parts that suit you. Finish your thought--weather stations cut, 45 000 civil service jobs cut, services gutted.....AND James? AND TAXES WERE CUT. C'mon all you Con hacks look at the whole picture, not just what amuses your narrow points of view. Please. For the sake of us all, have some consideration. It could be a good discussion.
  491. john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, good except for the coalition thing. This is the response we get from that. Thats why the Liberals got rid of those two. Cancer on a great party. Today everyone looks good.
    The future is the future. These guys are working together today..
  492. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Stimulus, whatever- it's how it's financed that's as important as far as I can figure out.

    Pension funds including the CPP and other investors are crying out for inflation protected securities(bonds) of which there is shortage.

    By using this type of stimulus financing it would protect pensions which are under stress now from falling equity prices and are likely to face additional pressure from falling bond prices as interest rates rise later on.

    While the cost to the taxpayer is higher there is little point in doing any of this stimulus if the cure turns out to be worse than the disease.
  493. Tor Hill Sask. from Canada writes: Mr. Harper played a role in uniting the right. According to the international rules which govern all aspects of successful political movements (leaving aside the fuzzy criteria used to establish their international significance), he is supposed to enjoy one major success before being given the boot. That he has not yet enjoyed. This budget does not promise any major success for him. Any budget that sets spending as its cornerstone principle and presents tax cuts as making spending possible also deserves the boot.
  494. J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: On your second comment I completely disagree. The provinces overall saw their debt to GDP ratios drop during the same time as the transfer cuts and also saw their debt begin to fall shortly thereafter. In fact provincial revenues (combined) did not fall once during the transfer cuts by the federal government, though a few smaller provinces did have their total revenues decline slightly, the provinces overall did not. Recall also that the provincial government themselves downloaded spending to the municipalities.

    What I was referring to was specifically health care transfers, not the combined CHST, but just health care as being back up to inflation adjusted levels.

    You might find this interesting:

    http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts-faits/fshc7-eng.asp
  495. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada:

    I agree with you that some of the Health transfers were increased but when the Martin government was doing up their numbers for health contribution they included , social credit transfers and also some portion of equalization and a bunch of other grants and programs to bring it up to 33%.

    That being said, the impact of the download and the subsequent deficits and debt the provinces racked up after that piled on top of what the provinces all ready had. Most I would say are still not able to pay any of that back.

    I rmember when that happened the provinces were forced to make severe cuts and a lot of it was in Training. They eliminated many of the seats in universities and cut the doctor and nurse education programs. Now we are reaping the spoils of that because of the massive nurse and doctor shortage across this country.

    That down loading had a tremendous ripple effect that is still being felt.
  496. siren call from Canada writes:
    OMG! Who okayed the photo?

    Looks like Harper was just trying to take a dump when suddenly, and inexplicably -- a crowd rushed in to arrange themselves in 'working' poses around him.

    Guy drinking coffee is an especially nice, dare we say, common, touch.

    Gawd the taxpayer dollars wasted on photographing, posing, primping this insane dolt.
  497. Flander Jones from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, good except for the coalition thing. This is the response we get from that. Thats why the Liberals got rid of those two. Cancer on a great party. Today everyone looks good.
    The future is the future. These guys are working together today..

    I don't think everything is rosy john. I think we are all in a bunch of muck up to our ears. And here's another thing john. If I tried to blame everyone else at work for what goes wrong my boss would probably say 'Flander me awld son, you are a waste of space. Why don't you grab you're lunch pale and head home?' So I learned a long time ago john, if its broken, fix it. And if you can't fix it, find someone who can.
  498. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: ... Every single one of those items was done by the Liberal party. ...

    ========================

    So far as I know, nothing on that list was done by any of the candidates who ran for the Liberals last election.

    All of those thing were done by Stephen Harper.

    So, recalling that I said:

    1. No-one who breaks the law should be allowed to lead the government.

    2. No-one who seeks to buy MP votes should be a minister of the crown.

    3. No-one undermines health and safety regulation can be relied on to protect us.

    4. No-one who circumvents election rules should hold public office.

    5. No-one who lies in your face can be trusted.

    Do you agree that Stephen Harper should not be PM?
  499. james west from Canada writes: matt s - i was more than a little upset with my liberal party when they chopped and hacked. it was necessary, but that doesn't mean i was in love with every last liberal move. the same applies today.
    calling me a con hack is just too precious.
    i'm on your side, but i'm not a fanatic.
    all the best, jw.
  500. Brian C from Canada writes:
    Wow! The G&M has finally reported some of the real story behind Canada's deficits and debt.

    Hey Libbies, check out the interactive 40 year history on Canada's deficits on the home page top left. It really drives home the fact that Trudeau was well on his way to bankrupting our great country before he was finally stopped.
  501. Rt. Revd. Malachy Egan from Halifax, Canada writes: OK, I will try this again: the G&M censor is busy protecting all the innocent pidgeons fluttering about and cooing over this pathetic budget which will propell us even faster into the wall.

    Ther is a better way to run this country: the status quo does not have to obtain.

    Do it now and do it professionally and peacefully, or dither and procrastinate and see mobs rioting in the streets and probably much worse.
  502. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair,
    See my earlier post.
  503. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: matt s from Canada writes: C'mon James, don't just cherry pick the parts that suit you. Finish your thought--weather stations cut, 45 000 civil service jobs cut, services gutted.....AND James? AND TAXES WERE CUT. C'mon all you Con hacks look at the whole picture, not just what amuses your narrow points of view. Please. For the sake of us all, have some consideration. It could be a good discussion.

    --------------------------

    Yes matt federal income taxes were cut, then they were raised by the provinces to fill in the gap.

    Then as the Feds were lowering income taxes they were increasing CCP and EI premiums on both workers and employers and made it tougher to receive EI and reduced the weeks of benefits.

    The increased EI premiums illegally by the way and then used that money to fund other projects.
  504. jamie yavis from Canada writes: In my very humble opinion Harper and his associates are 'fair-weather partisan politicians' & having them facing the current world challenges is like sending in a high-school basketball team to play against the NBA.

    They just simply lack the ability & competence! Not to mention their desire.

    It seems, to me, Harper et al, have no vision and are not there to lead, but just to put a feather in their caps and for him to say he was/is the Prime Minister of Canada.
  505. Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: Sniffffff - What's that smell?

    Liberal fear. There must a be Confidance vote coming.

    I am Liberal hear me ROAR.

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha
  506. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: james west from Canada writes: 'p lailey - i typed in 'conservative' and then 'dumb' and my notebook caught on fire.'

    Lol! That'll learn you.
  507. Naomi Y from Canada writes: Al Gorman from Canada writes: While balanced budgets, and budget surpluses, are obviously preferable a budgetary deficit in the projected amount equates to roughly 2.5% of Canada's GDP and is modest within the context of the Canadian economy. While $30 billion sounds like an awful lot of money to most of us in terms of developing infrastructure it will not stretch very far. By comparison when Pierre Trudeau was spending and taxing during the 70's the federal deficit was running in excess of 8% of GDP
    --------------------------------
    Once again, the con are trying to mislead people. The whole world economy are suffering from the oil crisis plus stagflation during that time. The high inflation in that time make the budget deficit look larger than it is. If you compare it with others, Canada are in line with the rest of G7.

    On the other hand, although Canada are still racking in nice oil money for the first 8 month of 2008, it's clear in September a downturn in coming to Canada just by looking at US the commodities market. But Harper have been refusing to acknowledge it until now.
  508. A Bowman from Canada, Canada writes: This money will be wasted and our children will be stuck paying the bill.

    No government bailout has done anything but waste taxpayer money. It is taking from the successful and punishing their success.

    If the coalition had not played their political games we would have dealt with the recession in a responsible manner. Just as responsible individuals are doing, the responsible government would be reducing waste and being more fiscally responsible.

    Instead we are going on a spending spree. We are going back to the Trudeau era of buying votes.
  509. JP Warwick from Canada writes:
    J Kay

    CPP didn't increase? At the time, it was slagged as the largest tax hike in Canadian history.

    'To address the CPP's financial health, decisions were taken to increase combined employer and employee premiums from 5.6 per cent in 1996 to 9.9 per cent of employment income by 2003. Responsibility for paying premiums is split evenly between employers and employees. In addition, the yearly basic exemption was frozen at $3,500, which means that the portion of income subject to premiums will increase faster than inflation.'
  510. john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, but Canada is not broken. The social programs in place will do their jobs. The country does not have a lot of money to fix things. 60 billion dollars is 2000 dollars apiece. this will go on for a couple of years. In a year from now the Liberals are running things it will be no difference. In the great depression there was 30% unemployment. But that means there was 70% employed. We are at 8% now. Imagine how much those safety nets will cost if we go near that amount of unemployment. We should all be saving.....government too.
  511. Flander Jones from Canada writes: john dancy from Canada writes: Flander Jones, but Canada is not broken.

    Well, as long as you tell me everything is okay john, that's good enough for me. According to some economic figures though, the world is in it deep. And to see politicians bickering like children, pointing fingers, kinda makes a man a tad cynical. Is this a Conservative budget or is this a Liberal budget? And if it is indeed, as some claim, a Liberal budget, then exactly who is the Prime Minister of Canada?
  512. martha stewart from Canada writes: Brilliant headline!
  513. A Canadian from Canada writes: G&M, you are missing a rather important detail in your story - the coalition of the confused and odd is NDP, Liberal and oh, you almost forgot Blockheads.
  514. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: Jason Roy from Central Nova - After October 14th AKA STILL Peter Mackay Country, Canada writes: Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: ...

    First of all Red Suspenders...apologies for our exchanges of last evening...

    ========================

    Aaaah. it's all in good fun.
  515. D Wiatzka from Canada writes: What a joke! More misrepresentation of the facts!

    The G&M has this page showing the surpluses and deficits and 'which party' was responsible for them.

    theglobeandmail.com

    The big lie in the picture itself is the all time record - the '84/'85 budget deficit.

    It was a Liberal budget which gave Canada that record of red ink.

    The ironic thing about the article is, it contradicts itself!! It acknowledges that the first Mulroney budget was in 1985!!!

    The 1984 / 1985 fiscal year deficit was the product of the last Allen MacEachen budget.

    At least the G&M acknowledges that the 1974 Liberal budget introduced Canada's 'first postwar structural deficit'.

    The deficits starting getting worse from there and immediately started the trend line back to surpluses with the first Mulroney/Wilson budget in 1985.
  516. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: You (Red Suspenders, from The Big Chair, ) wrote: p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: ... Every single one of those items was done by the Liberal party. ...

    ========================

    So far as I know, nothing on that list was done by any of the candidates who ran for the Liberals last election.

    All of those thing were done by Stephen Harper.

    So, recalling that I said:

    1. No-one who breaks the law should be allowed to lead the government.

    2. No-one who seeks to buy MP votes should be a minister of the crown.

    3. No-one undermines health and safety regulation can be relied on to protect us.

    4. No-one who circumvents election rules should hold public office.

    5. No-one who lies in your face can be trusted.

    Do you agree that Stephen Harper should not be PM?
  517. matt s from Canada writes: NL Patriot--And Mulroney took payouts from Schreiber-illegally. And Harper tried to bribe Cadman-illegally. Dang it!! MacDonald gave payoffs to build the railroad-illegally!!! It seems every government in the history of Canada has done something unbecoming. Diefenbaker scrapped the Arrow. Sigh.

    I hate to rail on Conservatives. Conservatives are quite good at some things. In my dream government, I put a conservative in as defence minister, industry minister, finance minister, public works...IMO conservatives are fiscally prudent, quite adept at building and managing a large organization. BUT(<----you knew it was coming), I would never put one in charge of any kind of social responsibilty. Conservatives notoriously put the human element of any equation as low priority. The problem with government, for Conservatives, is that the people are the TOP PRIORITY!!

    Conservative perspective supports a 'survival of the fittest' mentality. All those arguments about too much spending on social services, like health care, job retraining, welfare, etc. etc. assume every person in this country has the ability to navigate the stock market, hold and maintain a well paying job, is legally savvy, etc. etc. Truth is, only a small proportion of the population has any kind of command of these things. The rest, according to conservative ideas, get thrown under the bus, so to speak.

    In a Conservative society, you don't want to end up in a wheelchair (not that any of us want to end up there anyway), for their ideals don't afford any support. You don't want to be strong artistically. Conservatives embrace business sense, calculating. Not expressing or creating. IMO, Conservatives disconnect from the human experience, are mostly interested in material gain.
  518. J Kay from Canada writes: Nl Patriot: The Federal Governemtn NEVER increased EI premiums nor rates during the entire time the Liberals were in power. In fact EI premiums have only increased for the first time since 1994, this year.

    CPP premiums did increase and this was something that the Liberal government campaigned on, that is fixing CPP to ensure that it is actuarially sound on a go forward basis. These changes were necessary as demographic changes were going to imperil the CPP.

    For EI in 1994 the EI premium rate was 3.07% on maximum insurable earning of $40,560, for a max contribution of $1245.19. Thereafter maximum insurable earning fell to $39,000 and remained at that level until 2007. The premium rates fell from 3.07% in 1994 to 1.87% in 2006 and are now 1.73%. Not once during that entire time did they increase - I have them all in front of me. As such in 2006 the maximum contribution someone would make to EI was $729.30, a savings of $515.89 in nominal terms or $653.99 in real terms.

    Moreover the Liberals NEVER increased premiums, and thus didn't do so illegally. What the courts ruled was that the Liberals in 3 years set the premium rates without consulting parliament and that this action was 'illegal', i.e. a violation of the rules. The rates were not increased, in fact they were decreased and it's unlikely given the majority the Liberals had in parliament that parliament would have voted the rates down, thus that entire argument is moot.

    In addition the Liberals NEVER illegally used the EI fund improperly, the courts even ruled such. In fact there has not been a separate EI fund since 1985 when Mulroney eliminated it on the advice of the AG. When the Liberals took power the old EI had it remained would have been in debt to the federal government nearly $32 billion anyway.
  519. Zoe Morrow from Canada writes: It's funny how they define 'middle class' in North America. If you're making under $80,000 as a family --- you probably aren't middle class. This isn't much money for an entire family. It's more like upper working/lower class in my opinion.

    I think the real middle class need some more help here and I would define the real middle class as those who earn over 150,000 a year at least.

  520. JP Warwick from Canada writes: matt s
    'Why would I make that up? It was prominent in newspapers fifteen years ago.....Provinces felt they could serve the people better with greater control of the services being provided. As opposed to Ottawa making large decisions, each province could make decisions more applicable to their own jurisdictions'

    What the provinces asked for is control. Specifically, instead of the feds directing how the money is spent, they wanted the tax room shifted to them so they had the money and could do what they wanted with it. That's a whole lot different than saying they wanted more responsibility with a lot less money.

    You can agree with the provinces on that point or not. But they sure as hell didn't cry that the feds were giving them too much money.
  521. J Kay from Canada writes: Jp warwick: Where, where did I say CPP didn't increase. I said CPP increased, but EI did not increase. In fact I said CPP increase necessarily and it was something the Liberals campaigned on, that being fixing CPP. Re-Read my comment. I said 'CPP did increase ...'
  522. D Peters from Alberta, Canada writes: 537 posts in 7 hours, must almost be record.

    It will take some digesting of this budget and I think I will wait for some of the true experts give thier opinion and clarify the mudification.
  523. NL Patriot from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada

    ---------

    Thanks J for the info on the EI and CPP.
  524. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: When Stevo smiles, why does it look so painful for him?
  525. D Wiatzka from Canada writes: J Kay - lol

    I love how you refer to the Supreme Court findings of the Liberal gov't breaking the law as 'illegal' instead of simply illegal.

    I must commend you, though, your expansive knowledge of the facts and numbers is always impressive and informative.

    Keep up the good work.
  526. J Kay from Canada writes: NL Patriot: You're welcome.

    D Peters: I don't think it's even close. I've seen over 1000 posts in less time but it does seem to have reached the level where the G&M forum is screwing up, or maybe my web browser, since now the comments are out of order based on time of post. Am I th only one?
  527. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: '... What the provinces asked for is control. Specifically, instead of the feds directing how the money is spent, they wanted the tax room shifted to them so they had the money and could do what they wanted with it. That's a whole lot different than saying they wanted more responsibility with a lot less money...'

    The feds never had any say in the use of the transfers. That was their whole complaint. They were funding 50% of healthcare but had no say.

    The only solution was for the feds to cut health transfers and vacate tax space. That's what they did.

    So arguing that the provinces didn't ask for less money from the feds is a silly argument to make, as this was always going to be the effect of transfering the tax space.
  528. Robert McEachern from some where over the rainbow, Canada writes: You all should read some things that were in the news awhile back.
    The coalition was started by Mr. jean Chretian and Mr. Ed Broadbent.
    Both of whom still want power.
    Both the Liberals and NDP has no clue about how to fix things. Afterall the Liberals brought in the GST and promised to get rid of it and now they are talking about raising the rate again.
    The Canadian Labour Congress at one point told all of the federal workers to do what they can to bring down the current government at the request of the Liberal and NDP parties.
    How can we trust any government worker any more!
    For Red Suspenders.
    Have you ever met an honest politican???
    The Liberal government has in the past ordered and cancelled orders for new helicopters that has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
    Anyone here know how much a general election costs???????
    It is in the millions and we pay for it from our taxes.
    The liberals and NDP parties will not release this information as they feel that the people do not need to know this fact.
  529. J Kay from Canada writes: D Wiatzka: I referred to it as 'illegal' instead of illegal because it was not truly a finding of the SSC but a comment. The case before them was not whether the government illegally set rates, and in this sense illegally really means a violation of the rules, which was moot because had Chretien taken the proposed EI rates to parliament, instead of issuing an order in council, they would have passed. At best it's a technical violation of parliamentary procedure and it wasn't the focus of the SSC case but a side comment by the SSC in their findings.
  530. Phineas freekinstone from where liberals do not venture, Canada writes: Brian C at 2:53..........excellent graph, but of course the lib/dips like Vernie will dismiss it as globe right wing propaganda.I remember 1974 well ,Between Truedope policys and an Ndp govt in BC, my job dryed up like prune. the finaincial deficit no doubt started in 1974 but the moral deficit started the day trueturd was elected!!
  531. Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: I am Liberal hear me ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha
  532. JP Warwick from Canada writes: J Kay

    I mis-read your post. You are correct. You referred to EI an I missed that part.

    Although, I would point out that although EI premiums didn't go up (and did in fact go down,) the government rigged it so most people don't qualify and made it even more regionally unfair.

    Making it harder to abuse is good. Making it harder to get when you are legitimately laid off wasn't so good. Making it easy to collect if you live in NFLD but near-impossible if you live in Ontario was unjustifiable. Same situations shouldn't have different rules for different provinces. If the Supreme Court judges weren't partisan lackeys they'd have declared it unconstitutional.
  533. matt s from Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: matt s
    'Why would I make that up? It was prominent in newspapers fifteen years ago.....Provinces felt they could serve the people better with greater control of the services being provided. As opposed to Ottawa making large decisions, each province could make decisions more applicable to their own jurisdictions'

    What the provinces asked for is control. Specifically, instead of the feds directing how the money is spent, they wanted the tax room shifted to them so they had the money and could do what they wanted with it. That's a whole lot different than saying they wanted more responsibility with a lot less money.

    You can agree with the provinces on that point or not. But they sure as hell didn't cry that the feds were giving them too much money.

    =======

    I can support all of this. I didn't intend to suggest the provinces were getting too much money. The Feds offloaded programs and subsequently lowered taxes. It wasn't orchestrated as well as it could have been though. The provinces didn't start raising their taxes in step with federal cuts. Provinces are only catching up now, ten years after the fact...
  534. sammy mazola jr from Edmonton, Canada writes: From the composition and positioning of people in that photo, I'd have to say that Harper is the Cylon.
  535. matt s from Canada writes: Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: Matt S - You are very wise I'm sure in your own mind.

    Why is it that lefty's can't make it on thier own unless they steal someone's money?

    Why do lefty's always need someone to wipe thier butt?

    Why is the left so lazy and uninformed? Is this the point that Liberal politician scum focus on? There now your being honest Matt.

    ========

    I recognize that your Calgarian perspective would find anyone else's perspective as 'left'. But I am a centrist. Staunchly.
  536. J Kay from Canada writes: JP Warwick: The changes to the EI system at the time was necessary. That people jokingly referred to it as the 10-42 system indicated it was rife for abuse and one of the regions where it was being abused - no disrespect intended to those there - was the Atlantic provinces in the fishing industries.

    The qualification levels for EI reflect or reflected the prevalence of unemployment in various locations and that makes perfect sense to me. If you are in an area where unemployment levels are half of what they are in another area it should take you less time to find a job. That the tables used to make these assessments are out of whack with the prevailing reality, especially in Southern Ontario is something that needs to be corrected.

    Without that difference there is less incentive to get back to work and instead ride out EI for the whole duration. Does it mean some people likely pay more into than in other regions. Yes. Just think of it as a form of equalisation from those areas with full employment to those without.
  537. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: '... If the Supreme Court judges weren't partisan lackeys they'd have declared it unconstitutional...'

    I see you've backed away from an undefendable position and assumed an unprovable one.

    Bravo. The circle is complete.
  538. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    D Wiatzka from Canada writes: J Kay,

    I must commend you, though, your expansive knowledge of the facts and numbers is always impressive and informative.

    Keep up the good work.


    -----

    Ditto that. S/he is most impressive. A worthy addition to the NOTA party. Resistance is futile. ;-)

    Thought you might get a laugh out of that, J Kay. Always good to see you kicking around on the boards.

    'Immanuel Kant was a real pissant....' (Goes off whistling).
  539. Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: Chris Hallford from Ottawa - You're a lefty lunatic and you need help to figure out your P3 problem.

    Raise taxes for the good people of Ottawa. Stop begging real Canadians to pay your way.

    I am Liberal hear me ROAR!!!!!!!!!

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha

    For another 1/2 hour anyways.

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha
  540. John Peterson from Canada writes: Stephen Harper -> 3 months ago: 'There will be no deficit. There is no recession. Great buying opportunities for stocks.'

    Stephen Harper -> Now: 'We might have a 60 billion dollar deficit.'

    Stephen Harper -> 3 months ago: 'Stephane Dion's plan to spend $70 billion in infrastructure over 10 years is reckless spending.'

    Stephen Harper -> since then.. '75 billion bailout and 60 billion deficit for over the next 2 years = $135 billion spent in 4 months.'

    Dion's $70 billion over 10 years is reckless but $135 billion over 4 months is sound economics.

    ...hmm
  541. Phineas freekinstone from where liberals do not venture, Canada writes: sammy .........at least he has people around him ,not like count iggula, he always appears alone, is this because he is alone?Are the long term lieberal trough piggies distancing themselves from him already fearing a backlash from the party faithful?
  542. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Philosopher King

    'The feds never had any say in the use of the transfers.'

    Canada Health Act. Ask Alberta about it.

    Chretien threatened AB for doing what QC and Ont had been doing for ages: private MRI clinics in QC and private surgery clinics in Ont. The feds threatened to fine AB for it but said nothing to the other two. I'd call that Fed's meddling in provincial jurisdiction (and doing it in a divisive and partisan manner at that.)

    The feds cut transfers but didn't transfer tax points to the provinces. The feds cut taxes years later but that was not related to the cuts in transfers which martin used to cut the deficit. The feds also kept up the stick to beat the provinces with as far as health care went. See above. They didn't seem to care much about welfare though...
  543. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: matt s from Canada: Don't feed the trolls Matt.

    I'm not sure how McNutty got out of his cage, but rule number one is avoid eye contact and back away slowly.

    Then report the sighting to the park rangers, or 'editors' as they are sometimes known.
  544. Frangesco Bernard from Windsor, Canada writes: Dawn Adams, the reason the Great LIBERALS are not in power right now is because of STUPID people like you. You neo-cons keep calling the LIBERALS liars; so you are that blind to see how harpo lies to us all the time. Even in this very budget, he has a bunch of lies to come, but you are BLIND so you can`t see them.
  545. p lailey from vancouver, Canada writes: matt s from Canada writes
    'I recognize that your Calgarian perspective would find anyone else's perspective as 'left'. But I am a centrist. Staunchly. '

    No offence, but that's a pretty meaningless statement. I'd bet 95% or more of Canadian see themselves as centrists. It's like 95% of Canadians who describe themselves as 'fiscal conservatives' but really mean they don't support government waste and excessive spending unless the spending is on the programs they support.
  546. marilyn bach from Victoria, Canada writes: My husband was laid off in June of last year, and gee, what I really want to do is renovate my house. Put in granite counters. And hardwood floors. Thank you Mr. Harper for putting such a helpful program in place for the unemployed. Who cares if they cannot eat if they can do it in a nice living room? I wonder if you will be able to spend this money on 42 inch plasma TV's? You gonna love these guys, they really understand my concerns.
  547. matt s from Canada writes: Huh?? Are you on drugs Rick?!?
  548. George Nikitin from Hamilton, Canada writes: Stevo's a poser and ideologue who's been posing as our leader for too long. He's as obsolete as George W. Bush. Wouldn't a coalition more adequately reflect the democratic consensus yeilded by the last election polls?
  549. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    The Remnant from Canada: This is for you! ( but I am sure you are aware...)

    Thomas Jefferson, declared, 'If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. But that is not the case.

    The US government has no power to issue money, control the flow of money, or to even distribute it - that belongs to a PRIVATE corporation registered in the State of Delaware - the Federal Reserve Bank.
    The Federal Reserve System was established by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913.....

    http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html
    .
  550. Phineas freekinstone from where liberals do not venture, Canada writes: this is really rich............Harper is a liar.......liar liar pants on fire.........All you mental cases out there........HAVE YOU EVER MET A POLICTITION THAT DIDN'T LIE ?????????? At least the phoney bastages don't kiss babies any more......Even the she-devil Shiela Copps admitted she was lieing when she stated 'WE WILL SCRAP THE GST' for that i commend her, but what the hell were the voters of Hamilton doing voting her in again??
  551. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: 'The feds never had any say in the use of the transfers.'

    JP Warwick from Canada writes: '...Canada Health Act. Ask Alberta about it...'

    You know damn well what I meant. The provinces couldn't even be forced to spend the health transfers on healthcare for christ's sake and you're trying to say the Feds had all kinds of control because they complained that Alberta was trying to give the money to private interests?
  552. Chris W from San Francisco, United States writes: Remember right after 9/11, when GWB told everyone to go out and shop to help save the economy? This smacks of the same bone-headed approach. Go shop and spend more money that you don't have, everyone - we'll even help you by softening the blow of your credit card debt! That kind of unbridled spending is what got us into the current mess in the first place. And to subsidize home repairs? Yes, just before you lose your home to foreclosure, make sure to fix it up so that while it's sitting empty, at least it'll look pretty. Maybe that's just there to keep Home Depot from closing down its Canadian stores.
  553. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: People, just report McNutty and be done with it.

    Report him enough and he'll end up in purgatory.

    For those who don't know, if you're posts get pulled to often you're thrown into a strange limbo where you can see your posts but no one else can.

    It keeps the crazies quiet. Now do your duty and send this troll to purgatory already.
  554. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: McNaulty, you are a boil on the A$$ of the body politic.
  555. Phineas freekinstone from where liberals do not venture, Canada writes: Marlynn Bach.........Walmart has 42 inch tv's for about $500, which is only about 60% of one EI cheque.Forget the hardwood floors ,they only collect dust bunnies.
  556. Steve D from Canada writes: This is NOT the time to urge the banks to give cheap credit to consumers. THe overspending by consumers over the past few decades has contibuted to the mess we are in, in addition to corporate greed. This is not the time for governemnts to waste money on foolish projects

    This IS the time for governments to invest in infrastructure and green technology to secure a healthy future for society when the economy comes back. If we are to go into deficit let's invest the money wisely

    http://www.nexplanrecycling.com
  557. matt s from Canada writes: uh, oh. The G&M censors are chopping comments...
  558. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: If private business can deliver better healthcare at reduced cost, why does the US system cost them more than double per capita what ours does for worse health outcomes, including the worst infant mortality rate in the western world?

    From what I've seen, the pursuit of profit does nothing to reduce cost.

    Efficiency gains inevitably feed profit margins rather than reduce the price, since prices are maximized based on market supply and demand factors.

    Given an average profit margin of 15%, they'd have to find 15% in efficiency gains just to keep the price the same.
  559. J Kay from Canada writes: Matt S: No I think what's happening is that the system is messing up the mark up and so the order of comments in no longer in order of when they were posted. As such you may have posted a comment but it may have been posted half way up the thread. It's a bit of a pain and makes discussion difficult.
  560. Phineas freekinstone from where liberals do not venture, Canada writes: Matt S.........they only chop comments if you are negative to Israel,the pope, or 1st nations.........
  561. JP Warwick from Canada writes: J Kay

    I disagree that different regions should be treated differently. EI is there to help individuals who lose their job. It isn't a regional development project (or at least is isn't supposed to be.)

    Why does it matter where you live if you're unemployed? A guy who loses a job has no money and is broke in Toronto as much as on the Rock. The benefit should suit the individual, not the federal government's re-election.

    I do agree though, it needed to be cut back when they did it and it was abused too much. That's why it was so obnoxious that they put back the regional pork (which is the lotto 10/42 you talk about.) That was vote-buying at its worst. Not that Harper's tax cuts for hockey and soccer wasn't but at least that didn't do as much damage.

    marilyn bach

    I assume your husband doesn't work renovating houses or you wouldn't have made the comment you did. Maybe you can enlighten us as to what you think Harper should do for you. It sucks that he's unemployed. But how is it the government's fault? On any level of government?
  562. matt s from Canada writes: comment tally went from 578 to 574 and mcNaulty's comments disappeared....
  563. Red Suspenders from The Big Chair, writes: Robert McEachern from some where over the rainbow, Canada writes:...
    For Red Suspenders.
    [1] Have you ever met an honest politican???
    [2] The Liberal government has in the past ordered and cancelled orders for new helicopters that has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
    [3] Anyone here know how much a general election costs???????
    It is in the millions and we pay for it from our taxes.
    The liberals and NDP parties will not release this information as they feel that the people do not need to know this fact.

    ====================

    [1] Rarely.
    [2] Yes. However, as far as I know none of the candidates who ran for the Liberal party last time was involved in the helicopter decision.
    [3] Elections cost over $300 million each, which is partly why the last (illegal and unnecessary) election Steve invoked is such an outrage.

    I'm guessing you directed that comment to me because of my earlier list. Let me ask you: do you disagree with proposition of those 5?
  564. Daren Alex from Toronto, Canada writes: Auuuuu, how many smart people we have here commenting!!!!!!? And none of you don't know details. Hm, strange, dont we supposed to see how is gonna work and than throw the stones? Does anybody has solution that is right? Hey all of you calm down, give them a month, two to see how is gonna be.
  565. Rick McNaulty from CalgaryOttawa, Canada writes: Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada - You know I just love it when you display you lefty cowardice for all to see.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha

    Philosopher ROAR for us just one more time.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I Liberal hear me ROAR

    For 5 more minutes.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha
  566. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Philosopher King

    'The provinces couldn't even be forced to spend the health transfers on healthcare'

    The stick Chretien was using on AB was 'fines' to the tune of many millions in slashed transfer payments if the AB gov didn't tow the federal line. They were free to take the financial hit but don't say the feds have no control.

    The relationship was even more direct before when there were separate payments for Health, Ed, and welfare. There are all kinds of federal laws and programs which violate provincial jurisdiction.
  567. J Kay from Canada writes: Philosopher King: How dare you challenge the prevailing free market dogma with a bit of logic. Don't you know that free markets always reduce prices, always. Greed via the profit motive is the noblest, most virtuous of the human motivation. No really. It's obvious, that's why we don't need to rely on empirical evidence to 'prove' it. :)
  568. J Kay from Canada writes: JP Warwick: Whether it seem fair to treat one area of the country differently than another is a ethical moral question. Perhaps you are right. It is reasonable or at least it seems so to me, that if the unemployment rate in one area is 2% and another is 8%, then giving the guy in the place with 2% unemployment fewer weeks of support doesn't seem too unfair seeing as it seems perfectly reasonable to believe he would be able to find a job quicker than the guy in the 8% area.

    That said I am sure there are people in the 2% area who due to circumstances are not the same as others in the area and who will require longer to find a job. Perhaps some general rules but flexibility based on circumstances should be drafted.
  569. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 'Who watches the watchers?"

    What has been amazing through this whole bogus process is how there has been almost no dissent, public debate, or serious questions about nations spending massive amounts of money and passing on huge debt to future generations- all based on "consumption!" -NOT working towards eliminating debt, but ENCOURAGING it!

    The complicit and owned media has also not done its job of presenting an opposition view and has only fannned the flames of wanted panic.

    For many years, govt. spending was seen as waste-pork-corrupt-and deluded in many cases.. NOW, it has been "decided" it is the ONLY answer to all that ills us.

    Last November, the G20 met, and in conjunction with the IMF, decided massive govt intervention was the ONLY solution-Intervention to the amout of 2%-3% of a countrie's GDP by government borrowing massive amounts.

    In a G&M story, here is what some countries have done or plan to do to 'bail-out' whatever:

    United States $825-Billion 5% GDP
    Canada $49-Billion 1.25 %
    China $580-Billion 16 %
    EU $264-Billion 1.5%
    .
  570. The Remnant from Canada writes: :
    R. Carriere,

    Thank you for the link - I was indeed aware of Jefferson's remarkable understanding of the money vultures.

    What's backing our dollar these days anyway? Let's have a look:
    http://tinyurl.com/5dhaq8

    Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:

    "Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money."

    James Coyne, former head of the BoC, "resigned" after Diefenbaker ordered full employment (lowering interest rates). Coyne, concerned about inflation, refused to do so. He was replaced by Louis Rasminsky, who did what Diefenbaker ordered. Diefenbaker reputedly thundered, "No politician has ever lost office due to inflation!". The BoC is supposed to be arms length, hmmm?
  571. Bob O from La La Land, Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada - Marlyn Bach was not really saying that the government should do something directly for her husband. It was more of a general comment on the government being detached from the reality and hardships the people who suffer the most in these times are experiencing. When Harper made that comment to Mansbridge during that pre-election interview about plenty of good buying opportunities that was the moment it was clear that he is sheltered from reality and doesn't have a clue.
  572. Martha K. from Canada writes: Budget is just about to be announced. Tune in to cpac.ca to watch it live.
  573. Brian W from Toronto, Canada writes: Is this picture for real?

    King Harpo wants us to think he's now "easy going" and "relaxed" with his "supporters" around him?

    Looks more like they're getting ready to play Family Feud (ala. Richard Dawson days)

    Who's going to get kissed in this show?
  574. Joe Citizen from EVERYTOWN, Canada writes: .... A SIGHT FOR SORE EYES .... .... and if your eyes weren't sore they surely are now. What a picture "Howdy Dowdy" Prime Minister and his sad-sack band of Neo-Con losers make. They belong in a museum. A museum of Neo-Con Ancient History along with Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Magaret Thatcher and the rest of those high profile Neo-Con carpetbaggers of the past 30 years. Their ideology ..... one driven almost entirely by greed and general hostility towards humanity has finally crashed and burned ..... revealed for the very ethical and morally bankrupt system of belief that it always was. The Emperor's Clothes are not new anymore. Soon 'Howdy Dowdy' Prime Minister and his hacks will be driven from the Canadian political landscape by a public no longer being indoctrinated by their mantras of conflict and division. The public is in for a new awareness in a Barack Obama world. The Neo-Cons will be thrust into the dustbin of socio-political history like a bad memory. These thugs represent the darkest period of Canadian history. They produced a time when public interest was held in complete contempt and selfish interest was held supreme. They sought a genocide against genuine human compassion, co-operation and empathy. They were monsters.
  575. JP Warwick from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Philosopher King: You ever think that you get what you pay for? The US system is the most unjust. But if you're rich, the US system (or the private tier of any other western nation and most poor ones) is better than public system because if you pay cash you don't wait. In Canada, we wait. On the European continent, they've found a happy balance (it's a bit more expensive than ours but their quality of care and lack of waiting in most countries far surpasses us.) We have better public care than the US but much worse than most of Europe. Two Tier is the way to go. One Tier (either one) is sub-par. All private because it neglects the poor and most of the middle class and all public because the gov will never have enough money on its own to meet the need. For reference, see the UN list. We fare better than the US but poor in relation to the continent (and I say continent as the UK is useless.) In sum, there's a lot more to it than cost. Private care is very expensive as the services you get are far above what the government can afford (ei better access to MRI's and diagnosis, private rooms vs ward, etc.) Note too that your disdain for private delivery doesn't acknowledge that a huge portion of Canadian medical care is delivered by the private sector even when it's paid for by the public. Your family doctor: Private. That blood test: private. Etc. You need to compare apples to oranges.
  576. Tor Hill Sask. from Canada writes: In a letter to the editor published in today's Globe, Harper's chief of communication (singular) K. Teneycke claims that PMO chief of staff G. Giorno has been 'intimately' involved in the crafting of the budget, contrary to a senior CPC source that Mr. Giorno had been shunted aside, presumably to allow the 'grown-ups' to get things right, which was revealed by yet another senior CPC source. So, we've got senior sources at odds with one another. No big deal. The real big deal is: was the non-adult who crafted the Nov. statement involved in the crafting of the budget? Who would that non-adult be? I have an idea who it is. And this talk of 'adults' and 'grown-ups.' Obama had every right to invoke the need for mature people to deal with this crisis, after 8 years of Bush. But to think that there might be adults in CPC who can replace the children in CPC- that stretches credibility too far.
  577. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Bob O

    Stock advice wasn't her point. If it was, it still would have been unfair. The economy at that time was on the brink but not over the falls. Harper was talking it up - however useless it ended up being.

    Her disdain for funds for renos and other job-creating measures which the opposition and lefty economists have all called for was her point. I'm just pointing out that the jobs created may not help her husband directly, but it may help someone else. It's a bit rich complaining about them helping people then demand help themselves.

    Like I said, it sucks her husband is unemployed and I hope that changes soon. But it's certainly not Harper's fault any more than the governments of Victoria or BC. Any government in Canada would have been in the same crappy spot of someone else's making.
  578. Pete H from Canada writes: Joe Citizen from EVERYTOWN, Canada writes: .... A SIGHT FOR SORE EYES .... ....

    I refuse to believe that you are as thick as that post makes you look.
  579. Bob O from La La Land, Canada writes: JP Warwick - i beg to differ. i read in between the lines. it was more about being out of touch. she personalized it using her husband as an example.

    i'm not sure lefty economists were calling for home renovations as stimulus, i could be wrong, but as you refer to lefty in a derogatory sense you also appear to acknowledge that this type of stimulus will create or keep jobs. so are the lefties right?
  580. Bob O from La La Land, Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes:"Like I said, it sucks her husband is unemployed and I hope that changes soon. But it's certainly not Harper's fault any more than the governments of Victoria or BC. Any government in Canada would have been in the same crappy spot of someone else's making."

    I agree with that statement.
  581. Brett Campbell from Canada writes: a couple of weeks back a woman on oprah asked a financial expert on the show the reason for her financial problems. apparently, this woman had maxed out 27 credit cards and was looking to have the financial expert tell her what the problem might be, hello. hopefully, this isn't the kind of credit access that Flaherty is referring to.
  582. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Bob O

    "but as you refer to lefty in a derogatory sense you also appear to acknowledge that this type of stimulus will create or keep jobs. so are the lefties right?"

    I don't think it will help much. I used the term lefty economists cause if I said the Fraser Institute I'm sure you'd have dismissed it as a bunch of right-wing "neo-con" or some such. There have been letters sent in from groups admitting they are left wing printed in the G&M calling for exactly this sort of thing. That I don’t think it necessary wasn't my point. It's that if you are arguing from a lefty point of view and the other lefties are arguing from the same point of view but have come to opposite conclusions, at least one of you is wrong.

    I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on the woman. You can't really expect warm fuzzies for all when you're in a bad spot and if you've been unemployed for a long time, that's gotta be very stressful.
  583. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Brett Campbell

    There used to be a saying: If I owe the bank $100,000 and I can't pay, I have a problem. If I owe the bank $100 million and I can't pay, the bank has a problem.

    I'd amend that to say: if the bank gives you one credit card and you mess it up you're a twit. If the bank gives you 27 credit cards the bankers are twits. The first bank which issued this woman a credit card should get paid back. The other 26 should take their losses and maybe learn the same lesson the borrower hopefully will.

    I'm all for responsibility, but the fact is, there are hordes of mathematically, economically challenged illiterates who just aren't that bright and basic prudent lending practices should have prevented this from happening. The banks are at least as much to blame there. Intelligent people aren't getting into these kinds of problems because basic math is common sense. The laws are needed to save stupid people from greedy bankers.
  584. Benny L from Canada, Canada writes: JACK V from Canada writes: WHO WOULD GIVE MONEY TO ANY GOVERNMENT PARTY THAT CONTINUE TO KEEP SCREWING YOU.THINK ABOUT THAT.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike Liberal and NDP members, CP members are supporting their party, which therefore has a very sound financial base to fend off the socialists in the federal elections. The Federal Liberal party gets very little financial support, only noise making from its hackers and big mouth squawkers, and NDP depends on its big labour unions. The Conservatives support their party so that we all don't get screwed in the ear
    by a Federal Liberal Party, or, even worse, a double whammy, a socialistic coalition. I should think that The Federal Liberal leadership must be praying for more helful loyalty and thinking among its members.
  585. Luke Ellis from Sudbury, Canada writes: JP Warwick from Canada writes: john dancy

    You need not wait for Count Iggy to speak. Spoken he has.

    Google 'empire lite' or go to http://empirelite.ca/ to read Iggy's own words from the New York Times.

    Not sure what point you were trying to make by linking this article but it is a beautifully written article. It illustrates why the US felt it had to go to Iraq, the reasons it should have been there for, and the issues with sucha decision.
  586. Brett Campbell from Canada writes: JP, i would agree with you that lenders are just as much at fault in this situation, well at least the other 26 in this case. i have no issues with giving consumers access to credit, however, it seems like everyone is passing the responsibility card around again and low and behold it will end up back in the hands of the taxpayer in the form of higher premiums, service fees, taxes or what have you. like you say in your example it is the banks problem, however, bailouts and bankruptcies quickly turn that into our problem. the bigger stink here is that these same people or businesses will do it all over again.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top