I believe it was our dear PM who in the last election said the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Correction: they were strong before you mismanaged the elements you control, and now you're destroying peace order and good government.
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper put away his friendly sweater vest and, in an epic mistake that might only be resolved if his Conservative government does an uncharacteristic retreat, pulled on his brass knuckles in an ugly bid to inflict knockout blows on his political rivals."
But where's the win for Harper in this beyond appeasing a loyal Conservative base that may be unimpressed by his oncoming mega deficit?
While the merits of political funding might be worth a debate during calm prosperous times, it has no place on an agenda that should now be devoted to important decisions.
That impressive review is from Stevie H.'s hometown paper.
So much for national interest:
Harper and his Conservative government bared their partisan teeth with a measure that is designed to undermine the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals.
Harper and the Conservatives, it appears, would rather play politics than tackle the tough assignment of saving jobs and whole industries.
That's from Harper's former hometown paper.
And let's not forget how we got here:
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told MPs Thursday that Canada's deficit next year could be as high as $13 billion and that Conservative government decisions to cut the GST and raise government spending are to blame, not global economic events.
And that's from the Ottawa paper - you know, that place that Stevie H is putting in a big mess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This Kevin Page character is obviously a joke. He doesn't believe global economic events are to blame?!?
But, seriously, the issue at play here is age old, and fundamental, and the solutions brought forth by the reds and the blues are mutually exclusive. The one will always say that the other is fucking things up. (Which is why the "middle-road" makes the least sense of all.) It is pointless to keep rehashing this. If you are a socialist, you think that Harper is not doing his job. If you are libertarian, you think he's definitely doing a lot better than all the others.
I find it interesting how our politics are morphing into the US-style two-party system. And, really, that's the way it should be. All the opposition parties are socialist--they believe government has the right to take forcefully take away from some, and give to others. Incidentally, so do the Conservatives, but, apparently to a lesser extent.
In conclusion, I've been kicked out of a couple jobs, but I didn't go begging to the thugs to give me handouts, even though I sure could have used them. I'd feel dirty accepting EI--I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Btw, do the laid off auto-workers get EI? (If they do, wtf are they complaining about?) Why on earth should the public be forced to subsidize jobs they /clearly/ don't support? (If they did, their jobs wouldn't be in jeopardy in the first place.)
I honestly don't get you socialists :|.
lol of course those laid of auto workers get EI... what are they complaining about.. well let's see... they're out of work.. EI pays substantially less than their regular job.. ppl like you who look down on EI even though it's an insurance program all workers pay premiums into rather than a government handout... if you have no problem collecting money from your car insurance company in an accident, you shouldn't have a problem with EI.. it's the same system.
And in terms of subsidizing jobs that aren't supporting.. well if they aren't supported then those sectors have to be phased out, but there is a problem when large sudden shocks hit the economy.. the impact is felt by all, not just those employed or involved in that sector... there are economic interests for all at play... so these subsidies are partly compassion, but partly self interest in order to keep as much economic stability as possible.
And btw don't get Kevin Page wrong, what he's saying is that the government could've reamined in the black despite of the global crisis, but the CONS took policies that worsened the situation rather than alleviated them.. but any credible economist would've told u the same when the CPC started their policies almost 3 years ago..
Ohh; Poor babies; EI isn't enough for them. They want everything to stay the same. Me me me me. This auto sector fiasco has very little to do with the so-called "global economic crisis". The crisis may have quickened their demise, but it was LONG overdue. They were too god-damned incompetent to run their business and should have failed a long time ago. I am sure they are GLAD this economic "crisis" occurred are able to piggy-back onto this socialist slope of "free" money. I DON'T WANT THESE INCOMPETENT PEOPLE TAKING MY MONEY. STOP TAKING MY MONEY AWAY FROM ME.
Regarding EI, I ALSO DON'T WANT IT. Why am I being forced to pay into it? And are you sure government doesn't chip in as well? I don't have problems with insurance programs in general, ONLY THOSE THAT I AM FORCED TO PAY INTO! And there is a HUGE difference between car insurance and job insurance. They should both be voluntary!, but the former is mainly meant to cover damages inflicted on OTHER people. There is absolutely no reason I should be forced to pay into EI! STOP TAKING THE LITTLE MONEY THAT I DO HAVE!
And I will just ignore the absurd speculation that socialists would have remained in the black despite the global crisis. The Liberals would still have wasted billions of dollars ruining farmer's lives in Afghanistan, and their $3B "buffer" would have done nothing to "fix" the economy. Where would they have come up with all the billions of dollars that would be needed to support their ("temporary") communist ideals? Magic.
Also, Harper IS a credible economist. He actually studied the shit. He's a professional. Dion is a professional liar--a lawyer, and talker, who knows nothing about economics, and a lot about his bloated socialist ideologies of a nanny-state. Layton also knows jack shit about economics, and a lot about talking and manipulating people for the same ends. Duceppe also knows shit all about economics, and a lot about rhetoric. So you have three economically illiterate orators with dangerous utopian socialist state fantasies, and one credible professional economist. Hrmm.
Finally, here's a very apropos quote from Henry, who would be rolling in his grave now: on February 11, 1934: "Let them fail; let everybody fail! I made my fortune when I had nothing to start with, by myself and my own ideas. Let other people do the same thing. If I lose everything in the collapse of our financial structure, I will start in at the beginning and build it up again."
lol Dion's actually not a lawyer.. he was a professor. And about Harper studying economics.. oh well... he's spent most of his life working in the public sector.. and not because you study something makes you credible.. i heard this about doctors one time but it applies here.. half the doctors out there were in the bottom half of their class.. replace doctor in this case with economist..
Post a Comment