Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Harper doesn't back down, delays vote | Main | Anthony Gregory on how the democratic state co-opts its victims and opponents »

Friday, November 28, 2008

Dion says no coalition...two months ago

Of course the situation changes, but it is still a legit question. What parts of the NDP platform is Dion or the other Liberals willing to accept?

I am uneasy about some of the signals Harper is giving about his strategy to deal with the economy. The conversion to Keynsian economics is not a positive development. Still a Liberal and NDP coalition could be a disaster for this country. How much will they increase spending? How large of a deficit are they willing to have?

Right now the oppositions are demanding a massive increase in spending but no deficit. How would this be possible?

(I first saw this video at Angry in the Great White North)

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 28, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053621565e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dion says no coalition...two months ago:

Comments

"I am uneasy about some of the signals Harper is giving about his strategy to deal with the economy. The conversion to Keynsian economics is not a positive development."

Ummm, where did he indicate anything like this at all? He threw $75 billion at the banks but other than that nothing has happened.

What he does seem to be doing though is accounting a la the banks now. If the Government just spent $75 billions on the banks, yet only showed a marginal surplus of 400 million before, why aren't we already running a deficit?

And lastly: If we are "overtaxed" when there is a surplus, are you now advocating that we raise taxes because we are running a deficit? Or does the logic on the Western Standard only run one way?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 4:37:36 PM


Well, but Dion is a retard who should be a mental asylum.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-11-28 4:40:24 PM


No I would advocate that he cuts spending to avoid a deficit, which is some of what he did in this update.

He has made several indications that they are considering a bail out or that deficit spending is a good thing.

Read this editorial for an example of what I'm talking about, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/542712

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-28 4:43:19 PM


No I would advocate that he cuts spending to avoid a deficit, which is some of what he did in this update.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 28-Nov-08 4:43:19 PM

So what would YOU cut to get... Oh, I don't know, say, a 100 billion a year? As far as I can tell the total spending in 2004 was a tat over 200 billion at the Federal level.

So, what would you cut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_spending,_2004

----------------------
He has made several indications that they are considering a bail out or that deficit spending is a good thing.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 28-Nov-08 4:43:19 PM

I wouldn't call deficit spending a GOOD thing, but a necessary one if need be. The Government isn't a company / business and shouldn't be run like one.

I would have very little gripes if the Federal and Provincial Governments would invest into infrastructure projects, both upgrades and expansions some of these projects take a decade or more to complete and are quite expensive but they would do a handful of things like:

- Provide employment
- Provide an asset for future generations to use.

Additionally I would have no gripe with the Government investing money in research, technology and new companies that are innovative and trying to push the envelope.

I do believe a deficit is bad if it involves throwing money at mismanaget companies and institutions or is used to merely grow the Government.

THAT of course are the things Harper is really good at.

---------------------
Read this editorial for an example of what I'm talking about, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/542712

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 28-Nov-08 4:43:19 PM

The Red Star? ;)

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 4:50:34 PM


At least Dion has finally proved to all that he really is a Marxist/Communist.

Posted by: Werner Patels | 2008-11-28 5:50:49 PM


I would be willing to lay odds that if there is a coalition it will be the NDP that is in the drivers seat. It appears that the Liberals care so little about Canada and Canadians that they will do anything to regain power.

Posted by: DML | 2008-11-28 6:41:33 PM


Why go into deficit when you can balance the books by cutting spending?

One example, please, of a state that has spend its way into prosperity.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-28 7:31:18 PM


SYF: how about Canada of 2008-2009 led by Dion, Layton, Duceppe and May? Come on, have you no faith? What, are you some sort of American? ;)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-28 7:50:23 PM


I believe Mr. Harper said no to deficit at least 50 times during the election campaign and even ridiculed Mr. Dion for indicating deficit spending may be required to deal with the economic situation.

I have little regard for either of them but do think the liberals (sans Dion) are better economic managers then the Cons. I believe we ran a surplus through the crisis earlier this decade, and indeed GDP grew.

Posted by: AF | 2008-11-28 8:21:22 PM


Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.

Harper's wait and see what the US does makes perfect sense. If the Big 3 file chapter 11 they our donation to the UAW may just be toilet cleaner.

Once you start to 'stimulate' various sectors, it doesn't end until every loser in the country gets a pile of other peoples money.

Dion and his gang if fools would do what eh USA is stupidly doing ... running the printing presses 24-7 until our dollar is worth 15 cents and our markets are tanked.

We need to let the losers go down and give the winners a chance to do their stuff.

The public is paying attention this time around. We have watched the antics south of the border and we don't like what we see.

A coalition, especially one that has separatists, communists and environmentalists squabbling over the diminishing tax base money will fall apart quickly and we will have an election where an irate public will be waiting to punish the scoundrels.

Harper may yet get his majority in 2009.

Posted by: John V | 2008-11-28 8:31:23 PM


One more point. The only reason we got the 1.95 solution is because the Libranos lost their adscam trough and could no long steal their election money.

Harper has removed that item from the list so all that is left is a bunch of socialists chomping at the trough to pay off their loser voters.

Posted by: John V | 2008-11-28 8:33:31 PM


No plan whatsoever to stimulate economy in worst recession since Dirty Thirties per Mr Harper's own words = no credibility and dangerous delusions.

Instead, at first opportunity since election try to stuff extreme right agenda down Canada's throat while opposition hobbled = scary.

Cutting off public funding for political parties sparked the survival fight-or-flight instinct = stupid.

Conservatives are blind ideologues apparently at a time that calls for responsive practical governing = gonzo and good riddance.

Posted by: george mitchell | 2008-11-28 8:39:22 PM


One example, please, of a state that has spend its way into prosperity.

Posted by: set you free | 28-Nov-08 7:31:18 PM

One example please on a State that has saved itself into prosperity.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 9:33:32 PM


Conservatives are blind ideologues apparently at a time that calls for responsive practical governing = gonzo and good riddance.

Posted by: george mitchell | 28-Nov-08 8:39:22 PM

The problem is, both here and on Parliament Hill and 24 Sussex, that ideology trumps any kind of rational though or conclusion.

It was almost funny to listen to a panel on The Current earlier this week where they tried to speculate what Harper would be doing.

The simple answer was this:

He is a trained economist (in my book that's akin to a trained helper monkey), his ideology (and hear!?) tell him that he should cut cut cut, but as he is a smart(?) man his brain would win out and he would recognize the seriousness of the Situation.

Well, now THAT prediction worked out well, didn't it?

The scary thing is all the apologists for Harper and Flaherty's behaviour, my favourite one must be: "He couldn't have known back in September how bad it would get". Right. Anybody with Google and Internet could have figured that one out, but apparently the PM and the Finance Minister with a huge amount of lakeys who are paid to keep an eye on things couldn't figure it out.

I guess we should be glad that neither of them has a job that requires them to be good with large numbers and / or math, like, say an engineer.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 9:38:24 PM


Situations change and while a coalition may not have been acceptable earlier, that's why the NDP and Liberals are negotiation; so they can make a coalition acceptable.

That's just how these things work.

Frankly though, none of these jokers should even be employed by us.

Posted by: Zach Bell | 2008-11-28 11:04:31 PM


Snowy:

I'm much more qualified to make decisions on how to spend my hard-earned money than a stranger in Ottawa.

Of course, you could send 35% of the money you earn to me and I'll gladly figure out how to spend it.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-28 11:57:03 PM


Harper and gang should have just stayed low-key for awhile. This economic statement just angered many and really made nobody happy. Nothing offered to anyone and some stuff taken away from some.

If Harper's government didn't have an arrogant attitude they would likely have a majority. They promise things that can't be done. They ridicule those who suggest the country is in recession and may face deficits and only WEEKS later admit things aren't as rosy. I don't really care where they stand politically, they are just plain bad managers.

Posted by: Tim Trudeau | 2008-11-29 1:27:02 AM


Snowrunner, the only thing that the state can do to bring about prosperity it to set conditions for the freest (sp) market possible. So you're right they don't save into prosperity.

As for what to cut; the federal Health Department.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-29 7:59:38 AM


I'm much more qualified to make decisions on how to spend my hard-earned money than a stranger in Ottawa.

Of course, you could send 35% of the money you earn to me and I'll gladly figure out how to spend it.

Posted by: set you free | 28-Nov-08 11:57:03 PM

Right. Because you don't get anything in return for your "hard earned money".

Tell ya something. Try to live one day in a way that nothing you use was paid for even in part by tax money, you know, don't drive on roads, don't walk on sidewalks, don't read a newspaper, a book or even visit the internet (after all, the origins of it lie in DARPA research which was tax payer funded). Etc.

Then tell me again how really, you would be much better off without paying taxes and just "paying your way".

Feel free to document your experiment to all of us (of course AFTER the day is over, using the Computer (invented on Government subsidies) during that day is a big no no.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-29 12:12:55 PM


Snowrunner, the only thing that the state can do to bring about prosperity it to set conditions for the freest (sp) market possible. So you're right they don't save into prosperity.

As for what to cut; the federal Health Department.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 29-Nov-08 7:59:38 AM

Exactly, the States role is to create an environment that allows citizens to live their life in peace. This doesn't mean they have to balance the books ALL the time, but obviously an attempt has to be made.

But ask yourself this: Harris and Flaherty cut Ontario "to size" during their reign, Ontario is an extremely weak position right now, partially because of the manufacturing sector, but clearly too because "Common Sense" for those two meant to sell everything that wasn't bolted down (and some things that were).

Now you want to have the same doofuses (replace Harris with Harper) do the same thing on a national level?

The Libs have managed to balance the budget, get a surplus and pay back Canada's debt for well over a decade, a bit over two years into H&Fs Show the "fancy accounting" is already in full swing and upwards of 100 billion has been blown on things that Canada didn't need.

And yet, those jokers now want to sell assets and repeat the same mistakes that they have made in Ontario and you guys cheer on because it means lower taxes.

Amazing. As usual, Pavlov would be astonished just how much of his research applies to humans as well.

If you believe that the State has to provide the basis for Free Enterprise then you should lose your idea of a balanced budget. Canada had close to two years of warning with regards to the coming recession. The Cons have done shit to prepare the country for it, and even as the shit is rising up to their noses they still refuse to admit we have a problem.

Take your ideological blinders off, Harper and Flaherty are the WORST kind of "Leaders" Canada could have right now, take a look at the bigger picture and realize that, or keep cheering them on but make sure to take a deep breath before it comes to your lower lip.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-29 12:19:28 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.