canadian government held in contemp

lukin2006

Even though I'm not a supporter of Harper, his government has done plenty to help this region out, his government has remained committed to a new international bridge between Windsor and Detroit, provided infrastructure money for the new billion $$$$ road leading to the bridge, provided a 550 million $$$ loan to Michigan to get the new bridge moving, provided loan money to GM and Chrysler, provided money for ford to re open essex engine plant, this area received some the highest amounts of infrastructure spending. With 2 very busy borders is allowing customs officers to be armed, very good thing. If he gets majority will scrap long gun registry, sits very well with rural folks.

The federal government provides money for health care through transfer payments, his government has increased transfer payments, the previous liberal government slashed transfer payments, they are the one's with the track record of kicking the provinces in the teeth.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

bytterman wrote:

I'm not at all interested in a minority government propped up issue by issue, because we're already in an endless election cycle. What about a co-governance coalition, with Ignatieff as PM (assuming he'd win the most seats) but with Layton and perhaps other NDPers in cabinet, not merely friendly Opposition? I don't think in any of our coalition discussion that sort of thing has come up, but that's how coalitions work in other places. As long as they were fiscally responsible might be worth a crack.

the only reason why our minority gov't isn't working now is because Harper is leaning too far right ... a minority gov't would work best with a liberal pm ... simply because it then doesn't allow them to do whatever the heck they want (we've already seen that outcome) ...

we would seriously not be in this election cycle if harper moved to the centre ... but he's power hungry ...

I believe this last parliament and the parliament before that were 2 of the longest serving parliaments.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Even though I'm not a supporter of Harper, his government has done plenty to help this region out, his government has remained committed to a new international bridge between Windsor and Detroit, provided infrastructure money for the new billion $$$$ road leading to the bridge, provided a 550 million $$$ loan to Michigan to get the new bridge moving, provided loan money to GM and Chrysler, provided money for ford to re open essex engine plant, this area received some the highest amounts of infrastructure spending. With 2 very busy borders is allowing customs officers to be armed, very good thing. If he gets majority will scrap long gun registry, sits very well with rural folks.

The federal government provides money for health care through transfer payments, his government has increased transfer payments, the previous liberal government slashed transfer payments, they are the one's with the track record of kicking the provinces in the teeth.

how many ridings are in Windsor? ... aren't they held by some NDP members ... you do know that Harper needed the support of the NDP to pass several of their budgets ... these were likely part of the negotiations ...

i'm not sure what you're talking about in transfer payments ... are you referring to equalization payments or transfers payments for health care ... equalization payments should be calculated in what is fair ... the health transfer payments have been set since 2004 ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Even though I'm not a supporter of Harper, his government has done plenty to help this region out, his government has remained committed to a new international bridge between Windsor and Detroit, provided infrastructure money for the new billion $$$$ road leading to the bridge, provided a 550 million $$$ loan to Michigan to get the new bridge moving, provided loan money to GM and Chrysler, provided money for ford to re open essex engine plant, this area received some the highest amounts of infrastructure spending. With 2 very busy borders is allowing customs officers to be armed, very good thing. If he gets majority will scrap long gun registry, sits very well with rural folks.

The federal government provides money for health care through transfer payments, his government has increased transfer payments, the previous liberal government slashed transfer payments, they are the one's with the track record of kicking the provinces in the teeth.

how many ridings are in Windsor? ... aren't they held by some NDP members ... you do know that Harper needed the support of the NDP to pass several of their budgets ... these were likely part of the negotiations ...

i'm not sure what you're talking about in transfer payments ... are you referring to equalization payments or transfers payments for health care ... equalization payments should be calculated in what is fair ... the health transfer payments have been set since 2004 ...

2 ridings are NDP 1 is conservative. The NDP who represents that area really has not done a whole lot, The conservatives have spent a lot of time on this file, John Baird has been to Lansing, Mi several times trying to get the process moving, this border file was started by the previous liberal government, Harper and McGuinty have done the most to keep the project moving, and despite what people say a new ridge is a must with a new state of the art highway to it. I'm on the Ambassador Bridge several times a month and it only gets repaired when the current owner is ordered to.

The point is that they have spent considerable time on this file when it could have been easily neglected, and they have been aggressive with Michigan to get them moving and hopefully a vote will be coming in the Michigan legislature sooner than later.

As far as social programs go, the 2 biggest social programs, the 2 most expensive are health and education so if your not happy with those 2, then you need to take it up with McGuinty, as far as day care goes that should be left up to the provinces as well. I would have no problem with a daycare program for single parents and low income earners, but people making good wages should be paying full cost day care.

I've always said that Ontario should have lobbied the federal government to take care of it's own EI and CPP, but that'll never happen.

polaris_x

i was asking about the increase in transfer payments you said Harper as given ... i don't recall this ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

i was asking about the increase in transfer payments you said Harper as given ... i don't recall this ...

Looked like I was wrong on that a quick check showed it was Martin who negotiated increased payments for health, still how nice of him!!! After all it was him and Chretien that cut them in the first place.

Either way, I don't like any of the three national leaders, nor do I trust any of them. I was ready to support Layton till he went off on his tangent about credit cards, now he wants to double CPP, but says premiums will only rise 2.5%, he needs to prove that.

Iggy red book of promises which likely was just thrown together in weak.

Harper's promises that don't take effect till the deficit gets paid off, but those tax breaks don't help me and are really only beneficial to those who don't need the help.

However I like the TFSA, I like what he's done with the border file here, I like whats happened with cell phone rates by getting more companies, now if he could just get direct tv over here he just might get my vote

polaris_x

like i said ... they all have their issues ... i contend tho that anyone getting a majority would be bad for the country ... especially haper ...

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

The only way he's gonna get rid of the defecit is through gutting programs ... he's gutted environment - so, i'm guessing health is next ... as we know he won't raise taxes ...

Sorry but I missed this before and it begs a question. Is there any actual evidence that health is a target?

polaris_x wrote:

it is in our best interest to not let Harper have his majority ... plain and simple ... we need to force him to WORK with other parties from the Centre ... it's his unwillingness that is bringing about this election ...

he says he doesn't have a hidden agenda ... but look at his work on this afghan torture file, human rights commission, CIDA, the environment, etc ... all these independent boards that used to work at arms length because they shouldn't be politicized are now being micro-managed from the PMO with a ideological agenda ... we HAD a reputation around the world for being a JUST society ... not anymore ...

You list plenty of very good reasons to dislike Harper, but I think that your first point is a bit short of the mark. He's passed five budgets as a minority PM, so how again are we having an election because he's unwilling to work with the others? This time Ignatieff stated he'd vote against a document that he hadn't seen (which also suggests power-hunger), Layton stated he'd take a day to study it (and didn't), and Duceppe's calling the usual Quebec-got-screwed thing.
I can't/won't comment on our international reputation, except to note that the American's still think that we're a bunch of dope-smoking, health-care loving pinkos (to oversimplify the case of course). There are still hundreds of thousands of people moving here annually; maybe we're not what we'd like to be at the moment, but an awful lot of people think that it looks pretty good.

polaris_x

bytterman wrote:

Sorry but I missed this before and it begs a question. Is there any actual evidence that health is a target?

he wants to privatize ... the best way to privatize is to make the public system dysfunctional ... which means underfunding the program ...

bytterman wrote:

You list plenty of very good reasons to dislike Harper, but I think that your first point is a bit short of the mark. He's passed five budgets as a minority PM, so how again are we having an election because he's unwilling to work with the others? This time Ignatieff stated he'd vote against a document that he hadn't seen (which also suggests power-hunger), Layton stated he'd take a day to study it (and didn't), and Duceppe's calling the usual Quebec-got-screwed thing.
I can't/won't comment on our international reputation, except to note that the American's still think that we're a bunch of dope-smoking, health-care loving pinkos (to oversimplify the case of course). There are still hundreds of thousands of people moving here annually; maybe we're not what we'd like to be at the moment, but an awful lot of people think that it looks pretty good.

yes ... he's passed budgets ... through abstaining votes (mainly the liberals were not prepared to enter into an election) so rather than vote against it ... they abstained ... also, in the early going ... he made concessions to the NDP mainly on the climate portfolio which he promptly destroyed by having it killed in the senate (first time ever) ... he set up this election because the polling numbers were good and he wants his majority ... where he can do what he really wants to do ..

we've sabotaged the climate agenda in international conferences ... look at our voting record in the UN ... hard to detail it all ... you just have to follow that file ...

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

bytterman wrote:

Sorry but I missed this before and it begs a question. Is there any actual evidence that health is a target?

he wants to privatize ... the best way to privatize is to make the public system dysfunctional ... which means underfunding the program ...

Ideologically I think that he'd prefer a mix of private/public, but regardless he knows damn well that complete privatization will make him a one-term PM. The overwhelming majority of us would toss his ass right out at first opportunity (4 years to the day after they're sworn in I think ). He must know this, and he is power hungry as you say, and so it won't happen because he wants the top job. A blend of funding for health I can see in time, but a complete US-style system has a snowballs chance in Vancouver because the electorate doesn't want it.

bytterman wrote:

You list plenty of very good reasons to dislike Harper, but I think that your first point is a bit short of the mark. He's passed five budgets as a minority PM, so how again are we having an election because he's unwilling to work with the others? This time Ignatieff stated he'd vote against a document that he hadn't seen (which also suggests power-hunger), Layton stated he'd take a day to study it (and didn't), and Duceppe's calling the usual Quebec-got-screwed thing.
I can't/won't comment on our international reputation, except to note that the American's still think that we're a bunch of dope-smoking, health-care loving pinkos (to oversimplify the case of course). There are still hundreds of thousands of people moving here annually; maybe we're not what we'd like to be at the moment, but an awful lot of people think that it looks pretty good.

polaris_x wrote:

yes ... he's passed budgets ... through abstaining votes (mainly the liberals were not prepared to enter into an election) so rather than vote against it ... they abstained ... also, in the early going ... he made concessions to the NDP mainly on the climate portfolio which he promptly destroyed by having it killed in the senate (first time ever) ... he set up this election because the polling numbers were good and he wants his majority ... where he can do what he really wants to do ..

we've sabotaged the climate agenda in international conferences ... look at our voting record in the UN ... hard to detail it all ... you just have to follow that file ...

He certainly likes his present polling numbers, but if Ignatieff and Layton thought that he'd get his majority this time they could have prevented it easily. I'm reasonably on top of the climate file and on that topic he's a disgrace, but we're hardly the only climate-negligent country at the UN.

fife

bytterman wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

The only way he's gonna get rid of the defecit is through gutting programs ... he's gutted environment - so, i'm guessing health is next ... as we know he won't raise taxes ...

Sorry but I missed this before and it begs a question. Is there any actual evidence that health is a target?

polaris_x wrote:

it is in our best interest to not let Harper have his majority ... plain and simple ... we need to force him to WORK with other parties from the Centre ... it's his unwillingness that is bringing about this election ...

he says he doesn't have a hidden agenda ... but look at his work on this afghan torture file, human rights commission, CIDA, the environment, etc ... all these independent boards that used to work at arms length because they shouldn't be politicized are now being micro-managed from the PMO with a ideological agenda ... we HAD a reputation around the world for being a JUST society ... not anymore ...

You list plenty of very good reasons to dislike Harper, but I think that your first point is a bit short of the mark. He's passed five budgets as a minority PM, so how again are we having an election because he's unwilling to work with the others? This time Ignatieff stated he'd vote against a document that he hadn't seen (which also suggests power-hunger), Layton stated he'd take a day to study it (and didn't), and Duceppe's calling the usual Quebec-got-screwed thing.
I can't/won't comment on our international reputation, except to note that the American's still think that we're a bunch of dope-smoking, health-care loving pinkos (to oversimplify the case of course). There are still hundreds of thousands of people moving here annually; maybe we're not what we'd like to be at the moment, but an awful lot of people think that it looks pretty good.

I can't speck for other but I will say this, i also would have voted against the budget without reading it due to the fact that the you can't believe the numbers that Harper was using hence the contempt order. If you look at the budgets that Harper passed many of them were because he listened to the other parties. For myself, I don't see me ever believing Harper just due to the income trust issue which i have posted on before.

bytterman

fife wrote:

I can't speck for other but I will say this, i also would have voted against the budget without reading it due to the fact that the you can't believe the numbers that Harper was using hence the contempt order. If you look at the budgets that Harper passed many of them were because he listened to the other parties. For myself, I don't see me ever believing Harper just due to the income trust issue which i have posted on before.

Very fair point, but I'm pretty sure that Ignatieff stated he would not support the budget well before the contempt ruling. So sure, he might not have believed the numbers (no one on either camp believes the other accounting) but he didn't have the contempt ruling to support his claim at the time.

fife

bytterman wrote:

fife wrote:

I can't speck for other but I will say this, i also would have voted against the budget without reading it due to the fact that the you can't believe the numbers that Harper was using hence the contempt order. If you look at the budgets that Harper passed many of them were because he listened to the other parties. For myself, I don't see me ever believing Harper just due to the income trust issue which i have posted on before.

Very fair point, but I'm pretty sure that Ignatieff stated he would not support the budget well before the contempt ruling. So sure, he might not have believed the numbers (no one on either camp believes the other accounting) but he didn't have the contempt ruling to support his claim at the time.

I can't say your wrong there. both the budget issue and also the contempt issues were very close together. All I know is if i was the liberal, i would be showing over and over again that video of Harper lying about income trust.

bytterman

fife wrote:

bytterman wrote:

fife wrote:

I can't speck for other but I will say this, i also would have voted against the budget without reading it due to the fact that the you can't believe the numbers that Harper was using hence the contempt order. If you look at the budgets that Harper passed many of them were because he listened to the other parties. For myself, I don't see me ever believing Harper just due to the income trust issue which i have posted on before.

Very fair point, but I'm pretty sure that Ignatieff stated he would not support the budget well before the contempt ruling. So sure, he might not have believed the numbers (no one on either camp believes the other accounting) but he didn't have the contempt ruling to support his claim at the time.

I can't say your wrong there. both the budget issue and also the contempt issues were very close together. All I know is if i was the liberal, i would be showing over and over again that video of Harper lying about income trust.

Actually surprising that they're not. Ignatieff wasn't around at the time and it was a fair while ago though.

polaris_x

we are definitely not the only disgraceful country on the climate file ... the issue isn't our inaction despite him promising A REAL PLAN ... it's the fact we goto UN conventions and we actually work to prevent progress which is a disgrace ... we are sabotaging talks with procedures ... why do you think we didn't get a seat at the UN security council ... it's our disgraceful actions in the international forum ...

as for the budgets ... yeah - why he's choosing to use 2001 figures for the fighter planes is beyond ridiculous and just as he's screening questions ... he screens what he will show in the budget ... the guy has taken the virtues of democracy and literally said ... fuck you ...

as for the income trusts ... i don't actually have a problem with someone changing their mind based on new information ... but they based their entire campaign on transparency and accountability ... (mainly because they didn't have a plan in place) ... and yet when they got elected they actually watered down the accountability act, they reneged on appointing senators, reneged on fixed elections ... they are so two-faced its ridiculous ...

polaris_x

soo ... apparently campaigning means going to places where only your supporters can see/hear you speak ... :?

this guy is pretty much a fascist ...

fife

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... apparently campaigning means going to places where only your supporters can see/hear you speak ... :?

this guy is pretty much a fascist ...

Are you talking about the women who was kicked out of a Harper speech when they saw she had a facebook picture with Iggy? This guy is just an ass

polaris_x

fife wrote:

Are you talking about the women who was kicked out of a Harper speech when they saw she had a facebook picture with Iggy? This guy is just an ass

yeah .. but in general ... all his engagements require pre-sign up so you can be screened ... he's got no interest in facing the public ... definitely a fascist ...

lukin2006

Court thwarts May’s bid to take part in debates

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1236933.html

Not really surprised, there also wasn't the public support for her this time around. I'm sure the fringe party debate will still allow her to participate...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

fife wrote:

Are you talking about the women who was kicked out of a Harper speech when they saw she had a facebook picture with Iggy? This guy is just an ass

yeah .. but in general ... all his engagements require pre-sign up so you can be screened ... he's got no interest in facing the public ... definitely a fascist ...

Student says environmental activism barred her from Harper campaign event

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/student-says-e ... 6-006.html

I do not understand why the Conservatives have not replaced this guy...I imagine another minority he's gone as well as Iggy, Layton and Duceppe.