Comments on: Budget to possibly destroy country

By: George Pringle

George Pringle — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:03:04 +0000

The whole concept of spending our way out of this downturn is an experiment, not the fact that everyone has seemed to accept as a divine economic truth. I hope it works but as the problem started with the incompetent American economic and regulatory systems, the only real solution lies down South. We need them to buy our goods, period.

The question is whether Obama is just another smooth tongued snake oil salesman or he has any hope of actually fighting and beating the ingrained corrupt American political old boy system. I doubt it, as those old boy protectionist Democrats are as part of the incompetence as the old boy Republicans.

Already we have seen the negative effect of an Obama Presidency on Canada. He owes his election to the unions and business protectionist lobbies and no matter how many lefty Canadians gush all over Obama, he will screw us to reward them.

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:25:48 +0000

Is “chuckie” a word you coined to describe conservative types?

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:20:41 +0000

I’m assuming that if the moderators have a problem with it he/she/they will let me know.

And I will go along with their wishes. It’s their shop.

But if it irritates some congenitally cranky chuckie , so be it.

By: archangel

archangel — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:03:32 +0000

You got me wondering how many iterations WordPress will allow.

And if there is another revolution, what will replace the gouillotine?

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:26:45 +0000

The problem is Raphael, that the Conservatives arent used to doing a Buget like this.. so they took a bit of a scattergun approach to it… in a desperate attempt to send enough money to enough sectors to stave off defeat.

If you’re going to do a Keynesian Budget, the folks who are used to doing or believe in Keynesian economics are the ones to properly be the ones to do so – not folks who are ideologically against it but are doing so in a deathbed conversion like way.

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:47:27 +0000

I agree with you about the EI eligibility improvements, but I should point out that tax cuts to working people really do have a stimulus effect on the economy, so they benefit all Canadians, not just those who are employed. If some choose to use it to pay down their credit card debt, that’s not a bad thing – the economy benefits when people stay solvent. The last thing we need is more bad loans freezing up the credit markets.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:43:04 +0000

No. And for a number of reasons. But no.

By: Raphael Alexander

Raphael Alexander — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:35:36 +0000

Uh, can you just link to the BBC and leave the investigative work to us? You’re a borderline spammer at this point.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:34:14 +0000

But , then , there’s always old reliable :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7857435.stm

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:32:52 +0000

And :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/01/davos_and_trust.html

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:31:06 +0000

And :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7856020.stm

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:26:15 +0000

Well , lets cheer the chummies up even more :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/davos/7856636.stm

By: Raphael Alexander

Raphael Alexander — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:18:07 +0000

God, nothing is good enough for the Liberals, is it? You have the most spendthrift budget since Hitler was bombing Britain, and you want more “amendments”.

Brutal.

At least lyin’ Dalton McGuinty said he won’t look a “gift horse in the mouth”.

By: Jenn

Jenn — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:11:53 +0000

No, you were right the first time. I see no reason why an amendment regarding pay equity and EI eligibility improvements couldn’t have been inserted there along with the reporting thing. Harper would still wear the budget.

And I still don’t see how a tax cut for working people helps anybody but those of us getting said tax cuts. I plan to put mine into my RRSPs, really. Yes, it might stave off a an extra week before I’m consigned to the Public Trustee, but it doesn’t do anything for us NOW. Nor will it help stimulate the economy when everyone else is paying off some of their credit card debt with it.

Since the EI changes wouldn’t cost as much as the tax cuts will (and the pay equity thing will cost next to nothing at all), I think it would have been hilarious to put Harper in the position of insisting on a higher deficit than Ignatieff. Not to mention the help would go to those actually laid off and needing the help.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:00:18 +0000

Hmm, I was rather down on the budget, but anything that makes Myron Thompson cry can’t be all bad.

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:48:55 +0000

I was actually not exactly pleased with the strategy Ignatieff and the Liberals went with on this – I think if they weren’t going to bring the government down, they could have been a lot tougher in their calls for amendments.

But I have to admit, after seeing all these Conservatives in angst and grief and anger, (and being utterly amused to no end at all the wailing and grinding and gnashing of teeth out there in that corner), maybe the Iggy strategists were on to something, letting Harper wear this.

By: dan in van

dan in van — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:20:55 +0000

Well, so much for those ‘Senator Hanger’ and ‘Governor General Thompson’ bumperstickers…