Comments on: Harper's plan to survive the recession

By: Fred Gray

Fred Gray — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:16:04 +0000

An election now would only be counterproductive to working out our most severe economic downfall. This is not to be done by politicians but rather knowledgable people with the expertise. They know who they are, will they only admit publicly this is the case. We understand who will pay the bill, I would only like to keep it reasonable which the gov,t does noy have the ability. Taxpayer from Manitoba

By: Richard Desmarais

Richard Desmarais — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:00:55 +0000

First go off, anyone who believes a negative, dictator like Harper, deserves what they get.
Instead of having his staff work harder on the economy, and getting the so called stimulus package out to help us. I paraphrase “shovel ready"; it really takes a long time to move those shovels. His staff took hours upon hours researching the last 34 years of Michael Ignatieff. After all this, their main point is, Michael Ignatieff gave up his larger income and career to become Prime Minister of Canada. He did this because he is only in it for himself. Oh yeah! He is also too intellectual.
Being Prime Minister, is so much more attractive. You have daily attacks on you, If this was the case, why don't all the CEO's with their huge salaries and bonuses, quit and run for Prime Minister?
We also have a Finance Minister, who doesn't agree with the financial economists, but has to keep changing his forecast. Usually to conform with these economist's opinions.
We will never be able to get out of debt and this recession, until we start holding all our politicians responsible.
Let us send them a message, that we have had enough of their mismanaging of our money.

By: George

George — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:04:39 +0000

I don't agree with you. Canadians hated the GST right from the time of its introduction by Mulroney. Chrétien got elected in 1993 largely on the promise that he would abolish this tax and then reneged on his promise. Furthermore in Quebec, for example, almost half of the people don't pay any taxes at all because they don't make enough money to pay taxes. There is a good proportion of such people in other provinces, such as people who live on welfare or basic government pensions. For all these people reduction of GST is important.

By: George

George — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:52:22 +0000

Kim,

I think your accusations are a bit too general. What you say the Conservatives have done, all parties do, particularly when they are in a minority situation. However, generally speaking, Harper managed the economy pretty well. Of course, the recession which hit us late last year changed the situation, but even there Canada did better than all other G7 countries. So, from a practical standpoint, I personally feel that I am pretty lucky to have had this government in the past five years.

As for Ignatieff, he may be a good author, but he hardly qualifies as a good business manager in these difficult times. However, apart from saying that he will raise our taxes, he did not provide any indication as to what his economic program would be. Maybe he is waiting until election time to do so, but our electoral period is very short and he may have difficulty persuading Canadians within 30 days or so that his program is realistic and worth supporting. So, I want to see his program before deciding whether he is worthy of my support.

By: Frank A

Frank A — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:17:44 +0000

A big part of this deficit would be lessened if Harper hadn't handcuffed himself and future governments by cutting the GST. That he can call himself "an economist" is laughable since virtually every economist in the country will tell you that consumption taxes have far less of a negative impact on the economy than business or personal income taxes. He cut the GST for ideological reasons and for purely political gain, rather than the good of the country. Our deficits are now substantially higher as a result of his political gamesmanship.

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:34:57 +0000

George,

The Devil we know and his gang of right wing clowns have lied, inaction, blame others, and taken credit for other parties work when it proved correct.
So, far Ignatieff has been open, admit his errors. I know he is not prefect, and mistakes will happen, but so far that I have seen I would rather take my chances on Iggy, then on Herr Harper's NWO.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:57:09 +0000

The government of every developed country is in a catch-22. They're out of funds. If they raise taxes, they will reduce public revenues with economic disincentives to produce (i.e. it's just a higher % of a smaller tax base). If they do not raise taxes, they risk putting up the appearance of "fiscal irresponsibility." When will the Canadian people wake up and realize that the only solution to problems like these are deep cuts in both taxes AND MOST IMPORTANTLY spending? The gravy train is over – this recession proves once and for all that welfare statism and entitlement governance does not work, it simply withers the country away. The Liberals would never have been able to cut debt without the economic boom (and commodities bubble) of the 1990s.

Say it loud, proud, and clear: The government should spend less money to save us all.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:31:52 +0000

To be precise, I believe the actual campaign slogan was only 'Demand Better', not "We Will Do Better'.

By: rdjrowley

rdjrowley — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:24:04 +0000

Harper has no idea of what is needed to move Canada forward. His whole act has been get and keep a little power.
The people around him, Flarrity/Beard /Clements and now Raitt all failed when they fell off the Mike Harris free ride.
People seem to forget these people all road on Mikes parade and they never gave anything when they ran Ontario.

By: George

George — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:05:38 +0000

"So for Harper to survive would be a remarkable feat. And for Ignatieff to fail to defeat him would be a major opportunity squandered."

I am not so sure. In a recent poll asking who is the best PM, if I remember correctly, 39% said Harper, 36% said Iggy, and 45% said neither.

So, the timing of the election is very important. If the recession has not completely ended, I think Harper has a better chance to be elected that Iggy. Better the devil you know than the one you don't in handling the recession or its immediate aftermath.

By: George

George — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:51:32 +0000

"Put up the GST by a point and pass it all to municipalities so they can replace their water and sewer systems? Even for 1 year? Never!!!"

Municipalities are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and the federal government cannot pass the money directly to them without agreement from all the provinces. Quebec for instance would never give such agreement and would insist that the money be paid to the province and it would distribute it according to its own priorities. I think several other provinces would do the same.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:21:43 +0000

I don't think that Linda Keen worked for AECL.

And the answer is one average sized power reactor, although I'm not sure what the differences are between today's power reactors and the Chalk River reactor or the Maple reactors.

By: Oh Boy

Oh Boy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:59:00 +0000

Yes, it was a typing error — not one of my ditzy brain. (That two is so darn close the one on my keyboard!)
It's roughly 1/3 of total manufacturing. Much higher for auto and mining.
Apologies.

Here's the source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

Still, a striking problem for our manufacturing sector.

By: BCVoiceOfReason

BCVoiceOfReason — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:40:55 +0000

It is not the answer that Upper Canadians want to hear. Oil @ $100/barrell pays off this deficit the same way it generated the recent surpluses. Even now the 50B budget is using $60 oil… At $70 the $90B in projects on hold in Western Canada are viable…. all that is needed now is a stable government… ie no scary potential NEP that the Liberals will always stand for.

By: rockfish

rockfish — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:31:18 +0000

Oh, this (and I'm guessing Jenn's remarks above too) was directed at hollinthehead, not Les Hab… sorry for any confusion.

By: rockfish

rockfish — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:28:25 +0000

Funny that – there is no federal version of that CON dream weaver you are so faithful to. Harper? Spent like a drunken sailor from the minute he took office, even raising our income tax, blatantly broke a promise on another tax, and continuously tossed money at pure election buying gadgets in hopes to suck those smarter than you into believing. Mulroney? Didn't have the guts to cut.
Funny that, when it comes to Chretien and Martin, types like you cry out – oh the pain! the transfers! Did they have other options – probably. But in the end they did what you pretend your so-called leader has shown equivocally impotent to complete. Oh EI changes? did you even listen to Harper's 'sham-wow!' pitch today? It's on the horizon!

By: rockfish

rockfish — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:23:33 +0000

There you go again. Cheap trick in budokan, your team's in charge hollindahead. Take stock, take responsibility and take note that the principle you were originally elected on was to do better, not be a cheap facsimile of what we didn't want.

By: Habitant

Habitant — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:21:27 +0000

You misunderstood that post (or my position on it). Granted, I suppose I could've been more specific with the ''he'' in the 3rd sentence (the ''he'' was Harper, as in, the one who has gone on BSing).

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:13:14 +0000

Oh, boy! That's a pretty ditzy mistake.

By: BCVoiceOfReason

BCVoiceOfReason — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:55:49 +0000

It is not the answer that Upper Canadaians want to hear. Oil @ $100/barrell pays off this deficit the same way it generated the recent surpluses. Even know the 50B budget is using $60 oil… At $70 the $90B in project on hold in Western Canada are viable…. all that is needed now is a stable government… ie no scary potential NEP that the Liberals will always stand for.

By: André

André — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:53:53 +0000

haha! that's hilarious! market survey at gun point, absolutely no chance for the data getting skewed, heh.

oh well, I like services, it keeps the bottom feeders off the streets when times are bad. The real tragedy is that most of the times we create this national debt to half-assly encourage half-bake ideas that ends up making people owe more money to banks who offshore their investment in blue-chip protectionist countries.

By: BCVoiceOfReason

BCVoiceOfReason — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:51:40 +0000

That work safely? After spending 600M would another $12.4B be enough. I might assume that your fall back position would be to buy a French reactor as the bureaucrats in charge of AECL (Linda Keen for example) are good for cashing cheques and running meetings but commissioning reactors, Not so much.

By: BCVoiceOfReason

BCVoiceOfReason — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:50:36 +0000

That work safely? After spending 600M would another $12.4B be enough. I might asume that your fall back possition would be to buy a French reactor as the beurocrats in charge of AECL (Linda Keen for example) are good for cashing cheques and running meetings but commisioning reators, Not so much.

By: Jenn

Jenn — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:48:59 +0000

Sentence two you basically admit Harper is fudging the truth. Sentence three you would rather trust the truth-dodger than the guy who comes out and admits that taxes of some kind at some point will have to go up.

I was thinking today that the only people I know who are currently unemployed (only two–I don't know a lot of people) would be the ones helped by the lower EI eligibility criteria. They are students who finished school at what must be the worst time ever. Of course their part-time and seasonal jobs are both no longer available to them and worthless for EI.

But for the rest of us working stiffs, are we really having it so bad that we need, repeat need, all these frivolous little tax credits that have jumped out of the T1 program in the last few years? But now that they're here, how easy will it be to remove transit pass credits, children's fitness credits, and the like?

By: Habitant

Habitant — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:36:55 +0000

Concerning trust, I'll opt for the one that's not inclined to literally bs the nation.

The denial of recession was just that. Claiming that Iggy would ''unequivocally'' raise taxes, all the while looking straight at the nation and telling them that he doesn't foresee himself having to do so, is just that… BSing the nation.

I can't trust that…

By: André

André — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:34:44 +0000

Meh, label it any way you want, your escapism is not going to pay the bill for your luxuries.

I'm not implying we should reach for the top. However, even an increase as big as 10%(which would cover most of our new deficit) wouldn't put us in the top ten.

And before you go all Albertan on me, I am strictly talking about debt reduction measures, not government bloating measures.

By: Me Thrie

Me Thrie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:53:56 +0000

"Where's the incentive plan for any company wishing to set up shop in Canada's smaller cities? … No value-add, no long-term plan. Indeed, in the third decade of the information age, we have no national strategy for technology development and marketing, no "bail-out" for media industries, no investment in technology infrastructures, etc."

You may find this hard to believe, but the "incentive plan" for businesses to set up shop, in any sized city, is to stop babbling about all this "investment" in ridiculous government-driven fantasies. Politicians and bureaucrats don't know jack about industry, technology or marketing. They're allergic to business, which is why they got into politics and government in the first place. The thought of jobs and profits being created by entrepreneurs and investors without rampant cronyism and political payoffs literally makes them sick to their stomachs.

"Our kids are going to pay for it one way or another but it will be ultimately be through either more taxes or less services. "

I hope it's less services. Because "services" means stuff like, for example, the business "survey" I was forced to participate in recently – a legal requirement under penalty of fines or prison, dontcha know. The morons in Stats Canada are pretending that by probing into how businesses work, under force of law, that they can pass the data onto boffins in some other department who will "help" business work better. Heh. Like eunuchs trying to help things along in a harem. I hope that they run out of money to pay for that kind of garbage.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:08:11 +0000

So don't worry be happy. Whether its Harper or Iggy we will get the higher taxes to cover the deficit. However, I would rather trust Harper for cutting wasteful programs/services than the Liberals who consider any program to be sacred cows once put into place. Just like the changes to EI. Lower eligibility criteria will never be changed once implemented.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:06:42 +0000

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:06:15 +0000

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:04:02 +0000

Ask Iggy and the other opposition leaders. They wanted billions spent and still asking for more stimulus.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:02:26 +0000

You may want cradle to grave government but I want to keep some of my own hard earned money. Geesh! I can waste it just as well as the government thank you very much. You may like the marginal tax rate of 50% but I sure as hell don't.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:59:04 +0000

continued…
Other measures have been introduced in the various budgets which over time will help attract more investment.
You talk about commodity extrators. I would remind you that Canada has been governed by Liberals for most of its existent. So if you are looking for villians there they are.
Instead of improving Canadian competitiveness and productivity the Liberals were worried about their entitlements and stealing taxpayers' money.
I can tell you this. if the Liberals get back in power it will be higher taxes, a national daycare program which will not help productivity and of course the old ruse the Kelowna Accord.
So you may not like what the government has done but I think the alternative will be much worse.

By: hollinm

hollinm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:53:18 +0000

So tell the accidental tourist running the Liberal party to convince the opposition parties to defeat the Harper Conservatives. I don't agree with the GM bailout but can you imagine the screaming from all quarters if Harper had thrown a million people out of work in one fell swoop. I can't believe you think reducing EI eligibility to 10 weeks of work is a sound policy. That would cost employees and employers a cool $1.5 billion. However, its only money not to worry. The Liberals tried building two new reactors to produce isotopes and couldn't get the technology to work after spending billions. So we are where we are. There is no easy answer to the isotope issue.
Pathological attachment to cutting consumption taxes? Lets quit with the hyperbole. Yes he reduced the GST by 2% points and while it is not considered the best tax to reduce it did help virtually everybody in the country including those who do not pay taxes. Some economists have said that the reduction delayed the onset of the recession.
The country is in the process of becoming one of lowest corporate tax countries which will help attract investment.

By: Habitant

Habitant — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:20:45 +0000

In Harper's own words today:

“The leader of the official Opposition said without any doubt that he will be increasing Canadians’ taxes. This is a position that our Conservative government does not foresee.”

They didn't foresee a (bluntly obvious) recession not very long ago… But, there it came.
Today, they do not foresee raising taxes (as an option for getting outta deficit)… But somehow, we are to believe that our biggest deficits ever will magically be done and over with, without any form of tax hike, in just a few short years.

For the record, I am inclined to believe the words ''do not foresee'' do not mean ''we won't raise taxes'' at all!

By: Habitant

Habitant — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:17:17 +0000

In Harper's own words today:

“The leader of the official Opposition said without any doubt that he will be increasing Canadians’ taxes. This is a position that our Conservative government does not foresee.”

For the record, I am inclined to believe the words ''do not foresee'' do not mean ''we won't raise taxes'' at all!

By: motor

motor — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:10:46 +0000

I have not seen 'any' journalist ask mr harper how he intends to pay back this sky rocketing deficit.

By: motor

motor — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:08:20 +0000

"What we are not going to do is, every two or three months, come up with another economic policy, another budget, until we need to raise taxes." http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat...

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:39:45 +0000

I think the report I read today was that 30% of capacity is idle – maybe he got the ratio flipped around in his head.

By: André

André — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:23:56 +0000

Question: How many nuclear reactors we could have built with the GM bailout?

By: André

André — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:13:56 +0000

I don't know where this phobia of taxes come from. Just look at these stats: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed... Aside from Turkey none of the higher taxed countries are particularily horrible to live in. We wanted one of the biggest infrastructure in the world; we got it. We wanted healthcare, we got it. We wanted more social services, we got it. Look we took a gamble on the economy and the economy called our bluff. Now we're in huge debt and chances are we're not going to be able to pay it before the next recession.Our kids are going to pay for it one way or another but it will be ultimately be through either more taxes or less services. So quit yer belly aching okay!

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:53:14 +0000

Good point.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:52:08 +0000

2/3 of the nation's industrial capacity is sitting idle? Source, please.

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:16:19 +0000

Lots of people are criticizing the GM bailout.

Lots of people are criticizing how the stimulus money is being disbursed (just write a damn cheque to each city along with an agreement in general terms on how it is to be spent, and do the checking afterward–picking every damn project is the height of stupiditiy).

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:13:57 +0000

John g, you're taking a quote from a newspaper article that took his comment out of context. The question was basically: "If spending cuts are not enough to get us out of deficit, how will you ensure that our children don't get a huge debt burden."

Why don't you get a transcript of the exchange rather than quoting only part of his statement?