Forgive me then for thinking that actions speak louder than words.

Then why did it take Ignatieff 18 months to change the Liberal position? Stop pissing on us while insisting it's only rain.

Keep pissing, dude.

Ah, let me amend my statement so it's cleare then. YOU seem to be too stupid to understand nuance. Better?

You seem to have a curious definitioon of the word `prove`. Has Tony Clement been tutoring you on the scientific method?

So basically you are arguing that it took too long for the Liberals to arrive at the right policy. Alright, what does it say about the Cons then that they still have not done so?

As for your last comment, go tell it to John Baird :P

Pure politics would be to cut everybody`s taxes to zero. That would be the popular thing to do. Advocating any taxes always requires political courage.

Yes it`s popular for the 15% of people who vote for the NDP. The Liberals have a broader constituency so it takes more courage for them to advocate any taxes (even if, in this case, it simply amounts to cancelling additional tax cuts).

The Liberal party of Chretien and even Martin is no more. Quit living off the laurels of the mid 90's. We are in a new century and there is new leadership running the Liberal party. They have gone left. You did not dispute one thing I said. Rather you simply went on a tirade about the "old" Liberal party.

Once again you will not acknowledge that the deficit was necessary because of the global recession. Would you have had the government allow unemployment to rise up to oh 17%. Would you rather that EI be cut off rather than extending benefits. You guys and your tiresome talking points about the deficit.

What was the coalition all about? No deficit spending to help the economy. Then when the opposition got it in spades they said it isn't going out the door quick enough. Then it was too much and of course now we are mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's future. Oh and maybe we need more deficit spending.

Ask the Liberal party who created the national debt of $600 billion. I think there is a picture of Trudeau and his then Finance Minister Jean Chretien on that debt load. So knock it off and quit talking b.s.

"The Liberal party has pledged to bring down the deficit to a manageable level". It is at a manageable level. You just don't like who the government is. That's it in a nut shell. Lets see when the govenrment begins cutting if the Libs are on board or is it more grandstanding.
An increase in the gas tax was going to help those whose EI was going to run out? Give me a break!
I have no idea whether building additional prisons was part of the stimulus program but the fact is we already have overcrowding in our prisons which needs to be addressed at some point. A majority of Canadians want criminals to go to jail and stay there so they can't victimize others. You lose on that argument.
As for the deficit I would simply point out the Libs are responsible for most of the Canadians debt that the country now carries. The other thing that people like you refuse to accept is that there was a huge world wide recession which the government had to deal with. Can you imagine Canada managed by the coalition of fools? I shutter to think how close we came.

You are living in some utopian universe which is not in touch with reality. I could counter each of your points but what's the use. You believe that the government is the answer to all that ails our country. I do not. I can spend my own money which I worked for quite well all by myself thank you very much.

And who was in government for 13 years. Billions of dollars in surpluses. How were the lives of ordinary Canadians improved during that time? Is healthcare any better? Is there easier access to university? Are the aboriginal people better off today because of 13 years of Liberal government. Tell me one memorable thing that all Canadians benefited from during those dark 13 years.
I don't know about you but I can spend my own money quite well thank you very much. I don't need them confiscating it for their own pet projects while my standard of living does not improve.

What you are talking about is wealth redistribution. People need to look after themselves. The government cannot do it for them unless they confiscate the wealth of one group to give to another group.
Nobody paid for daycare for my kids when they were growing up and | didn't expect it. Nobody looked after my dying mother. We did it within our family because we loved her and cared for her.
I readily acknowledge there are those that need a hand but we should not expect the government to provide cradle to grave services. Otherwise we will all be broke.
A truly national daycare system. I emphasize the truly part would cost $10 billion annually.
Thats the problem with socialists they don't want anybody to have anything. They want everybody to be down at the lowest common demoninator. What tax rate are you prepared to see the upper income pay….50%, 60%, 80%. Think about it?

You socialists are quite prepared to wealth distribute but don't have the guts to say how much you would confiscate. I think you would confiscate as much as it takes to make us all poor.
If you think Denmark is great at social engineering then move there. Have you not seen what is happening in Europe with their cradle to grave government programs. They are going broke and are now rioting because they cannot retire when they are 50. All of this shows the nanny state does not work. There is only one taxpayer and eventually the brick wall is hit.
Most clear thinking Canadians understand that if we put in these expensive social programs we will eventually go broke like Greece, Ireland and Spain.
When have you ever seen a government social policy program work efficiently and meet its stated goals? Daycare will never be national because it will leave out the rural areas, it will be unionized and so we will have union wages and benefits and of course the piece to resistance…strikes. What would part time workers do for day care when union workers will only work 5 days a work from 9 to 5?

tax and spend? ha. conservatives just spend, from the moment they took power, years before the recession. that's even smarter. oh, wait! taxes are going up in 2011.

The Liberal Party overtax Canadians for years to fund their pet projects while at the same time providing the Canadian public with the largest tax cuts they have ever had?

Your just blowing smoke and making $@&^ up. Have a little self respect at least.

In fact this is what makes Conservatives so dangerous, you guys have NO self-respect or honor, you can make stuff up and lie and it doesn't bother you, that is scary stuff.

As you noted, Ignatieff wants to pay for his promises by repealing corporate tax cuts, while Dion wanted to pay for his promises using revenues from the Green Shift (while steadfastly maintaining that it wasn't a "tax increase", even though it was only partly offset by income tax cuts).

I don't think that tax cuts are sacrosanct, but I do think it's kind of funny that according to Liberal rhetoric in 2008, repealing corporate tax cuts would damage the economy.

Here's Dion extolling the virtues of corporate tax cuts:

"I would go deeper than [the Conservative corporate tax cuts] because it is a good economic policy within the Canadian economy. It will help us compete with other countries, and it will strengthen our economic sovereignty.

A lower corporate-tax rate is a powerful weapon in the federal government's arsenal to generate more investment, higher living standards and better jobs."

Dion said a corporate-tax rate less than 18.5 per cent would lower companies' cost of capital, which would lead to increased spending on productivity-enhancing machinery and equipment. He added that lower corporate taxes would prove attractive to investors and help Canadian companies protect themselves against foreign takeovers.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story….

My God, that WOULD be an unholy alliance!

Ignatieff doesn't want to repeal the corporate tax cut to help pay down the deficit. He wants to repeal the tax cut in order to fund major new social programs he has promised, such as the Liberal Family Care Plan and a national child-care program.

However, the $1.6 billion gained next year from reversing the corporate tax cut wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of Ignatieff's promises. For example, the Liberals costed their 2005 child-care plan at $5 billion.

But cutting corporate taxes isn't going to help no matter which of the above items we end up buying.

Stephen Gordon and many other economists think that rescinding the corporate tax cuts would be a mistake:
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian…

From the same website we also can find this not quite as ringing endorsement for other CPC tax policy.

The F-35 cost is $16 billion with all ancillary costs included (the opposition thinks it could be even higher depending on whether maintenance costs are more than estimated.) This cost isn't a lump sum expenditure–it will amortised over a decade at least, and delivery of the first aircraft won't happen until 2016. So the annual fiscal outlay is 1 or 2 billion. Meanwhile, the annual cost of a national child-care plan would be 5 or 6 billion.

As for the benefits of each, that's up to individuals to decide. Personally, I've always been skeptical of the benefits of a national child care system. It's one of those perpetual Liberal promises (dating back to Chretien) that has never been delivered on. The current $100/child/month Universal Child Care Benefit approach seems fairly popular.

Is one third of a child care system more valuable to the country than top of the line fighter planes, or is the corporate tax cut an even better expenditure?

Good questions. Some economists might prefer the tax cuts because of the behavioural response and economic effects (increased investment, productivity etc).

Liberals might argue that a national child care plan is the best expenditure because it would improve access by creating more childcare spaces. (Ignatieff has further promised that he wouldn't stop the UCCB cash from flowing). The question is how many new spaces would be created, and how much would each new space cost taxpayers?

As a parent, knowing more and less fortunate parents, I can tell you that the UCCB does nothing to benefit child care universally. The most it does is help buy prettier clothes, not always for the child.

To middle class parents like me, it's 100$ a month I that doesn't change the way I budget or improve the my child's care.

I agree with everything you say on this subject Jenn.

The answers to your questions would need to come from the provinces as daycare is provincial jurisdiction. Provinces have different wants and needs and therefore their willingness to use the money to create "new" daycare spaces would be subject to their own plans. They will say anything to get the money and then do exactly what they want with it. There is not a damn thing the Feds can do about it because daycare is provicial jurisdiction. Like healthcare do we really believe that all the money being transferred to the provinces for healthcare is being used strictly for healthcare?

Sorry I hadn't read this post before replying to a previous one. I think we are basically on the same wave length.
Problem is the provinces agree to anything to get the money. Once they get their hands on it they do exactly what they pls with it. So as an example the feds say a certain province was suppose to create so many new daycare spaces for the funding provided but didn't. The province says there was not enough money and there is this back and forth and the public has no idea who is telling the truth etc. So the money is spent, no new daycare spaces were created and where are we?
Provinces are charged with managing the healthcare system, not the feds. So once the funds are sent to the province there is no assurance that transfer is going to be used entirely for healthcare expenses.
You get my drift. It is a vicious circle.
The answer does require leadership but it will not happen in a minority parliament. This type of decision needs to be taken by a majority government and that is why the Harper Conservatives need a majority so that these decisions can be taken. To suggest the Ignatieff Libs may win is not todays reality.

You may be right about the Bloc but the fearmongering by the Libs /NDP would be something to behold.
That is why the Harper government does not undertake major initiatives because it is a minority and he does not want to give the opposition any meat to chew on. As things stand I cannot see where the Libs will pick up 40+ seats to even win a minority.
If they are looking to the coalition they better win more seats than the Conservatives. Harper would neve accept a coalition of losers to steal the government. We would have a constitutional crisis.

Technically yes but if the PM thought that what was happening was not in the best interest of the country or was an affront to the spirit of our democracy he could go to the courts.
I suspect Johnston would make the right decision after considering all of the circumstances.
The coalition in the U.K. worked because the party that won the most seats led that coalition. How would it appear in Canada if the Conservatives who had won the majority of seats were shut out. It may be legal, I don't know, but it would smell to high heaven. Further if the Libs did not win more seats than the Conservatives that would mean the coalition would need t rely on the Bloc for support. Canadians living outside of Quebec would not accept that. We saw that in 08 and the outcry would be even greater in 011.

The constitution clearly lays out federal and provincial responsibilities. However, the Libs believe in the centralization model where they can control the provinces through control of the purse strings. The premiers increasingly are having none of that.
Hence we always get into the argument when a program doesn't work where the provinces say it is the feds fault for not funding the program properly and the feds blame the provinces for not doing the job. Hence we have boondoggles galore. Whether its healthcare, education, welfare etc.
I think Bernier has it right. Stop with the provincial transfers and let each province tax according to its needs. If Ontario feels there needs to be more daycare spaces then they should set up a system that satisfies their needs. Ontarians can decide themselves if they support how their province is spending their taxes.
Whether the government can help is by bringing the various stakeholders to the table, act as an intermediary to help negotiate national standards etc. Thats it.
I think Ignatieff wants to be a provincial premier because all he talks about are things within provincial jurisdiction.

Check out this video from the good folks over at TVO. The topic is the state of our armed forces after Afghanistan.

Lots of good stuff in there, including…
…seems to be some doubt as to the wisdom of acquiring any F-35s
…within the existing budget we could man-up and/or get more gear if we allowed the forces to operate more efficiently (which I believe translates to close some bases)
…we need to be clearer about the merits/benefits and costs of potential missions before we jump in

After watching that video one and a half times I lean towards no F-35s.

Well, it is called the Universal Child Care Benefit, and it was at least indirectly pitched as an alternate to the Liberals more ambitious plan, but yes, it was not meant to be restricted to daycare costs.

In the end the cash can be used for anything (including beer and popcorn!!…that was the comment, n'est pas?).

Given that there really are no limits to what the freed up cash can be used for, was the UCCB really the most efficient way to get more cash into the hands of working Canadians? Ie is it good public policy to create a yet another new section in the tax code rather than just adjusting some existing rate or deduction? Shouldn't we be aiming to simplify the tax system rather than make it more complicated?

But simplification of our tax system is a worthwhile objective, yes?

Excellent! Then surely you will support my two part plan. Here it is:

Step 1: Stop creating new tax deductions
Step 2: Every year from 2011 until the tax system is cut to 25% of its current size, lets eliminate one tax deduction. Each time we do this tax rates can be lowered or the Basic Personal Exemption (yes, I would keep that one) can be raised so as to keep the total tax take unchanged. I nominate the Working Tax Credit, the tuition amount, the northern residents deduction, the child sports credit and the political contribution deduction for 2011 through to 2014.

Yes the Liberals costed their daycare plan at $5 billion but I have seen numbers that suggest if it was truly a national plan and not tinkering around the edges that the costs could be $10 billion. I think shades of another long gun registry boondoggle if they had had an opportunity to implement it.

The government needs to protect the country and participate with the world in defending its world wide interests. The existing F 18's will be 40 years old by the time the new F35's are delivered in 2016. So what would you do? Leave the country with the inability to defend itself and its own airspace and help our allies when necessary. I don't profess to understand what the military needs but we have to place some faith that the government/military are buying the aircraft they think will be needed in the future.
The one thing that is not acceptable is foregoing the purchase and allowing our military to be killed in outdated equipment or the huge cost for maintenace of the old F 18's.
Chretien tried that with the cancellation of the helicopter deal which cost us $1 billion for nothing and we still don't have helicopters 20 years later.
There is no way we will ever have a national daycare program. The Libs promised for 5 elections and didn't deliver. The Conservatives who will win the next election will not even attempt such a widely expensive social program. Holly you will just have to suck it up.

WTF….I did not hear MacKay say that but to take something that was probably said in jest and use it as an argument is a cheap shot.
Remember the Libs are not arguing against the purchase of the jets. They are arguing about process. That's their problem they always argue about process. What would they do? Re-tender it? Waste all the money that the country has spent thus far, potentially jeopardize the jobs and go out and waste more money to re-tender and rmay be end up with a stripped down version, the same plane or no planes at all. This is a foolish argument and lets see the Libs go into an election in Quebec arguing against the purchase where there is a large aerospace industry and the industry has already come out in support. For us to think that twe know more than the government or the military about what kind of plane we should buy is naive in the extreme.

In principle I agree. However, to suggest that we are knowledgeable even given the information about what jet fighters we need is not credible. Thats why we pay the MPs and bureaucrats. Hopefully to make the right decisions.
There are critics and there are supporters of the jet fighters. However, the neither party has all the expertise and the information that was considered and went into the decision. Everyone who crticizes may or may not have an agenda. However, if the government is going to make decisions based on everybody agreeing nothing will get done. For better or worse we elect governments to make decisions. We can always find shortcomings but it is the best we have today.

Jenn I have no idea who you are but I respectively say you can ask a thousand questions but to what end. Canadians have the ultimate hammer and that is the ballot box. If the F 35 decision is important they will make that judgement. Don't like the decisions being made vote the bast.rds out. That's the clout the citizens have. However, it does not make a lot of sense to keep debating and debating a decision the government has made. There are as many questions as there are answers. So I don't get too hot and bothered about wanting to know the cats a$$ of every decision. I decide on balance has the government done a good job or not and vote accordingly. I am not trying to run the government and it is a waste of your time to think that you can. Remember politics is a game. We shouldn't take it too seriously because the MPs certainly don't.

Well I guess we will agree to disagree. The purchase has been completed and there never will be a resolution to the matter because nobody isn't interested in determining the facts. If the purchase is in the next budget then the Libs and NDP can put there faux outrage into a non confidence vote on the budget. Then the Canadian people will decide.
The National Energy Program has destroyed the Liberal party in Alberta and they will not forget just as I won't forget that the Chretien goverrnment designed a program the purpose of which was steal taxpayer money.
Running the country is a serious business but if the government listened to all the pundits and the boo birds nothing would get done.
By the way were you this vociferous when the Chretien government bought 4 used subs from the U.K. None of which worked and in fact killed one of our sailors. I hope you were asking questions then and of course you got the answers didn't you? :-)

As citizens we do need to be informed and to question. However, we have people who are making their decisions based on the latest headline or who is doing the criticizing. Seldom do we see a real analysis which points out the pros and cons in a straightforward, unbiased manner. So people make decisions based on incomplete information.
The Libs are not arguing against the purchase of the F35s because as we both agree we do need to replace the F18's down the road. They are arguing against a process that their government started and which I assume would have followed through on should they have remained government. So I think they are being disingenous and therefore distrust what they are saying.
Yes we need to pay attention. However, getting into the details of whether the aircraft should have one or two engines is too much in my opinion.

You'll have to clarify this:

For us to think that twe know more than the government or the military about what kind of plane we should buy is naive in the extreme.

the neither party has all the expertise and the information that was considered and went into the decision

Sounds to me like you're saying nobody has the expertise to question the government's purchase of jet fighters, not even politicians.

That's quite the opposite of what happened with the Avro Arrow isn't? I mean the military set very specific requirements to meet their defensive needs, and the government went through great lengths to meet those needs. Then on the verge of success, politicians questioned the expenditure and cancelled the project. Leaving our country defenseless.

What I'm getting at is that I agree with you that we should not spend too much time questioning the military's assessment of our defensive needs. But when even they are not sure 65 F35s is going to cut it, that when we need to question who's making the purchase; that would be Defense Minister MacKeen to please Harper.

hollinm continued…..

In my mind. It is simple. The government made the decision to buy these particular planes under an agreement that was entered into by the previous Liberal government. As I said in a previous post if it turns out the purchase is not the right one etc. etc. then we the people have the ability to de-elect them. That's the ultimate hammer. If Canadians don't agree with the decision then they do not support them in the next campaign. Simple as that. However, this back and forthing serves little purpose in my judgement. It is a trip to nowhere.

Jenn continued . . .
The good news is that we have more than one party in parliament. This is where our system is so very valuable. Because we do, legitimately, need to keep some things secretive, we can allow privy councillors access to the REAL answers. And privy councillors can be (and are) made up of more than just the governing party. So we have the ability to have more than one 'agenda' as it were looking at the source information. Now, they may agree with the information and disagree with the decision derived therefrom, but at least we'd know that much.

You keep saying you're not spinning for the Liberal party, yet here you are with the same knee-jerk accusations against the Conservatives, and trite defences of current Liberal positions. Just saying.

I don't know. Ask the Liberals why they supported these dreaded tax cuts just two years ago. You'll get your answer then, won't you? They seemed to think they were integral to a prosperous economy, didn't they? What's changed?

You want us to accept this as a principled move. You're the only one.

No, Jan. Please try to demonstrate at least some ability to understand what's written. Don't you get tired of this act? God.

2 years ago we weren't running a $56 billion deficit, hadn't yet lost many tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs and our neighbour to the south (a big market of ours) hadn't yet doubled its debt.

Again, could we please flip our calendars forward and discuss today's plans for tomorrow?

I really don't get this "tax cuts for profitable corporations" mantra. It's one of those standard talking points that often goes critically unexamined. Consider what it would mean if the same "reasoning" were applied to personal taxation. The assumption seems to be that if you are "profitable", then there is no way in hell that you should ever have your taxes reduced. Presumably they should only either be increased, or stay the same. So, as an individual, if you are "profitable" (i.e., you are not actually losing money, going bankrupt or otherwise insolvent), you never ever have any cause to complain about your level of taxation, and you should only ever expect your taxes either to go up or at best, stay at the same level. In my humble view, that's nuts.

I realize that there are significant differences in the basis on which individuals and corporations are taxed. Of course they're not "the same". The point of my post was more in the way of getting a discussion going. I guess my objection to the talking point/rhetoric has more to do with its subtle (or not-so-subtle) implications and connotations, which seem to suggest that if you're "already profitable", there is ipso facto something wrong with reducing your taxes. It's the automatic assumption in there which I object to. There can be many reasons why it's still a good idea — or not a bad idea — to reduce taxes on businesses which are "already profitable". I still maintain that the basic premise behind the talking point is that once a business has achieved profitability, there is no longer any justification whatsoever for having its tax burden reduced — and I think such a premise is grossly simplistic, to say the least.

If I had an opportunity to re-do my original post, I would have worded and argued it differently. I think that most regular, clinically sane visitors to this board who are familiar with my history of posting here would never characterize my posts as trolling.

Lol, we came close…..Canada's Caribbean ambition
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/turksandcaicos/

Given that we have a huge deficit to deal with, surely taxation should be on the table. Unless we're sticking with the old bromide – all taxes are bad. Time for that adult conversation.

For reference the 2010 federal budget indicates that for the 2010-2011 time period

Personal Income Tax 117B
Corporate Income Tax 25.5B
GST 27.3B