Yeah and over the past 60 years the Liberals have had about 3 times the time in power to make those accomplishments. Actually we fell quite far backward under Trudeau and then another few steps under Buloney.
Can Ignatieff distance himself from his past?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Yeah and over the past 60 years the Liberals have had about 3 times the time in power to make those accomplishments. Actually we fell quite far backward under Trudeau and then another few steps under Buloney.
I thought Martin was excellent as finance minister, BUT there's others who say it was all due to Buloney's G.S.T. I guess figures can lie and liars can figure.:lol::lol:
He also used the EI fund. Had he left that money in the fund or reduced the payments for employees and/or employers, would there have been a balanced budget?
The funny thing about the Martin years is that he increased taxes and cut transfers to the provinces. In Alberta, Klein increased taxes and cut transfers to the municipalities. Liberal supporters hate Klein for what he did and Conservative supporters hate Martin for what he did.
Not when they are party puppets. All Canada's had has been Conservative and Liberal as long as I can remember, and we could be a helluva lot better country if it wasn't for that fact.
I guess you either don't know much about his gov't or have only looked at the bad stuff. I can think of a few that I like:
Apology to First Nations people;
$2000 child tax credit;
Taxpayers' ombudsman;
Ombudsman for victims of crime;
Taxpayers' bill of rights;
Public transit tax credit;
Age of consent raised from 14 to 16;
Income splitting for the elderly;
Guaranteed income suppliment for the elderly;
Tax credit for first time home buyers;
changes to food labelling laws;
not sure about this one, but I heard the gov't wanted to toughen youth offenders laws
That's off the top of my head. There are undoubtedly more.
Yup. And killed a shipload of students services, increased their debtload, and killed a shipload of seniors services to do it. That freakin lovely. Tell you what; I have as much respect for Martin as he has for seniors and students. And that is very bloody little.
Really? I can remember the early 80s when Turdeau and Turner were PMs.
You mean - after canceling Kelowna?
The plan to throw money at a problem, and hoping it goes away (not one child care spot created)? Not to mention the cost and bureaucracy involved in sending out $100 cheques every month - a dumb policy implemented poorly.
I'll take you word on these.
Another stupid tax credit that has accomplished what exactly? Is public transit use through the roof?
Ah yes, 14 years aren't old enough to make proper decisions regarding sex - but are old enough to do hard time in prison line. It's good to know that all the 14 and 15 year olds in Canada have stopped having sex because of this legislation.
for the lucky 20% with a registered pension plan. The rest are SOL.
Fine. 1.
Don't know about this one either. I remember the Liberals implemented the GST refund for new house buyers, and allowed first time buyers to use RRSPs. Is this new (i.e. this year)?
Have you looked at this? It does NOTHING. I was excited to hear about it when it first came out - but once I looked at it, it was another case of smoke and mirrors.
See my above point re:sex.
I guess it depends on how you define success. Personally, I think their policies are either pi$$ poor ones, not implemented in a proper fashion, don't accomplish what they said it would accomplish or are just window dressing to current exisiting policies.
Anyways, I'm not sure why we are have this discussion, as we both seem to agree that they are useless. I guess it's the degree of uselessness that we are debating over?
Specifically, what taxes did he increase? When I google tax rates in Canada, Martin;
Re-indexed them to inflation (thus a tax cut every year) in 1999
Raised the personal exemption level every year since in 1999
created a 4th tax bracket in 2001 (in effect lowering tax for people that made 61-100 K)
Cut the marginal tax rates in 2000, 2001 and 2005.
Granted, this only goes back to 1998...
Yep, not much to argue about. It doesn't matter WHAT government does, someone is going to get hurt. Like Dave Barrett said 35 years ago "it's all a matter of whose ox you are trying to gore".
As I recall he did transfer health care costs to the provinces (I didn't find that particularly bad, just gave the provinces a little more control) and i don't remember any huge tax increases if there were any. I really don't think there was much to criticise about Martin.
JLM - you're right. (I cant' believe I said that!!!)
Honestly - I know I come off as a Liberal partisan - or supporter, but I really don't think I am. I just want a balanced discussion of the pros and cons between the 2 major parties. When mis-representations come out on either side, it makes me crazy.
Martin a good FM. He made hard decisions that allowed us to reduce our deficit and debt, and while people may not like it, it was good for our economy, and put us in a better position than most countries nowadays. He was a lousy PM because he couldn't make up his mind.
Even Chretien - who I feel was a crook, wasn't all bad - because at least under his watch we were able to right the fiscal ship, and his not allowing the banks to merge saved our bacon this time around.
Mulroney had the balls to implement the GST - which while extremely unpopular, and probably the main reason his party has decimated in the next election, was the most progressive, and likely last statesman-like act any of our PMs have done, as it helped laid the foundation for the prosperity we had in the 90's (it's wasn't solely responsible, but it did help)
What is (will be) Harper's legacy?
Honestly - I know I come off as a Liberal partisan - or supporter, but I really don't think I am. I just want a balanced discussion of the pros and cons between the 2 major parties. When mis-representations come out on either side, it makes me crazy.
Martin a good FM. He made hard decisions that allowed us to reduce our deficit and debt, and while people may not like it, it was good for our economy, and put us in a better position than most countries nowadays. He was a lousy PM because he couldn't make up his mind.
Even Chretien - who I feel was a crook, wasn't all bad - because at least under his watch we were able to right the fiscal ship, and his not allowing the banks to merge saved our bacon this time around.
Mulroney had the balls to implement the GST - which while extremely unpopular, and probably the main reason his party has decimated in the next election, was the most progressive, and likely last statesman-like act any of our PMs have done, as it helped laid the foundation for the prosperity we had in the 90's (it's wasn't solely responsible, but it did help)
What is (will be) Harper's legacy?
Hard to say how if and when Harper will go down politically and in the history books. What Harper has going for him right now is the fact he is at least as good as any of the alternatives and generally speaking he is not a flip flopper.
Except for fixed election dates, not taxing Income trusts, never "choosing winners or losers in industry" (bailing out specific companies), never working with seperatists (except when he needs them), "never under his watch" running a deficit, never talking with the Taliban, being more open and accountable, refusing to appoint Senators, implementing Gomery...
Yeah, I see your point on him not flip flopping....
There's a big difference between flip flopping and changing decisions based on the needs of the time. When I'm talking flip flopping, I'm talking general principals and philosophy (as opposed to people like David Emersona and Belinda Stronich). A smart man lays out a plan in life or in politics, but a smart man also makes amendments where they are necessary. It's very admirable to set a policy of not running a deficit (I do that with home finances), but if it's necessary to change course then he'd be stupid not to, just as I would be if my wife all of a sudden needed a $10000 operation to save her life.
I get what your saying - my issue is more when he (Harper) runs down people that won't say never - and then he does the same thing. For example, when Dion in October refused to say that he would never run a deficit - Harper jumped all over him - and turned that into an election issue. Same with the Income Trust decision (A Conservative gov''t would NEVER raid senior's hard earned nest egg). Even Ignatieff's stance on "not taking tax increases off the table." In my mind - that's a reasonable approach. Coming out saying "Look - he's tax and spend...I will NEVER raise taxes," is the height of stupidity - both for the person who said it - and those who believe it. (One of the reasons I didn't vote Harper in last election is because I KNEW in October that deficit financing could not be off the table, what with the coming recession and all - it was an out right lie (or sheer incompenence - your pick) by Harper for him to say "never")
I don't have a problem with people changing their minds, correcting themselves, saying that they were wrong, and here's why we changed...etc. When has Harper EVER done that? (BTW - releasing 13 pages of blacked out documents detailing tax leakage, or saying "the Liberals did it too!" doesn't count).
This country needs two things in the political arena:
Term limits: nobody is so good that they deserve more than two terms. They should be honest and realistic enough to realize that.
Prime Ministership: If you lived most of your adult life outside of Canada, you need not apply. You may be perceived by your acolytes as a Saviour, if you have any integrity, you WILL step aside.
Are you listening Michael??
Term limits: nobody is so good that they deserve more than two terms. They should be honest and realistic enough to realize that.
Prime Ministership: If you lived most of your adult life outside of Canada, you need not apply. You may be perceived by your acolytes as a Saviour, if you have any integrity, you WILL step aside.
Are you listening Michael??
I didn't hear any bitching andwhining when they did it. People thought it was cool to get another 2k off their taxes. They tried. It didn't work. So they try something else.
Or look it up.
The use increased. Look it up.
You are myopic. It makes it easier for cracking down on people like Blackmore and other people that are 2 or 3 times as old as the kids. Tell me what harm it has done?
Still helps some, doesn't it?
Crock. It's 1+
As I said, if you haven't heard anything good the Harpists have done it's because you haven't bothered to look past what the news has spewed.
Bull. It means that people can't attach a label saying the product is made in Canada if it was only packaged here. If it came from somewhere else it's foreign. Think on it. They have been more food regulation changes but I can't remember what they were.
I don't have to, I remember it, it's weak.
think what you want. My point was that you were wrong that they haven't done ANYTHING good, and I was right. And it was simply because all you heard about what they do was in the little bit of news you hear, most likely. You are like most people, rely on news to tell you what the scene is. Tons of stuff goes on in the background that you miss.
It's because you stated you hadn't sdeen anything Harpy and crew have done that was good. I don't think ANY gov't has been useless, rather that they ALL could have been better but they CHOSE not to be.
I just thought of something else, he trimmed off about 6 or 8% of the size of gov't just about as soon as he figured out where the PMO was. IMO, trimming some fat off an oversized gov't is ALWAYS good.