The end of Canadian conservatism


Tyr
Free Thinker
#1
MacLeans Magazine
Written by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, January 29, 2009

A plausible explanation for the constant "flip-flopping" of Harpo?

How Harper sold out to save himself.

Say what you like about the Tories: they don’t do things by halves. When they spend, they spend. When they go into debt, they do it $100 billion at a time. And when they decide to finish off what remains of conservatism in Canada—as a movement, as a philosophy—they go out with a bang.

We can safely say that the strategy of “incrementalism,” at least, is a thing of the past. With this week’s historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout—a great final leap into the void. Understand: there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country. Whatever the budget’s soothing talk of “temporary” this and “extraordinary” that, and for all its well-mannered charts showing spending obediently returning to its pen, deficits meekly subsiding, multi-billion-dollar “investments” repaid in full, we are in fact headed somewhere we have never been before. We are on course toward a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and—ultimately, inevitably—higher taxes. And all this before the first of the baby boomers have had a chance to retire.


Whether it will prove the country’s undoing, and not just conservatives’, will depend upon events. In its simplest terms, the budget is a “stimulus package” that spills money every which way: $12 billion over two years for infrastructure; almost $8 billion meant to kick-start housing and construction; billions more in forestry, auto and manufacturing aid. The much feared broad-based income tax cuts amounted to lifting the income threshold for the middle and lower brackets. If everything the budget foretells comes to pass, we might not come out of it too badly. A $34-billion deficit next year, after all, is barely two per cent of GDP, and even four years and $85 billion worth of deficits, if the budget’s projections hold, would barely budge our debt-to-GDP ratio. But if they do not—if the economy fails to recover on cue; if inflation spikes when it does, and interest rates soon after; if all those billions in new spending, once in place, do not prove so easy to trim back; if the assets the government acquires with all of its borrowed money do not turn out to be worth what they cost—then we will head into the approaching demographic storm loaded down to the gunwales. It’s a monumental, even reckless gamble.

And whatever its likely consequences for the debt, its effect has already been to ratchet up expectations, to tilt the political landscape toward greater and greater interventionism, to change the very language in which we discuss these things. Again, this is unlikely to be easily reversed. Among the consequences of the end of conservatism will be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to muster a constituency even for restraining the growth of government, let alone rolling it back. When the “right” is defined as $34-billion deficits, record spending, and bailouts for everything in sight—when every other party is to the left of that—people lose the ability to think in any other way. They forget there was ever a contrary view.

Conservatives, then, should think hard about whether they can afford to support this government any longer. Its sole contribution at this point is to limit debate, to rule out of bounds any serious discussion of alternatives, since “even” a Conservative government now believes in an all-pervasive, ever-expanding state. The Conservative experiment—the whole enterprise of “uniting the right” in which conservatives have invested much of the past decade—has reached a dead end. They have not succeeded in replacing the Liberals. They have only succeeded in becoming them. Perhaps, some conservatives will conclude, it would be better if this government were defeated—if the party were to lose power, that it might find itself.

Start with matters that require no prediction, with the fiscal facts on the ground. The coming fiscal year, according to the budget’s own numbers, will see the largest annual increase in spending (with one arguable exception) since at least the Second World War. The $22 billion the Harper government will pile on top of program spending this year, adjusted for inflation and population growth, amounts to an increase of more than 10.1 per cent. That’s a larger rise, in real dollars per citizen, than anything the Trudeau governments ever mustered, even in the heady days of the early 1970s, when they were putting in place the institutions of the modern welfare state. (Its only possible rival is 2005, when spending increased by a similar amount—though its abrupt decline the following year suggests this was as much an accounting achievement as anything else.) For the record, it’s more even than in the infamous first budget of Bob Rae’s Ontario government.

No government in our history has spent this much, this fast. Before this budget, no government had spent more than about $6,000 per citizen, in 2008 dollars—no, not even in the depths of the 1982 recession. This budget blasts through that ceiling, all the way to $6,500, and stays there: four years from now, after the recession is presumably a memory, the government will still be spending nearly $6,400 per capita. At the start of this decade, it was spending just $4,800. Somehow the federal government is now finding ways to spend a third more inflation-adjusted dollars on each of its citizens.

Time for an election to rid ourselves of the trash .
 
VanIsle
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

MacLeans Magazine
Written by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, January 29, 2009

A plausible explanation for the constant "flip-flopping" of Harpo?

How Harper sold out to save himself.

Say what you like about the Tories: they don’t do things by halves. When they spend, they spend. When they go into debt, they do it $100 billion at a time. And when they decide to finish off what remains of conservatism in Canada—as a movement, as a philosophy—they go out with a bang.

We can safely say that the strategy of “incrementalism,” at least, is a thing of the past. With this week’s historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout—a great final leap into the void. Understand: there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country. Whatever the budget’s soothing talk of “temporary” this and “extraordinary” that, and for all its well-mannered charts showing spending obediently returning to its pen, deficits meekly subsiding, multi-billion-dollar “investments” repaid in full, we are in fact headed somewhere we have never been before. We are on course toward a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and—ultimately, inevitably—higher taxes. And all this before the first of the baby boomers have had a chance to retire.


Whether it will prove the country’s undoing, and not just conservatives’, will depend upon events. In its simplest terms, the budget is a “stimulus package” that spills money every which way: $12 billion over two years for infrastructure; almost $8 billion meant to kick-start housing and construction; billions more in forestry, auto and manufacturing aid. The much feared broad-based income tax cuts amounted to lifting the income threshold for the middle and lower brackets. If everything the budget foretells comes to pass, we might not come out of it too badly. A $34-billion deficit next year, after all, is barely two per cent of GDP, and even four years and $85 billion worth of deficits, if the budget’s projections hold, would barely budge our debt-to-GDP ratio. But if they do not—if the economy fails to recover on cue; if inflation spikes when it does, and interest rates soon after; if all those billions in new spending, once in place, do not prove so easy to trim back; if the assets the government acquires with all of its borrowed money do not turn out to be worth what they cost—then we will head into the approaching demographic storm loaded down to the gunwales. It’s a monumental, even reckless gamble.

And whatever its likely consequences for the debt, its effect has already been to ratchet up expectations, to tilt the political landscape toward greater and greater interventionism, to change the very language in which we discuss these things. Again, this is unlikely to be easily reversed. Among the consequences of the end of conservatism will be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to muster a constituency even for restraining the growth of government, let alone rolling it back. When the “right” is defined as $34-billion deficits, record spending, and bailouts for everything in sight—when every other party is to the left of that—people lose the ability to think in any other way. They forget there was ever a contrary view.

Conservatives, then, should think hard about whether they can afford to support this government any longer. Its sole contribution at this point is to limit debate, to rule out of bounds any serious discussion of alternatives, since “even” a Conservative government now believes in an all-pervasive, ever-expanding state. The Conservative experiment—the whole enterprise of “uniting the right” in which conservatives have invested much of the past decade—has reached a dead end. They have not succeeded in replacing the Liberals. They have only succeeded in becoming them. Perhaps, some conservatives will conclude, it would be better if this government were defeated—if the party were to lose power, that it might find itself.

Start with matters that require no prediction, with the fiscal facts on the ground. The coming fiscal year, according to the budget’s own numbers, will see the largest annual increase in spending (with one arguable exception) since at least the Second World War. The $22 billion the Harper government will pile on top of program spending this year, adjusted for inflation and population growth, amounts to an increase of more than 10.1 per cent. That’s a larger rise, in real dollars per citizen, than anything the Trudeau governments ever mustered, even in the heady days of the early 1970s, when they were putting in place the institutions of the modern welfare state. (Its only possible rival is 2005, when spending increased by a similar amount—though its abrupt decline the following year suggests this was as much an accounting achievement as anything else.) For the record, it’s more even than in the infamous first budget of Bob Rae’s Ontario government.

No government in our history has spent this much, this fast. Before this budget, no government had spent more than about $6,000 per citizen, in 2008 dollars—no, not even in the depths of the 1982 recession. This budget blasts through that ceiling, all the way to $6,500, and stays there: four years from now, after the recession is presumably a memory, the government will still be spending nearly $6,400 per capita. At the start of this decade, it was spending just $4,800. Somehow the federal government is now finding ways to spend a third more inflation-adjusted dollars on each of its citizens.

Time for an election to rid ourselves of the trash .

And what insane thought do you have that says any government would do it differently? Every country in the world and every government is doing the same but you are foolish enough to believe it could be any different in Canada at this time. It's a news article = one person's opinion. Big deal. It is not time for an election. It is time to get on with the problems of the country rather then waste time and money on an un-necessary election. The conservatives would win it anyway.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Islandpacific View Post

And what insane thought do you have that says any government would do it differently? Every country in the world and every government is doing the same but you are foolish enough to believe it could be any different in Canada at this time. It's a news article = one person's opinion. Big deal. It is not time for an election. It is time to get on with the problems of the country rather then waste time and money on an un-necessary election. The conservatives would win it anyway.

It is time to get on with the problems of the country

...and at this juncture, the Number one problem is the leader (or lack thereof). Getting rid of the biggest problem will make all o fthe other problems pale in comparison and they will fall into line.

The current polls have the Cons and the Liberals in a dead heat (some have the Liberals slightly ahead), but some of the backwoods masses actually believe in their own insanity and delusional love for Harpo.

For the Conservatives to stop a Liberal majority in the upcoming election, they have to get a "real" leader, not someone out to save his own skin at the expense of the party.

Unfortunately they have precious few people "on the bench" who are even remotely leaders.

There will always be those that vote Conservative no matter what (or for what reason) and there will always be a large percentage of the population who will vote with their heads and that's how gov't's live and die.

If there were an election called today, the Conservatives would be luck to get 50 seats
 
mt_pockets1000
#4
The latest polls...

Harper is going to need chiropractic attention on his neck from looking back over his shoulder at the Liberal advance. Oh well, soon he'll be looking straight ahead at the back end of the Liberals as they steadily climb towards victory.
 
VanIsle
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

It is time to get on with the problems of the country

...and at this juncture, the Number one problem is the leader (or lack thereof). Getting rid of the biggest problem will make all o fthe other problems pale in comparison and they will fall into line.

The current polls have the Cons and the Liberals in a dead heat (some have the Liberals slightly ahead), but some of the backwoods masses actually believe in their own insanity and delusional love for Harpo.

For the Conservatives to stop a Liberal majority in the upcoming election, they have to get a "real" leader, not someone out to save his own skin at the expense of the party.

Unfortunately they have precious few people "on the bench" who are even remotely leaders.

There will always be those that vote Conservative no matter what (or for what reason) and there will always be a large percentage of the population who will vote with their heads and that's how gov't's live and die.

If there were an election called today, the Conservatives would be luck to get 50 seats

Well tyr, I still disagree with you. I will concede though, that if, for example I listened to Inatieff and believed he was the one to run the country, I would vote for him. I don't vote for a party just to vote a party in. I vote for who I think will get the job done. Right now, I'm good with the "devil I know". I think lots of people feel the same way. Ignatieff has not had anything to say that has swayed me into thinking he is the man for the job. Maybe one day that will change.
There are no chiropractors needed for Steven Harper (this to the other lib. poster). The country might need one as do all the others as they turn to watch what each one is doing right and wrong. Everyone has eyes on all places in the hope that someone will find the answer to this mess the world is in. Changing leaders mid stream is not the answer.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#6
I was going to write something good (at least not unkind)about the Conservatives. You know, I can't think of a single good thing the Conservatives have done for this country. The farthest I can go back is John Diefenbaker. Dief was elected in 1958 with a huge majority of 202 seats. One of the first things Dief did was to cancel the Arrow. He did a lot of other unpopular things and his majority was gone in three years. Mulroney put the country in horrible debt that we are still paying. I think we elect the conservatives every so often when we forget why we shouldn't elect them.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

You know, I can't think of a single good thing the Conservatives have done for this country.

The GST and free trade spring to mind. I know...I know...the GST was unpopular and many people can't understand the benefits of free trade but lack of understanding and positive feelings doesn't negate the positive impacts of both.
 
coldstream
#8
What we are seeing now, in an economic collapse that is just in its first stages. Is the profound failure of Classic British Liberalism, that of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus. It has become known as neo-conservatism, or neo-liberalism or Reaganomics and a host of other names.. but it all falls into the same ideology of free trade, free markets, laissez faire dergulation, dismantling of the sovereingty of the nation state, monetarism. It has ruled the world for 40 years, since the dismantling of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971 and it has utterly failed in an economic and moral sense.

Real conservatism has imperatives of national sovereignty, mustering of productive forces to create full employment, which require currency stability, protective tarriffs, credit availibility, liquidity.. all of which are sabatoged by mindless free market theories and 'invisible hand' rhetoric.

Harper is not smart enough to realize it. He thinks by making some adjustments and waiting out a 'correction' he can move full bore back into his Free Market agenda. That's not going to happen. In a year he will out of office. But i'm not sure his replacements realize how catastrophically this neo-conservative model is failing.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

The GST and free trade spring to mind. I know...I know...the GST was unpopular and many people can't understand the benefits of free trade but lack of understanding and positive feelings doesn't negate the positive impacts of both.

By my information free trade gave us a net job loss. Remember softwood lumber? and free trade author Mulroney left us up to our ears in debt....Sorry I can't cheer with you.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

The GST and free trade spring to mind. I know...I know...the GST was unpopular and many people can't understand the benefits of free trade but lack of understanding and positive feelings doesn't negate the positive impacts of both.

The current Conservative gov't did do ONE positive thing. It increased military spending. Balancing that against the dozens of insane and arcane things it has done though is another matter
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000 View Post

The latest polls...

Harper is going to need chiropractic attention on his neck from looking back over his shoulder at the Liberal advance. Oh well, soon he'll be looking straight ahead at the back end of the Liberals as they steadily climb towards victory.


There is nothing startling about this, for the past several years, after the prolonged Liberal rule, the country has been evenly divided. Indeed, it is an indication of how weak a leader Harper is that Conservatives have not been able to get a majority, after the last prolonged Liberal rule, Mulroney managed two back to back majorities. Even with such a weak Liberal leader as Dion, Harper failed to get a majority. When Conservatives had a really weak leader (Stockwell Day), Chrétien wiped the floor with him.

During the recent turmoil, conservatives shot up in the polls and were briefly in a majority territory. But it turns out that it was not so much Conservative popularity, as the fact that people did not like the shenanigans by the opposition. Now that the turmoil is over, we are back to the two parties being neck and neck.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

What we are seeing now, in an economic collapse that is just in its first stages. Is the profound failure of Classic British Liberalism, that of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus. It has become known as neo-conservatism, or neo-liberalism or Reaganomics and a host of other names.. but it all falls into the same ideology of free trade, free markets, laissez faire dergulation, dismantling of the sovereingty of the nation state, monetarism. It has ruled the world for 40 years, since the dismantling of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971 and it has utterly failed in an economic and moral sense.

Real conservatism has imperatives of national sovereignty, mustering of productive forces to create full employment, which require currency stability, protective tarriffs, credit availibility, liquidity.. all of which are sabatoged by mindless free market theories and 'invisible hand' rhetoric.

Harper is not smart enough to realize it. He thinks by making some adjustments and waiting out a 'correction' he can move full bore back into his Free Market agenda. That's not going to happen. In a year he will out of office. But i'm not sure his replacements realize how catastrophically this neo-conservative model is failing.

Harper is not smart enough to realize it. He thinks by making some adjustments and waiting out a 'correction' he can move full bore back into his Free Market agenda. That's not going to happen. In a year he will out of office. But i'm not sure his replacements realize how catastrophically this neo-conservative model is failing

Hence, the need for him to go before he causes any more irreversible damage. Worst case... pick a new Conservative Leader. Best option.. have an election and HOPEFULLY Liberals will get a majority and if not at least a "working" agreement with the NDP. The second worst thing that can happen in the next election would be a minority Liberal gov't. The Worst thing possible... another minority Conservative gov't
 
barney
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

What we are seeing now, in an economic collapse that is just in its first stages. Is the profound failure of Classic British Liberalism, that of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus. It has become known as neo-conservatism, or neo-liberalism or Reaganomics and a host of other names.. but it all falls into the same ideology of free trade, free markets, laissez faire dergulation, dismantling of the sovereingty of the nation state, monetarism. It has ruled the world for 40 years, since the dismantling of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971 and it has utterly failed in an economic and moral sense.

Real conservatism has imperatives of national sovereignty, mustering of productive forces to create full employment, which require currency stability, protective tarriffs, credit availibility, liquidity.. all of which are sabatoged by mindless free market theories and 'invisible hand' rhetoric.

Harper is not smart enough to realize it. He thinks by making some adjustments and waiting out a 'correction' he can move full bore back into his Free Market agenda. That's not going to happen. In a year he will out of office. But i'm not sure his replacements realize how catastrophically this neo-conservative model is failing.

Nice post. (Except maybe the part about Harper not being smart enough. Harper's may not be genius material but the man has an understanding of his field. The problem is his field and the mentality that dominates it.)

The Conservatives are in a situation where they really have no choice but to do what they're doing--given their stance on things. (There are certainly a lot of good ideas out there but they aren't acceptable to the dominant line of thinking.)

In other words yes, the Liberals would be (will be) doing pretty much the same thing.

As I said elsewhere, getting rid of Dion was a mistake but what's done is done.

Thing is, Ignatief's people are no more humanitarian than Harper's people, and humanitarianist policies will become absolutely essential if what some say is going to happen happens.

I suppose if I were politically affiliated I'd say the NDP are the obvious choice in this particular kind of situation; ironically, in this light the NDP is actually the most "conservative" of all parties. Only they really have to get their act together first.
 
mt_pockets1000
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

There is nothing startling about this, for the past several years, after the prolonged Liberal rule, the country has been evenly divided. Indeed, it is an indication of how weak a leader Harper is that Conservatives have not been able to get a majority, after the last prolonged Liberal rule, Mulroney managed two back to back majorities. Even with such a weak Liberal leader as Dion, Harper failed to get a majority. When Conservatives had a really weak leader (Stockwell Day), Chrétien wiped the floor with him.

During the recent turmoil, conservatives shot up in the polls and were briefly in a majority territory. But it turns out that it was not so much Conservative popularity, as the fact that people did not like the shenanigans by the opposition. Now that the turmoil is over, we are back to the two parties being neck and neck.

It doesn't startle me in the least. It humors me though. It's just the natural progression of the conservative ways. They get into power, spend a whack of money, run the country into debt and then the voting public sends them out to pasture once again. This trend will continue until the Cons get it right.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#15
It's just the natural progression of the conservative ways. They get into power, spend a whack of money, run the country into debt and then the voting public sends them out to pasture once again.

Unfortunately, people have short memories. After Liberals governed for 13 years, Mulroney years were a distant, fading memory. The economy was roaring along when Paul Martin was defeated. Voters probably thought that no matter who is in power, the economy will continue to perform well. They took good economy for granted, and thought that good times will continue even under Conservatives.

The same thing happened in USA in 2000. By then the economy was very robust, thanks to Clinton. The memory of Bush days and the economic havoc he wreaked had faded away. Again, voters took the economy for granted; they probably thought that no matter who is elected, Gore or Bush, economy will continue to perform well.

Well, the voters were in for a rude awakening, both in USA and here. But if you look at history, that has been the pattern. Conservatives makes a royal mess of economy (Reagan, Bush, Mulroney, Mike Harris here in Ontario). As a result, liberals are elected and sort out the economy (Clinton, Chrétien/Martin, McGuinty). Then people forget about the horrendous economy under the conservatives, vote in the conservatives (Bush the 2nd, Harper, and who know who will be elected in Ontario the next time) and the whole madness starts over again.
 
barney
#16
Try not to give people credit when it isn't due; the Chretien years were not "good" because the Liberals were in power but rather because of economic circumstances beyond their control. They just rode the wave like everyone else. The criticism of Harper is based on how his government didn't respond as it should have given the circumstances.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#17
the Chrétien years were not "good" because the Liberals were in power but rather because of economic circumstances beyond their control

Barney, that may be your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I remember it differently. Liberals inherited a deficit of 40 billion $. One of their first acts was to set specific targets for deficit, decreasing targets eventually leading to balanced budget.

The press was frankly skeptical; the press did not believe them. But Liberals were confident that they will meet the targets. When asked by a skeptical reporter what they would do if they did not meet the target, Martin’s reply was a confident “we will meet them.”

And Liberals took many necessary but unpleasant measures to reduce the deficit, for that they got plenty of flak from the left (for reducing spending) and from the right (for raising taxes). The surplus that Liberals achieved was the result of hard work and determination, though economic conditions may well have worked in their favour.

They just rode the wave like everyone else.

Really? And exactly which wave were Liberals riding in 2000 - 2005 when USA was running huge deficits under Bush, but Chrétien was running healthy surpluses here in Canada? If we had conservative rule at that time, you may be sure that they would have blindly followed Bush and racked up huge deficits here, as they did in USA during 2000 – 2008.

What Liberals achieved was the result of hard work, determination (to cut spending and raise taxes) and sound fiscal management, aided perhaps by some luck. But Liberals were managing our economy in a sound fiscal manner, while in USA they were pushing their economy into the ditch under Bush.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000 View Post

The latest polls...

Harper is going to need chiropractic attention on his neck from looking back over his shoulder at the Liberal advance. Oh well, soon he'll be looking straight ahead at the back end of the Liberals as they steadily climb towards victory.


Source: https://www.angusreidforum.com/Admin...iBudgetARF.pdf

Voting Intention: Con. 38%, Lib. 29%, NDP 18%, BQ 8%, Grn. 6%
The Tories and the NDP maintain their respective share of the vote in the October 2008 federal
contest, the Bloc and the Greens are slightly below their total in the last federal ballot, and the
Liberals remain above the 26 per cent they received under Stéphane Dion last year.



 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#19
Ron, that was Strategic Council poll (which showed Libs and Cons neck and neck), yours is Angus Reid poll. I suppose which poll one chooses to believe depends upon whether one is a Liberal or Conservative.

Either way, Conservative majority seems to have disappeared.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#20
I just went with the one that I participated in, and the results just happened
to be in my Email when I got home tonight.
 
barney
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

The surplus that Liberals achieved was the result of hard work and determination, though economic conditions may well have worked in their favour.

They sacrificed a lot for that balanced budget. Deficits exist for a reason: they are usually reflective of a defective economy. Eliminating it is not going to deal with the cause behind it.

My comment was really more in reference to the interests behind their actions (i.e. the interests of the oligarchy): reducing government (read: more state assets into private hands) has a tendency to be the reason for 'balancing.'

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Really? And exactly which wave were Liberals riding in 2000 - 2005 when USA was running huge deficits under Bush, but Chrétien was running healthy surpluses here in Canada? If we had conservative rule at that time, you may be sure that they would have blindly followed Bush and racked up huge deficits here, as they did in USA during 2000 – 2008.

IMO the idea that our economy was doing well is erroneous (i.e. surpluses are not an indicator of a healthy economy any more than GDP is). The "wave" I spoke of was a general global market trend, it just manifested--and is manifesting itself--differently in different economies. Though it may have exasperated it, the continuous policy BS of the Bush administration was not responsible for the present crisis; it has been in the works for a while now.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I just went with the one that I participated in, and the results just happened
to be in my Email when I got home tonight.

Were you polled for the Angus Reid poll? Wow, I haven't known anybody before who has participated in an opinion poll.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#23
Though it may have exasperated it, the continuous policy BS of the Bush administration was not responsible for the present crisis; it has been in the works for a while now.

That is your opinion, Barney, in my opinion, Bush was largely responsible for the current economic crises. He did two things that contributed mightily to it.

First, he gave tax cuts, mostly to the rich and converted what was a healthy surplus into huge deficits. He basically stimulated the economy on borrowed money, it was the classic conservative ‘borrow and spend’ philosophy. Bush was already running huge deficits, so when it was really necessary to stimulate the economy (as in current economic crises), the deficits became truly astronomical.

The other factor was that Bush deregulated everything, Bush has not come across a regulation that he liked (unless it was in social issues, there he did not come across a regulation he didn’t like, he wanted to ban everything, ban abortion, ban contraception, ban teaching of evolution, ban stem cell research etc.).

One result of the deregulation was the sub prime fiasco, which affected not only USA, but many other countries, where the banks were foolish enough to buy the sub prime mortgages from American banks (fortunately Canadian banks did not participate in the madness to any appreciable extent). Sub prime crises was what started the current economic meltdown.

I squarely blame Bush for the current economic fiasco. Evidently so did the Americans, that was why Republicans were routed in the recent election.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

By my information free trade gave us a net job loss.

Your information is wrong.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Were you polled for the Angus Reid poll? Wow, I haven't known anybody before who has participated in an opinion poll.


Sir, I'm going to assume you're not being sarcastic in your statement.
I registered online about a year ago. I'm in several survey polls for
Angus Reid every month. Most of them are truly bizarre....

They'll cover many different subjects in the same survey. You might
be answering questions about your political perceptions and leanings,
your favorite beverages, and brand name recognition for retail chains
all in the same survey. They boil down the results, and you get Emails
of the results an a regular basis.

Many of the surveys are over in a few qualifying questions as I (or you)
may not fit into the demographic of whatever survey they happen to be
running at any given time.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#26
Sir, I'm going to assume you're not being sarcastic in your statement.

I was not being sarcastic Ron, sorry if I gave that impression.
 
barney
#27
SJP on Bush: No argument except for the blame part. Sure there were huge "mistakes" and they caused plenty of problems, but there have been signs throughout the past two decades (more actually but I won't get into it) that this was going to happen. To place the blame on some profiteers is not realistic IMO.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I just went with the one that I participated in, and the results just happened
to be in my Email when I got home tonight.

that poll is 3 weeks old.
 
mt_pockets1000
#29
Expect an upswing in Harper's standings in the polls because of Obama's visit. Unfortunately, he won't be able to bask in the glow of Obama's greatness for too long since it's only a 6 hour visit. Then it's back to business as usual for Harper and his gang as they watch the slow decline in the polls eventually eat away at their very foundation.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mt_pockets1000 View Post

...bask in the glow of Obama's greatness ....

Do you have a poster of Barack over your bed?
 

Similar Threads

8
Taxation?Liberalism?Conservatism?Capitalism?
by sombraa110 | Apr 24th, 2010
0
Canadian Conservatism
by Jersay | Jan 9th, 2006