Deficit Spending

[Trex]

By cutting gov't funding to political parties, the Conservatives have basically "remade" the environment by which elections are run. The party that is able to generate hte most nmoney has the best chance of winning irregardless of who they are (most people vote automatically for one party or another "just because". You can run a Conservative three legged goat in Alberta and it'sll win. Run a Bloc candidate in Quebec and the chances are good they'll be elected. It's the "swing" votes in BC and Ontario that make or break governments.

Back to the funding. Corporations donate to party "X". Party "X" wins the election. Now they are beholden to those that got them there. We will now have the abject cronyism that is exhibited in the US (particularly during the last eight yrs) and we as Canadians tend to be a little brighter and see through the bull---.

If not... Can we expect to see the next parliment draped in a corporate logo and brought to you by Exxon? That's what the conservatives seem to want

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No your completely and utterly wrong about that.
That's what the liberals want.
And they freely admit it.
Its all public record.
What you want or think has nothing to do with reality.
What the Conservatives want and have supported is the following:
No corporate or business donations.
No lobbyist donations.
No rich dude donations.
Limited amounts ($1100 max) of individual taxpayer donations.
That's it.
Period.
Signed ,sealed and delivered.
Its well understood and public record.

The Liberals want: unlimited corporate donations.
The Liberals want : Unlimited rich, fat cat donations.
The Liberals want : unlisted and unlimited lobbyist donations.
The Liberals want: Completely unlisted and unregistered donations.

You may not like it.
But it is what it is.
It's public record.
Its Liberal platform.
You cant rewrite history.
Join the Lib party membership and complain if you don't like it.

Trex

 

[Socrates the Greek]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No your completely and utterly wrong about that.
That's what the liberals want.
And they freely admit it.
Its all public record.
What you want or think has nothing to do with reality.
What the Conservatives want and have supported is the following:
No corporate or business donations.
No lobbyist donations.
No rich dude donations.
Limited amounts ($1100 max) of individual taxpayer donations.
That's it.
Period.
Signed ,sealed and delivered.
Its well understood and public record.

The Liberals want: unlimited corporate donations.
The Liberals want : Unlimited rich, fat cat donations.
The Liberals want : unlisted and unlimited lobbyist donations.
The Liberals want: Completely unlisted and unregistered donations.

You may not like it.
But it is what it is.
It's public record.
Its Liberal platform.
You cant rewrite history.
Join the Lib party membership and complain if you don't like it.

Trex

Hey Trex bla bla bla the Coalition is right behind your Cheating Cons.
That will be a rude awakening for your Cons.... Don’t think for a minute that the Cons are indispensable.......They are about to get humiliated.….

 

[Colpy]

By cutting gov't funding to political parties, the Conservatives have basically "remade" the environment by which elections are run. The party that is able to generate hte most nmoney has the best chance of winning irregardless of who they are (most people vote automatically for one party or another "just because". You can run a Conservative three legged goat in Alberta and it'sll win. Run a Bloc candidate in Quebec and the chances are good they'll be elected. It's the "swing" votes in BC and Ontario that make or break governments.

Back to the funding. Corporations donate to party "X". Party "X" wins the election. Now they are beholden to those that got them there. We will now have the abject cronyism that is exhibited in the US (particularly during the last eight yrs) and we as Canadians tend to be a little brighter and see through the bull---.

If not... Can we expect to see the next parliment draped in a corporate logo and brought to you by Exxon? That's what the conservatives seem to want

No, because large corporate donations are now illegal. Period.

The Conservative Party runs on small donations given by tens of thousands of individuals.

Perhaps other Party members should step up to the plate........instead of screaming like a baby when they are pulled off the public teat.

And, BTW, by FAR the greatest receiver of large corporate donations was always.....the Liberal Party

Jean the Don illegalized large corporate donations to cripple the Liberal Party......because he knew Martin was taking over.

Scumballs to the core.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

No, because large corporate donations are now illegal. Period.

The Conservative Party runs on small donations given by tens of thousands of individuals.

Perhaps other Party members should step up to the plate........instead of screaming like a baby when they are pulled off the public teat.

And, BTW, by FAR the greatest receiver of large corporate donations was always.....the Liberal Party

Jean the Don illegalized large corporate donations to cripple the Liberal Party......because he knew Martin was taking over.

Scumballs to the core.

Hey Colpy you want to see real scum balls to the core look two directions, one south of the boarder we see the humiliation Harpers Con buddy Bush has faced, and the biggest scum balls in Canada are running Ottawa with a Chicken Little mandate......
The Collision is possible and the real scum ball will move out of Sussex drive soon.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Hey Colpy you want to see real scum balls to the core look two directions, one south of the boarder we see the humiliation Harpers Con buddy Bush has faced, and the biggest scum balls in Canada are running Ottawa with a Chicken Little mandate......
The Collision is possible and the real scum ball will move out of Sussex drive soon.

Socrates....we ain't seen nothing yet. Scumballs are like snowballs rolling down a hill; they
don't get smaller as time goes by. New standards of Scumballery will be set in the not too
distant future...regardless of who wins.

 

[L Gilbert]

Look man it has nothing to do with waste, it has to do with kicking the opponent when he is on the ground......Harper has no F UKING BUSINESS TELLING THE PUBLIC NOT TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEIR PARTY. HE DOESN’T HAVE THAT RIGHT. GET THAT IN YOU SMALL HEAD.. NOTHING NOTHING AT ALL, IT HAS TO DO WITH STARVING THE OPPOSITION FROM CASH..... F

Harper isn't telling the public not to support their particular party. He is telling the public that the gov't won't supply any funding for the parties. Big diff between telling people what they can't do with their own money and telling people that the gov't won't waste their money on things. The parties should bloody well find their own funding and not use public money for it.

 

[L Gilbert]

By cutting gov't funding to political parties, the Conservatives have basically "remade" the environment by which elections are run. The party that is able to generate hte most nmoney has the best chance of winning irregardless of who they are (most people vote automatically for one party or another "just because". You can run a Conservative three legged goat in Alberta and it'sll win. Run a Bloc candidate in Quebec and the chances are good they'll be elected. It's the "swing" votes in BC and Ontario that make or break governments.

Back to the funding. Corporations donate to party "X". Party "X" wins the election. Now they are beholden to those that got them there. We will now have the abject cronyism that is exhibited in the US (particularly during the last eight yrs) and we as Canadians tend to be a little brighter and see through the bull---.

If not... Can we expect to see the next parliment draped in a corporate logo and brought to you by Exxon? That's what the conservatives seem to want

Parties get corporate money anyway. The only difference I see here is that the parties won't be getting public funding.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Harper isn't telling the public not to support their particular party. He is telling the public that the gov't won't supply any funding for the parties. Big diff between telling people what they can't do with their own money and telling people that the gov't won't waste their money on things. The parties should bloody well find their own funding and not use public money for it.

Good day Gilbert I did miss present my facts on that post, just rushing to get in and small mistake in my part I truly apologize to you and others on that note. I am fully aware of the Cons are up to..
They are rotten to the core, cheats to the core, and now that the Coalition is up and running THE Con days are numbered…………………….You can take that to the bank….

 

[L Gilbert]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the Conservatives want and have supported is the following:
No corporate or business donations.
No lobbyist donations.
No rich dude donations.
Limited amounts ($1100 max) of individual taxpayer donations.
That's it.
Period.
Signed ,sealed and delivered.
Its well understood and public record.

That sounds perfectly fine to me. Then parties actually have to win the majority of PEOPLE over and can't count on corps., donations from the rich, etc. And now they can't depend on gov't funding to run their campaigns. Sounds delightful to me. But I can understand why the various parties are snivelling, they are losing public money to play with.

The Liberals want: unlimited corporate donations.
The Liberals want : Unlimited rich, fat cat donations.
The Liberals want : unlisted and unlimited lobbyist donations.
The Liberals want: Completely unlisted and unregistered donations.

.... and I bet the Naive Dense Pussies and Bloc-heads would love it, too.

 

[L Gilbert]

Good day Gilbert I did miss present my facts on that post, just rushing to get in and small mistake in my part I truly apologize to you and others on that note. I am fully aware of the Cons are up to..
They are rotten to the core, cheats to the core, and now that the Coalition is up and running THE Con days are numbered…………………….You can take that to the bank….

Yep. Cons, Glibs, Naive Dense Pussies, Bloc-heads, etc. They are all the same. Rotten to the core and whatever else you said.

 

[Tyr]

"We Will not run a deficit"

How is it that everyone saw the recession looming and Stevie and his playpal Jim F went merry along in their delusional economic world.

I guess they're just unseasoned or unskilled (Harper claims to be an economist, but obviously not much of one)

"This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10)



"If you don't want a carbon tax and tax increases and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 12)

"We may well be in a technical recession."

- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Nov. 23)

"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

"I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 6)

"We will not run a deficit."

- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Oct. 9)

"If we do short-term deficit spending as a deliberate policy we will have to be able to demonstrate to Canadians that those deficits will genuinely be short term."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 15)

"The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23)

 

[Tyr]

. Then parties actually have to win the majority of PEOPLE over and can't count on corps., donations from the rich, etc.

If you think the parties don't count on and get huge corporate donations, you are extremely naive. that will not change with Harper's budget. Although he may say that, he says alot of things that are patently false. That's what makes him so attractive to the far right

 

[Socrates the Greek]

No, you wake up you stupid little ****, this is a political stunt by a bunch of bullies who should be focused on the economic crisis by trying to unite parliament in this dire situation instead of trying to unnecessarily dismantle it.

Tell your cons to grow up.:roll:

Thanks Avro..........

 

[L Gilbert]

Tyr, of course they count on those donations. That's what I am saying. As of yet though, Harper is the only one I have heard to mention disrupting that practise. As for actually putting what he says into effect, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Colpy]

. Then parties actually have to win the majority of PEOPLE over and can't count on corps., donations from the rich, etc.

If you think the parties don't count on and get huge corporate donations, you are extremely naive. that will not change with Harper's budget. Although he may say that, he says alot of things that are patently false. That's what makes him so attractive to the far right

Okay, Tyr...Liberal. Listen up......

Large Corporate Donations are illegal.

Should I repeat that???

Illegal.

 

[Risus]

Okay, Tyr...Liberal. Listen up......

Large Corporate Donations are illegal.

Should I repeat that???

Illegal.

Colpy, its a waste of time, they can't think, let alone read...

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Risus, do you keep duplicate replies in a buffer somewhere so that you do not have to think?
scratch

Hahahahahah:lol::lol::lol: right on mate....

 

[scratch]

Well,,,it is possible.

 

[Tyr]

For a person of your advanced age Colby, I wouldn't think you would be such a political neophyte. Being naive about the workings of politics is a good thing though. You still have faith in Mom, spot the Dog and that Mulroney really didn't take those millions in a paer bag



Okay, Tyr...Liberal. Listen up......

Large Corporate Donations are illegal.


ps. You probably think Bernard Lord was "a really cool guy", just misunderstood....

 

[Tyr]

Scratch;


Risus, do you keep duplicate replies in a buffer somewhere so that you do not have to think?

You give Risus far too much credit for thinking. He seems to pretty much spout whatever 'ol Colby tell him too. Good lapdog....​