Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
I think you're dead right, Juan. Iggy has a definite advantage over Harpy here. No-one knows what he'd be like as a PM and people are well-versed in what Harpy's like; I think he's at least a better speaker than Harpy, if not smarter; Harpy has a personality like a rock in comparison to Iggy; Iggy doesn't resort to personal attacks as much as Harpy, prefering to point out failures of Harpy's gov't; etc. He's got a fairly easy job to do, and that's make himself popular enough. Harpy's got a rather tougher job of it. He's got to try to gain popularity in a country that's predominantly liberal, his gov't keeps doing dumb things (not to say liberals haven't done their share), etc.
Canada has done ok. We could have done immensely better, though.
I admire the Swiss gov't because the power doesn't lie in gov't; it lies in the people. It's been one of the most stablest gov'ts on the planet for decades. Who gives a crap what happened in 1971 besides historians? Germany used to be run my a lunatic. The USA used to be run by sensible people. It was..., they used to be..., etc. sort of comments are only relevant as stepping stones to what they are NOW.
There is a lot of truth in what you say Gil. I don't think a lot of people were in love with Harper even before he lost control of Flaherty. A lot of people will relate the burgeoning debt to another Conservative named Mulroney, and nobody wants a return of that. I think Harper is seen to be failing and Ignatieff couldn't pick an easier opponent than Harper if he tried.
And that makes me extremely wary of Iggy's timing and motive. I am simply not built to be the sort that sees a person and starts drooling over them like a few here, nor am I the sort of hateful type to choose so-and-so over whatsisname just because of some silly delusional party thing.
You really are something else juan.... You have, in your mind, assessed the entire blame for the debt on Flaherty and Mulroney and accidentally ignored the grand-daddy of 'em all.
Can you guess who this might be?
BTW - Iggy did pick one easier opponent - his name is Stephan Dion
I would like to think that if Ignatieff is successful in acquiring a majority in parliament, it will be as a result of a chain of serendipitous events not excluding the fact that Ignatieff is seen as a more desirable leader than Harper. Any time I've seen Ignatieff interviewed he came across as an honest guy who answered questions directly, without any spin. I could be wrong.
As I periodically mention; I hope for the best but expect the worst. I am never disappointed.
You are going to say Trudeau.
Trudeau left a debt of 200 billion so he was not without blame. Mulroney, without a gun to his head, added forty or fifty billion to the debt every year he was in office. When Kim Campbell handed the reins over to Chretien, the debt was close to 600 billion. Chretien, over the next three years, knocked down the deficit and actually paid down some of the debt. That is what happened and you can't change it.
Consider all of the tangible factors associated with the debt accumulation juan. There will be differences ranging from the economic conditions at the time to what the money was spent on.
In reality, there is not one single (contemporary) Canadian leader that didn't add to the debt. However, look deeper into the timing and all of the variables and you soon see which politicians made good decisions and which ones made poor decisions. Nonetheless, you point to Chretein and the positive impact he made... Ask yourself this, if Chretein was able to make progress during an uptick in the economy, what is Trudeau's excuse as he was in power during many years of prosperity as well?.. No matter how you cut it, he made disasterous decisions.
As an example, you rail at Harper and Flaherty for 50 billion in wasted money. To my knowledge, a big % of that money is going to the auto sector. You (or I) can opine as to the wisdom in this allocation, however, I believe that no one will disagree on the premise that if they close their doors, that tens of thousands of jobs will be directly lost. Combine that with those industries and business' that depend on the auto mfgrs and those numbers may potentially rise to over a hunderd thousand.
... So what do you believe should be done? Are we better-off to lose the industry and have to spend the billions on EI and welfare or keep the doors open and preserve the sector?
I'll tell you right now, if the liberals were in power today, they would be paying-out as much, and probably more, in order to achieve these ends... Factor in the pork-barrelling and the standard scandals which seem to follow the liberal party everywhere and that # morphs into a behemoth.
In reality, there is not one single (contemporary) Canadian leader that didn't add to the debt. However, look deeper into the timing and all of the variables and you soon see which politicians made good decisions and which ones made poor decisions. Nonetheless, you point to Chretein and the positive impact he made... Ask yourself this, if Chretein was able to make progress during an uptick in the economy, what is Trudeau's excuse as he was in power during many years of prosperity as well?.. No matter how you cut it, he made disasterous decisions.
As an example, you rail at Harper and Flaherty for 50 billion in wasted money. To my knowledge, a big % of that money is going to the auto sector. You (or I) can opine as to the wisdom in this allocation, however, I believe that no one will disagree on the premise that if they close their doors, that tens of thousands of jobs will be directly lost. Combine that with those industries and business' that depend on the auto mfgrs and those numbers may potentially rise to over a hunderd thousand.
... So what do you believe should be done? Are we better-off to lose the industry and have to spend the billions on EI and welfare or keep the doors open and preserve the sector?
I'll tell you right now, if the liberals were in power today, they would be paying-out as much, and probably more, in order to achieve these ends... Factor in the pork-barrelling and the standard scandals which seem to follow the liberal party everywhere and that # morphs into a behemoth.
Forgot to mention this: Regarding Trudeau's 200 billion, do you care to guess what the applicable (average) interest rate is on this money?
That little detail does have a large impact.
Yeah, I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable with Ignatieff as leader, kind of ironic but I think he, Dion and Rae are all duds as far as P.M. material goes although Rae does display some statesman like qualities.
Just to create a level playing field when it comes to polls the encumbant is at a 5%-10% disadvantage to begin with and should and if he comes up only 5 points behind he's actually ahead of the game.
If it were me, I'd have poured money into manufacturing businesses that were relatively young, ambitious, and had somewhat of a future in what they were doing, like auto manufacturers that would hire auto workers, but were more into making vehicles that don't use gas (or very little). Harper failed miserably in looking to the future.
Iggy seems to want to spend a lot of money on people already not working rather than do something to help them get work. I really don't like either of them.
I can't disagree with you, however, I will say this. The auto mfgrs (individually) are large employers and the myriad of business that supply them is even larger. While there is strength in your vision, this event does require an immediate response - developing that possible technology will incorporate a time-lag that will essentially have the same effect as not bailing-out the car companies.
Either way, you're screwed.
You think that the aftermarket suppliers of auto parts would be of no use to manufacturers making futuristic vehicles? I'd suggest that combustion engines won't disappear overnight. Body parts will still be needed, chassis, suspensions, etc, too.
Well, as far as time lags goes, I don't see GM and Chrysler hiring people back by the dozens, so what's going on with the money they have been given?
Speaking of looking to the future, putting money into the economy also risks inflation later. Would we not want to have a way of reigning that money in somehow later?
What we could have done was for the federal government to lower interest rates to 0% first and see if that worked. If that should have proven insufficient, then print just enough money to counter any deflation and pay off the federal debt. If the debt is too small to swallow up all that money, then set up a global ethical mutual fund with the rest of it. This would put money into the economy now to create jobs, but also allow the government to then sell the shares later to pull the money back out of the economy to fight inflation. Since they would be ethical stocks, we wouldn't be helping cigarette manufacturers.
Another way to prepare to fight future inflation would be to reduce government spending in other areas and redirect that towads paying off the debt or towards the ethical investment fund.
And if there is no money for the fund since it all goes towards the debt, then at least a low debt would allow the government later to reduce government spending as a way to pull money out of the ecconomy when inflaiton kicks in. It seems the government is looking too short term. Yes, we need to fight deflation now, but we must also do so in sch a way that it won't lead to high interest rates and inflation later.
What we could have done was for the federal government to lower interest rates to 0% first and see if that worked. If that should have proven insufficient, then print just enough money to counter any deflation and pay off the federal debt. If the debt is too small to swallow up all that money, then set up a global ethical mutual fund with the rest of it. This would put money into the economy now to create jobs, but also allow the government to then sell the shares later to pull the money back out of the economy to fight inflation. Since they would be ethical stocks, we wouldn't be helping cigarette manufacturers.
Another way to prepare to fight future inflation would be to reduce government spending in other areas and redirect that towads paying off the debt or towards the ethical investment fund.
And if there is no money for the fund since it all goes towards the debt, then at least a low debt would allow the government later to reduce government spending as a way to pull money out of the ecconomy when inflaiton kicks in. It seems the government is looking too short term. Yes, we need to fight deflation now, but we must also do so in sch a way that it won't lead to high interest rates and inflation later.
As for the government giving any money to any industry, I disagree. What it could do though is engage in a tax shift, whereby income taxes are reduced and a resource tax is introduced to sompenste, much like a green shift. This would naturally benefit manufacturers of resource efficient cars and hurt those of resource inefficient ones. We don't need to give them any money. We just need to lower their income taxes.
Interest bearing loans, not gifts. Grants are for Research people and private interests like people wanting to start a business, do the plumbing over in their houses, etc.
They did drop the interest rate bigtime.
We don't have a small debt, so gov't should print enough new money to cover the $470 billion we owe. Can we say inflation rate of 50% (or something just as ridiculous)?
Harper already trimmed the size of gov't.
Mach, ALL gov'ts have short-term vision. It has to do with politicians and term lengths.