Harper: Worst economic steward in Canada's history?

[elevennevele]

How incredibility inept to take the reins of government with massive surpluses and a very robust economy, both of which Harper and his finance minister repeatedly touted as though to take credit for it all, and then it TWO YEARS and a half in office, put us on record to have the second weakest growth among the major industrialized countries.

I remember it. They took office, acted like it was a party with big smiles on their faces and went to spending like drunken sailors. Now Harper wants to pre-empt his failure with regards to his economic stewardship. Just like he tells us it's going to be a nasty campaign and then it's his party putting out all the juvenile attacks on the opposition.

Now it's the economy. The moving lips don't match those moving hips in what is becoming an economic glass house that is Canada.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/columnists/top3/story/4227060p-4865206c.html


The slogan, "Tory times are hard times" began with the Depression. It's back. In less than three years, Harper has squandered a balanced budget and fiscal surplus that Canadians shredded much of their social safety net to achieve.

When the Conservatives took power in February 2006, they inherited a $13.5 billion surplus from the Jean Chrétien Liberals. Yet, by the first two quarters of this year, Canada was teetering on the brink of a deficit. Harper had frittered away $12 billion -- almost all the recession cushion created by Canadians' sacrifice -- just to pay for his two-point cut to the GST -- mere pennies at the cash register for most Canadians.

.


.


It was an economic policy to make Canadians all warm and fuzzy for what this government thought was a 'soon to be' federal election. It was never about prudence for the future well-being of this country. This is not leadership.

Vote anybody but Harper.

 

[Unforgiven]

Conservatives are like the idiot friend who won't stop whining on a road trip. They have to drive and there is no peace until you let them. Then they get you lost, and out of gas. Then they blame you for being so stupid to let them drive when you know they can do that very well in the first place.

I say we simply don't let them drive but keep them in the back seat to point out the few times when the driver takes a turn to make sure there are enough questions about the turn to validate it's necessity

 

[darkbeaver]

We can belittle Prime Minister Harper all we like, it's certainly easy enough but he's not any more able to prevent the economic disaster unfolding than any of the western elected bag boys of the bankers. Look at the other members of the coalition of flunkys, there all being sucked dry by the big houses. There's nothing any election will do to reverse that asset grab, we are citizens of an imaginary democracy, a disfunctional disorganized collection of blind dumb consummers at best.
We will bicker and beg in the bread lines to wear the uniform and engage in carnage for three squares a day.

 

[Unforgiven]

We can belittle Prime Minister Harper all we like, it's certainly easy enough but he's not any more able to prevent the economic disaster unfolding than any of the western elected bag boys of the bankers. Look at the other members of the coalition of flunkys, there all being sucked dry by the big houses. There's nothing any election will do to reverse that asset grab, we are citizens of an imaginary democracy, a disfunctional disorganized collection of blind dumb consummers at best.
We will bicker and beg in the bread lines to wear the uniform and engage in carnage for three squares a day.

You bloody Optimists make me sick! :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

You bloody Optimists make me sick! :lol:

Unforgiven me son, the joke is that I am the most positive optimist on this forum. :lol:

 

[elevennevele]

We can belittle Prime Minister Harper all we like, it's certainly easy enough but he's not any more able to prevent the economic disaster unfolding than any of the western elected bag boys of the bankers.

Why the USA finds themselves where they are is due to the deregulation of the safeguards which would have prevented the market opportunist from having undertaken the practices of an unacceptable level of risk which have now led to the collapse of the American financial markets.

Without the intervention of government by policy and by oversight and by regulation over the system, you will then have the practices of greed unabated.

Canada does not share in this crisis in such a direct manner because up until now we have had those banking safeguards in place. However where our banks have taken losses from the mortgage crisis such as the CIBC, is due not to bad mortgage here, but from losses of owning that bad debt from the USA.

Harper, while he was singing the tune of 'hey it's a party with this surplus monies' was beginning the process of deregulation IN THIS COUNTRY. Case in point, we will never fully know what impact the deregulation of our food inspection by the Harper Government had with regards to our food crisis regarding tainted meat and the death and sickness of Canadians. However, from that you can see what the potential is with adopting such similar attitudes to removing government oversight.

While Maple Leaf holds their share of fault and responsibility, had our government adopted the proper regulatory government oversight to adequately safe check the meat before it would reach the consumer, the situation would have only amounted to the closure of the meat plant and not the added deaths as a result of tainted food entering our system. It sure doesn't help if Harper is taking the opposite direction.

DEREGULATION.

When the fox is asked to guard the chickens you can likely expect what is to be expected. And guess what... Harper was taking this country down that road. Time and time again he has shown that he has, not a logical, but an ideological aversion to government intervention whether prior to the prevention of crisis or after crisis. You can ask all those people who have been losing their jobs in manufacturing why Harper has been so obtuse in not only trying to do something to stop the bleeding, but also not having the policy minded mentality to have used government to have best cushioned the situation in an attempt to prevent such a hard fall.

Sure he'll however strong arm government to restart nuclear reactors that haven't met all the safety standards his appointees were asked to put in place well in advance. Then what will he do? Why, he'll fired the regulator of course.

How utterly obtuse. Need I repeat...

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home

Canada posts biggest job loss in 17 years

.


And that 17 years ago was under Mulroney. And anyone with any memory can remember that things were really bad back then. Harper took us down a bit of memory lane and what has it been? In only 2 and a half years?!

Why are all the losses and statistical negatives SO bad under the term of this Harper government. Look at the data, look at it collectively. It gets pretty obvious it's is not coincidental.

Government plays a large role in the welfare of the nation. THINK! and vote anybody but Harper.

 

[darkbeaver]

"Canada does not share in this crisis in such a direct manner because up until now we have had those banking safeguards in place. However where our banks have taken losses from the mortgage crisis such as the CIBC, is due not to bad mortgage here, but from losses of owning that bad debt from the USA."

Certainly we do not directly share the American situation but even indirectly the damage will be great. Our best buddies and customers are flat broke times a hundred, how much American paper will we swallow for the oil and the gas.

 

[elevennevele]

Certainly we do not directly share the American situation but even indirectly the damage will be great. Our best buddies and customers are flat broke times a hundred, how much American paper will we swallow for the oil and the gas.

Yes and we are going to get hurt. Perhaps in a very big way indirectly. Yet had we also followed United States' financial lead with regards to policy and economy ideology it would be so much more worst for us. The 'let the markets decide' ideology of the Reform/Alliance that Harper united with the Progressive Conservatives as he started to move towards the process of deregulation.

Prudence would of had us with a leadership that maintained a portion of those billions in surplus for a crisis, or any economic downturn to cushion this country in the face of whatever looming financial storm.

Quote:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sub...-4865206c.html


....they inherited a $13.5 billion surplus from the Jean Chrétien Liberals. Yet, by the first two quarters of this year, Canada was teetering on the brink of a deficit. Harper had frittered away $12 billion -- almost all the recession cushion created by Canadians' sacrifice -- just to pay for his two-point cut to the GST -- mere pennies at the cash register for most Canadians.

.

It's going to hit us and Harper left the cupboards bare. He got people thinking surpluses are a bad thing then spent it all like drunken sailors, but right now we need those surpluses more than ever for this possibility that the USA may go into serious financial collapse.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Yes and we are going to get hurt. Perhaps in a very big way indirectly. Yet had we also followed United States' financial lead with regards to policy and economy ideology it would be so much more worst for us. The 'let the markets decide' ideology of the Reform/Alliance that Harper united with the Progressive Conservatives as he started to move towards the process of deregulation.

Prudence would of had us with a leadership that maintained a portion of those billions in surplus for a crisis, or any economic downturn to cushion this country in the face of whatever looming financial storm.


It's going to hit us and Harper left the cupboards bare. He got people thinking surpluses are a bad thing then spent it all like drunken sailors, but right now we need those surpluses more than ever for this possibility that the USA may go into serious financial collapse.

Chrétien enters election fray over deficit debate


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/18/chretien-elxn.html

 

[L Gilbert]

Yeah yeah. Harpy is an a$$.

Ahhh, ChRETIeN, the shining light of angeldom. lmao

aPAULing Martin? Read this bit of stuff someone gathered on him: http://paulmartintime.ca/

IMO, there hasn't been one decent gov't in dozens of years. And who have made up the gov'ts in Canada? The Cons and the Glibs. They both SUCK!! Jack Lameton & Co., too.

 

[china]

Must be the federal election in Canada .I see the liberals of this thread are at work .
I'll do my voting in Peking ,hoping for a majority gov.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes and we are going to get hurt. Perhaps in a very big way indirectly. Yet had we also followed United States' financial lead with regards to policy and economy ideology it would be so much more worst for us. The 'let the markets decide' ideology of the Reform/Alliance that Harper united with the Progressive Conservatives as he started to move towards the process of deregulation.

Prudence would of had us with a leadership that maintained a portion of those billions in surplus for a crisis, or any economic downturn to cushion this country in the face of whatever looming financial storm.






.

It's going to hit us and Harper left the cupboards bare. He got people thinking surpluses are a bad thing then spent it all like drunken sailors, but right now we need those surpluses more than ever for this possibility that the USA may go into serious financial collapse.

Martin signed us on to SPP so re and de regulation is not just a conservative speciality. As a matter of fact Emerson crossing the floor served to indicate how interchangeable the corporate imposed policys of the SPP deals really are. maybe with this market meltdown we will reconsider Fortress North America, it would be like being locked in a box with a starving heavily armed psycopathic giant.

 

[ottawabill]

amazing..just amazing... One of the best periods ever... higher dollar, huge gains in resources pricing. low unemployment, U.S. decline that has at least not hit us immediately following (where noramlly our ressesions are deeper and longer that the U.S.) and somehow this is terrible?

The downside to our economy is manuf. in China, something that has hit every western nation hard no matter if the left right or center is in power. If we all really cared we wouldn't be at Wal-mart, dollar rama, and waiting for the Chinese car to make it to market....The problem is the save a buck mentality not the government at hand.

 

[darkbeaver]

amazing..just amazing... One of the best periods ever... higher dollar, huge gains in resources pricing. low unemployment, U.S. decline that has at least not hit us immediately following (where noramlly our ressesions are deeper and longer that the U.S.) and somehow this is terrible?

The downside to our economy is manuf. in China, something that has hit every western nation hard no matter if the left right or center is in power. If we all really cared we wouldn't be at Wal-mart, dollar rama, and waiting for the Chinese car to make it to market....The problem is the save a buck mentality not the government at hand.

You are correct about half of your China spiel. Everyone of those products from China are built or grown under contract from western capital that's been removed from the western economys to fatten corporate profits. The thirty year destruction of the industrial base of North America was conducted by the very people you herald as the backbone of our economy.
Unemployment all through the last two decades has been higher than statistics indicated, and every bit of the employment in that period netted Canadian and American workers less than the take home from 1973, wages have been in steady decline since the early seventys.
We are not discussing recession that started in 2001 what we are experianceing right now is the beginning of hyperinflationary depression that may last longer than thirty years, the estimated time required to rebuild the squandered industrial base and rebuild the public infrastructure of North American which has been neglected all this time. We are or should be convinced by now that capitalism is a fataly flawed economic system as was indicated some two-hundred years ago. What is really at stake here right now at this time in human development is our very survival as a species, it is abundantly clear that either we kill capitalism or it will surely kill us.

 

[Avro]

Tories push 'Alberta Agenda' TheStar.com - Federal Election - Tories push 'Alberta Agenda'
September 23, 2008
Linda McQuaig

Among the many ironies in this federal election is the notion of Stephen Harper as the man to turn to in an economic crisis.
Harper's economic tool box is limited, consisting of tax cuts and more tax cuts – a proven formula for funneling resources to the rich, but less reliable as a means of stimulating the economy.
The notion of Harper as economic fixer is particularly ironic in Ontario, where Harper has helped push the economy to the brink of – if not into the lap of – recession.
Harper has been a big supporter of the unbridled development of Alberta's oil sands, refusing to take any serious steps to rein in the heavy oil projects by clamping down on their mammoth greenhouse gas emissions.
This is not only devastating for the environment and for any prospect of Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments, but it's also been key to driving up the Canadian dollar. (Foreign money flows into Canada to buy up stocks in highly profitable energy companies here, pushing up our dollar in the process.)
That high dollar, more than anything else, has been killing our manufacturing jobs by making our exports uncompetitive, notes Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers Union, whose ranks have been heavily hit by the loss of more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since Harper became Prime Minister.
Manufacturing is the backbone of the Ontario economy. The erosion of our manufacturing base risks transforming the province into a much less rich and vibrant place.
So while Harper's vigorous pro-oil agenda has helped turn the Alberta economy red-hot, it's left Ontario's deeply cool.
Yet, oddly, in this election campaign, Harper has managed to shake his image in Ontario as an Alberta-centred politician, part of a Calgary political and academic cabal that is distrustful of Central Canada, and that in 2001 publicly advocated an "Alberta Agenda" with a "firewall" built around the province.
In less academic circles, this same anti-Central-Canada sentiment is sometimes expressed more simply as "let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark."
There's been no Western rancour evident on the campaign trail in Ontario these days, however. With Ontario potentially key to Harper winning a majority government, gone is any whiff of an Alberta-centric hard edge. Now, in the softer, airbrushed, sweater-draped version of Harper, "Family is everything."
But Harper hasn't abandoned his Alberta Agenda. Rather he's simply brought it to Ottawa.
Actually, what Harper has brought to Ottawa isn't so much an Alberta Agenda, as an Alberta Oil Money Agenda.
It would ultimately be in the interests of Albertans, as well as other Canadians, to slow down the pace of oil-sands development – a point eloquently made in recent months by no less an Alberta champion than Peter Lougheed, the legendary former Alberta premier.
Lougheed argues for a brake on oil-sands development until it can proceed in a more orderly fashion, with more jobs being created in the province to refine the oil, not just get it out of the ground and ship it south.
A recent poll by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute found that half of Albertans believe oil-sands development has been too fast.
But for those in the oil patch, it can't be fast enough. And having Harper waving them on, making common cause with them in their attempts to side-step any responsibility for saving the planet, has made for a thrilling and profitable ride.
For Ontarians, on the other hand, trusting our economy to Harper is a bit like trusting it to Exxon.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503966

 

[elevennevele]

Certainly we do not directly share the American situation but even indirectly the damage will be great. Our best buddies and customers are flat broke times a hundred, how much American paper will we swallow for the oil and the gas.

.

I could be wrong. They are now saying we could be hit here with bad mortgages and foreclosures. Of course we'll find out after the election when Harper has his majority. That's when we'll know how bad things are if our country goes down the tubes. Suddenly it will be like 20/20 hindsight for the Canadian masses and everyone will ask, "what happened?"

Don't worry though. Harper is on the portfolio and he says not to worry as he's said all along to potential recession. He might of had his head in the sand (along with his finance minister like an ostrich), but I have this sinking feeling someone showed him some scary numbers that their eyes were only privy to. Who knows what the hurry was to have to have this election. And that's regardless of breaking their own election laws and the principles they stated behind it.

Warm and fuzzy thoughts, warm and fuzzy thoughts, warm and fuzzy thoughts... quick, slap on another blue sweater.

Carol Skelton: I think that common sense is having an election every four years and not on the whim and call of the prime minister. (Sept. 19, 2006)

Gerald Keddy: We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it. ... This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest ... This will level the playing field, it will give democracy more of an opportunity to work and it will be a good thing for the public of Canada. (Sept. 18, 2006)

Russ Hiebert: Federal election dates would no longer be chosen with the advantage they may provide to the governing party. Every party would have the same opportunities. The reverse is also true. Not only are snap elections out, no longer will governments that have passed their “best before” date and face certain defeat at the polls be able to drag out their terms ... It provides fairness. No longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process. It provides transparency and predictability. Canadians will benefit from knowing exactly when these fixed elections will occur so they can plan their lives and the businesses around it. It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister's office and devolving it to the people, as it should be. (Sept. 19, 2006)

Peter Van Loan: As I indicated, we have passed Bill C-16 on fixed election dates through the House of Commons. Never again will the government of the day be able to play around with the date of an election for its own crass political motives. (Feb. 12, 2007)

Scott Reid: The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16 ... will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the prime minister chooses to call them based upon whether his or her party is high in the polls. That was a terrible wrong. It was abused by the previous government repeatedly. This initiative will ensure that it is not abused again. (Feb. 19, 2007)

Dean Del Mastro: I think we recognize that the bill is about levelling the playing field for all parties in the House, not to give the government an advantage to call a snap election when perhaps another party is not ready. It would allow for a better debate on policy and on principle so that all parties could go into an election prepared and our voters could make the best decisions. (Nov. 6, 2006)

Rob Nicholson: What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based necessarily on what is in the best interests of the country, but what is in the best interests of his or her political party. Bill C-16 would address this problem and would produce a number of other benefits. ... It is only fair that each party would have equal time to prepare for the next election and to know when it would be. Another key advantage of fixed date elections is transparency. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates would be set in advance. (Nov. 6, 2006)

.

Blah, blah, blah... blah, blah, blah... and on and on and on...

 

[elevennevele]

Ahhh, ChRETIeN, the shining light of angeldom. lmao

aPAULing Martin? Read this bit of stuff someone gathered on him: http://paulmartintime.ca/

You know, I didn't realize Paul Martin was the reason behind this election.

That aside, do you really feel comfortable putting out that link as a reflection of your credibility?

If I posted in Canadian Content the heading, "Harper's Dirty Coke Habit " where only when you clicked on the link one would realize I was making some remote commentary on an environmental infraction, I would lose all my credibility on here. However that is what that website does. It literally puts out the heading, "Paul Martin’s Dirty Coke Habit", as it trys to get as close to defamation without crossing the legal limit (or maybe it does, I dunno) in order to slam Paul Martin.

That site is nothing more than a 'swift boat' manufactured website trying to pass itself off as a source of journalism.

Gee, it sure trumps me sharing economic data from Stats Can.

 

[elevennevele]

Martin signed us on to SPP so re and de regulation is not just a conservative speciality. As a matter of fact Emerson crossing the floor served to indicate how interchangeable the corporate imposed policys of the SPP deals really are. maybe with this market meltdown we will reconsider Fortress North America, it would be like being locked in a box with a starving heavily armed psycopathic giant.

I don't feel comfortable with the SPP either, but I sure don't feel comfortable at all with Harper at the helm creating any framework of integration between Canada and the United States. As for Dion, perhaps someone should forward the question of the SPP to him so we can get an answer, or at least get the media to ask him.

I honestly don't know where he stands on that issue.

 

[elevennevele]

amazing..just amazing... One of the best periods ever... higher dollar, huge gains in resources pricing. low unemployment, U.S. decline that has at least not hit us immediately following (where noramlly our ressesions are deeper and longer that the U.S.) and somehow this is terrible?

The downside to our economy is manuf. in China, something that has hit every western nation hard no matter if the left right or center is in power. If we all really cared we wouldn't be at Wal-mart, dollar rama, and waiting for the Chinese car to make it to market....The problem is the save a buck mentality not the government at hand.

Look at the chart for unemployment in this country. It was on a downward trend prior to Harper taking control and since he's been in power, it simply bottomed out (might even be reversing). As per Statistics Canada...

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=CAD

.

Harper can't take credit for that in as much as he can take credit for the huge government surpluses which he inherited and then blew. Oh wait a second. Yeah, he can take credit for the part about spending all that money like drunken sailors.

Also if this government had any leverage as to the dollars rise then the prudent thing would have been to try to steady the currency in a much slower appreciation so that our manufacturing could try to adapt.

A huge party of cross border shopping so that everyone empties their wallets in one nice big go, and perhaps not even on this side of the retail market, isn't anything for a government to gloat about. It might have felt good, but the big picture with massive layoffs and a decline to our manufacturing base means hardship for everyone thereafter.

 

[elevennevele]

Harper cannot be trusted to handle our economy. He is the worst. In his short 2 years he is taking this country into the toilet. This is a government that is not honest with Canadians.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv....wafghanreport1009/BNStory/International/home


In a report that has sparked anticipation from political parties during the election campaign, Mr. Page concludes that the costs that the Department of National Defence has reported to Parliament are not the same as those it records on its internal books. It finds that the way government accounts for spending makes it hard to put a firm, separate price tag on the Afghan mission.

Mr. Page's chief conclusion is that parliamentarians who vote on spending for the Afghanistan mission cannot possibly have a clear idea of what it is being spent on what operations are really costing.

And his officials said that government departments did not provide information the Parliamentary Budget Office requested to make its work more precise — like the actual number of troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and what equipment is there.

"Although Canada is in the seventh year of the Afghanistan mission, Parliament and Canadians have not been provided with accurate and comprehensive departmental cost estimates," Mr. Page said.