Question about Harper's honesty.

[Machjo]

During the election, even after the Wall Street crash, when Harper was explicitly asked whether his party would run a deficit, he explicitly stated that he wouldn't. This of course might have helped him win the election because the other leaders were too honest to make such a promise. Not a very fair playing field now is it?

Now if the Conservative party were in some form of co-alition right now, it could be excusable since it would be the co-alition and not just the Conservatives alone who would be planning deficit spending. But the Conservatives are not in any co-alition right now and as such ought to have a duty to either stick to their election promise of no deficit no matter what, or enter into a coalition with some other party, most likely the Liberal party.

Do you think the Conservative Party ought to stick to its election promise in the absence of a coalition?

 

[Machjo]

If the Conservatives were part of some larger coalition, then obviously its policies would have to harmonize with those of the other members of the coalition. That's understandable.

But right now the Conservatives are independent of the constraints of any coalition. That being the case, it woud seem to me that the honourable thing to do would be to not have promised no deficit during the elction campaign or inversely to stick to the promose come hell or high waters if they're not willing to enter a coalition.

Your thoughts?

 

[Nuggler]

:lol:......Well, Mulroo promised no free trade.

Go figure.

 

[Francis2004]

During the election, even after the Wall Street crash, when Harper was explicitly asked whether his party would run a deficit, he explicitly stated that he wouldn't. This of course might have helped him win the election because the other leaders were too honest to make such a promise. Not a very fair playing field now is it?

Now if the Conservative party were in some form of co-alition right now, it could be excusable since it would be the co-alition and not just the Conservatives alone who would be planning deficit spending. But the Conservatives are not in any co-alition right now and as such ought to have a duty to either stick to their election promise of no deficit no matter what, or enter into a coalition with some other party, most likely the Liberal party.

Do you think the Conservative Party ought to stick to its election promise in the absence of a coalition?

Here is where I find the Hypocracy within Harper's own words.. First of all he himself tried to form a coalition and that has been proven so with the Bloc and the NDP in the past ( same as what we see happening now with the Liberals, NPD and Bloc ). Not only that but while in a Minority Government Harper has repeately seeked the support of the Bloc to keep his smaller Minority in government in power with past budgets. We all know the Liberals supported Harper due to lack of funding and had they really had the momentum their way, would have toppled him much earlier.

Him now asking the Liberals to support him is only for realization that he has lost face with the Bloc and will not be able to gain their support further in the house. Which again leaves the question "do the Liberals have funds for another Election right away?"..

With no required Leadership Campaign it is very possible the Liberals will want to strike again while they think Harper is down. Facing a deficit for what the Conservatives now say is a minimum 4 years, they really look bad in the eyes of the voters they had just promised this would not happen in Canada. Hence they lied and now is the time to nail them down for it..

This is almost the Clinton / Bush senario all over again of "Read My Lips" and Clinton going hard after him on the topic..

 

[Kreskin]

Come on, a coalition deficit would be triple anything of Harper's. Those guys would have to fall over themselves with buckets of money paying off friends in high places to stay together.

 

[JLM]

During the election, even after the Wall Street crash, when Harper was explicitly asked whether his party would run a deficit, he explicitly stated that he wouldn't. This of course might have helped him win the election because the other leaders were too honest to make such a promise. Not a very fair playing field now is it?

Now if the Conservative party were in some form of co-alition right now, it could be excusable since it would be the co-alition and not just the Conservatives alone who would be planning deficit spending. But the Conservatives are not in any co-alition right now and as such ought to have a duty to either stick to their election promise of no deficit no matter what, or enter into a coalition with some other party, most likely the Liberal party.

Do you think the Conservative Party ought to stick to its election promise in the absence of a coalition?

Again, he was responding to the conditions at the time, when conditions change, the course of action has to change, otherwise he'd be a fool.

 

[lone wolf]

Harper is running out of feet. He removes one from his mouth for just long enough to insert another with increases speed. One never knows. He might be the next dance craze for he'll never be a Prime Minister. Anyone who believes the man still has a shred of credibility has probably stood in line to get in on mountain chalet properties in the Everglades....

 

[Francis2004]

Come on, a coalition deficit would be triple anything of Harper's. Those guys would have to fall over themselves with buckets of money paying off friends in high places to stay together.

Agreed, but the goal for each part party is not to be in a coalition.. That is only an evil of necessity..

Either be the Conservatives or Liberals, the goal is to gain power.. Nothing more or less so you can more your priorities forward.. That is fact.. Without being in power, you have no reason of pride..

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Come on, a coalition deficit would be triple anything of Harper's. Those guys would have to fall over themselves with buckets of money paying off friends in high places to stay together.

Hey Kreskin let the truth be free, Mulroney stuffed his brown envelopes with late undeclared income to Revenue Canada, if you call that moral, we have a thieve at work who sunk the Canadian people in the red ink in the tune of $40Billion over 3 last years of his term.
If Harper held the truth of what he new about running a deficit way back in August and held it from the people, Harper has suffered a huge credibility blow, because if he new about $30Billion only in such a short time into the term, imagine after 3 years in power with a majority Harper would probably run a $80Billion deficit to keep the economic wheel moving.

 

[Machjo]

Come on, a coalition deficit would be triple anything of Harper's. Those guys would have to fall over themselves with buckets of money paying off friends in high places to stay together.

Did you read the initial post at all?

The issue is not with whether or not I or anyone else agree or disagree with deficit spending. Honestly, I myself oppose deficit spending and would rather see a tax hike if spending increases are necessary.

The point I was making though is the dishonesty of the Conservatives. The Green Party, the Liberal Party, and the NDP (I don't know about the Bloc), though opposed to deficit spending before the stack market crash, did at least have the honesty and decency to acknowledge that they would not rule out a deficit if they should form a government. Harper, however, clearly answered an emphatic no to a clear question, on at least two occasions that I'd witnessed on TV, of whether he would rule out deficit spending.

Let's put it this way. If the Conservative Party should explicitly rule out deficit spending during the election, but Party X promises that it doesn't care about deficit spending and intends to buy a Harley Davidson for every voter, then in Pariament, unless of course the Conservatives enter into some coalition, the Conservatives forfeit their right to then create a deficit, and Party X, again unless it enters into some kind of coalition, should be required to buy a Harley Davidson for every citizen and run a deficit all it wants.

What part don't you understand about honesty?

 

[Machjo]

Again, he was responding to the conditions at the time, when conditions change, the course of action has to change, otherwise he'd be a fool.

He made the promose of no deficit at lest twice AFTER the stock market crash. Once in the English televised leaders' debate, and again with Peter Mansbridge on CBC. And on that second time, the question was explicitely whether he would consider deficit spending if the recession became severe enough. In fact he was the only leader (and the only formally trained economist among them) to insist that Canada would not need deficit spending. Certainly if he was so competent he could have at least acknowledge that he can't predict the future any more than anyone else. But no, he insisted that he KNEW that we would not go into recession.

So then he's either a liar or less competent than the other leaders who could at least acknowledge the possibility of recession.

An honest and competent politician never makes promices unless he's sure to keep them. That's what the others did.

 

[Machjo]

Just to clarify, right now I think I prefer the Conservative plan to the co-alition plan (though I heded a blank ballot last election and have never voted Conservative yet even though I've played with the idea in the past).

The point though is not with whether I agree or disagree with his plan, or by how much; the point is his integrity.

If Party X promises a Harley for everyone, and then decides not to and that it will balance the budget and not even bail out the motorcycle industry, yes I'd be thankful that they're not going to do it, but woudl still consider them dishonest crooks. Inversely, if he keeps to his promise, inasmuch as I might not agree with it, at least he's sticking to what he promised. That's the point some here seem to be missing. Harper should have been honest enough to acknowledge that deficit spending might be necessary if things go wrong. He didn't.

 

[JLM]

He made the promose of no deficit at lest twice AFTER the stock market crash. Once in the English televised leaders' debate, and again with Peter Mansbridge on CBC. And on that second time, the question was explicitely whether he would consider deficit spending if the recession became severe enough. In fact he was the only leader (and the only formally trained economist among them) to insist that Canada would not need deficit spending. Certainly if he was so competent he could have at least acknowledge that he can't predict the future any more than anyone else. But no, he insisted that he KNEW that we would not go into recession.

So then he's either a liar or less competent than the other leaders who could at least acknowledge the possibility of recession.

An honest and competent politician never makes promices unless he's sure to keep them. That's what the others did.

Harper has made mistakes, no two ways about it and no an honest politician doesn't normally make promises he can't keep- he was shooting from the lip, but in this case I would categorize the mistake as stupid more than dishonest- he should have added the phrase "if conditions remain the same". Now I think he is honestly trying to atone.

 

[Machjo]

Harper has made mistakes, no two ways about it and no an honest politician doesn't normally make promises he can't keep- he was shooting from the lip, but in this case I would categorize the mistake as stupid more than dishonest- he should have added the phrase "if conditions remain the same". Now I think he is honestly trying to atone.

Mansbridge asked the question quite clearly, and twice just to be sure Harper clearly understood his intent, and Harper hesitated for a second... and then made the promise anyway.

I'm sorry, but he's educated... supposedly. Now we're defending him saying he wasn't articulate? Might as well say he's illiterate.

 

[karrie]

Do you think the Conservative Party ought to stick to its election promise in the absence of a coalition?

There is no 'absence of a coalition'. The threat will hang over their heads now, no matter what the coalition does. The Liberals and NDP have pulled the strings, and will expect the Conservative budget to reflect their desires, whether they form a formal coalition or not. Harper has no real choice in the matter.

Any reasonable voter knows that when a politician stands up and makes a 'promise' it's a promise of intention. They can't foresee every possible issue. They can't tell what might go wrong.

 

[JLM]

There is no 'absence of a coalition'. The threat will hang over their heads now, no matter what the coalition does. The Liberals and NDP have pulled the strings, and will expect the Conservative budget to reflect their desires, whether they form a formal coalition or not. Harper has no real choice in the matter.

Any reasonable voter knows that when a politician stands up and makes a 'promise' it's a promise of intention. They can't foresee every possible issue. They can't tell what might go wrong.

Exactly Karrie- your articulateness is only superceded by your wisdom.

 

[Adriatik]

There is no question... Harper has zero honesty and that is why I didn't vote for the Tory candidate in my riding.

Harper was dishonest all along and what happened is that many uninformed or ignorant voters believed every word he said.

Yes, Harper maybe lowered taxes in his last term to please the upper and middle-upper class but look at where we are now... Unfortunately, the ill-informed and ignorant jumped on the band wagon when they voted...

We could have used that tax money now if only the Tories hadn't handed it out to the higher classes.

The bottom line is that Harper and Flaherty knew about the deficit before the 2008 election and they didn't tell anyone. FACT:There was going to be a deficit with or without an economic crisis. Harper's excessive spending in Afghanistan combined with less revenue due to tax cuts created the deficit, nothing else casused it. They knew that if they told Canadians, they were toast. Their dishonesty is a disgrace to this country and an insult to people's intelligence (well...those who actually have intelligence).

In wake of the truth, I blame Harper, I blame the Conservatives and I blame those who voted for these dishonest men and women. They may not like to get blamed or will never admit their mistakes but I am right... That is how Harper has crafted the 35% who voted Conservative. He turned them into blind voters who only think about their personal gain and put the country's well-being on the back burner.

Thanks a lot you bastards!!

I swear that if you people elect another Conservative government next time around, it will only prove rule number one of civilization: People are stupid...

 

[JLM]

There is no question... Harper has zero honesty and that is why I didn't vote for the Tory candidate in my riding.

Harper was dishonest all along and what happened is that many uninformed or ignorant voters believed every word he said.

Yes, Harper maybe lowered taxes in his last term to please the upper and middle-upper class but look at where we are now... Unfortunately, the ill-informed and ignorant jumped on the band wagon when they voted...

We could have used that tax money now if only the Tories hadn't handed it out to the higher classes.

The bottom line is that Harper and Flaherty knew about the deficit before the 2008 election and they didn't tell anyone. FACT:There was going to be a deficit with or without an economic crisis. Harper's excessive spending in Afghanistan combined with less revenue due to tax cuts created the deficit, nothing else casused it. They knew that if they told Canadians, they were toast. Their dishonesty is a disgrace to this country and an insult to people's intelligence (well...those who actually have intelligence).

In wake of the truth, I blame Harper, I blame the Conservatives and I blame those who voted for these dishonest men and women. They may not like to get blamed or will never admit their mistakes but I am right... That is how Harper has crafted the 35% who voted Conservative. He turned them into blind voters who only think about their personal gain and put the country's well-being on the back burner.

Thanks a lot you bastards!!

I swear that if you people elect another Conservative government next time around, it will only prove rule number one of civilization: People are stupid...

You have to look at ALL the aspects.

 

[Adriatik]

You have to look at ALL the aspects.

Well I have looked at all the aspects...

Canada was running billions and billions of dollars of surplussed under Paul Martin as Finance Minister, all this while paying off the national debt. This was possible due to a maintenance of our existing taxation system at the time combined with reorganization of social programs. Face it, we were still living well when the GST was at 7%. Plus the amount population paying taxes was lower.

So in all logic, now with a higher population and a stronger economy despite the economic crisis(our GDP is still higher than in the 1990s), and a higher per capita salary, Harper and Flaherty were more than given the chance to continue running surplusses. They should have continued to follow Martin's model which was the best financial model this country has even seen.

But no, their partisanship ruined their ability to make logic decisions and plan ahead.

I don't care what anyone says, Harper and Flaherty are the worst PM and Finance Minister Canada has even seen and I will not give them or anyone who voted for the Conservatives a break. If only they deserved it....

 

[Machjo]

There is no 'absence of a coalition'. The threat will hang over their heads now, no matter what the coalition does. The Liberals and NDP have pulled the strings, and will expect the Conservative budget to reflect their desires, whether they form a formal coalition or not. Harper has no real choice in the matter.

Any reasonable voter knows that when a politician stands up and makes a 'promise' it's a promise of intention. They can't foresee every possible issue. They can't tell what might go wrong.

Oh people's reading comprehension. I was referring to a hypothetical coalition including the Conservative Party.:roll: