The Good side of Harper

[Machjo]

Harper brought in income splitting for taxation purposes, last year it saved us about $2000. This year due to the tax calculations being so mind boggling I let H & R Bloch do it for us and to my relief found we're saving $1800 this year. Obviously it works best where there is a disparity between the income levels of the spouses, which is our case. For this reason alone I'd be very reluctant to get rid of Harper.

FYI, during the English election debate, when Liz May brought up the issue of splitting of all income, Harper opposed it on th egrounds that it would lose too much revenue. Of course to be fair to Harper, he also didn't support a gas tax, whereas May did, so the Greens could have compensated whereas the Conservatives had no other source of income to go on.

Personally though, I'd say the Green policy was more conservative than the Conservative one in some respects. At least a gas tax is user-oay. You don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the gas. With income taxes, there is no way to squirm arond it. You need an income after all.

 

[JLM]

FYI, during the English election debate, when Liz May brought up the issue of splitting of all income, Harper opposed it on th egrounds that it would lose too much revenue. Of course to be fair to Harper, he also didn't support a gas tax, whereas May did, so the Greens could have compensated whereas the Conservatives had no other source of income to go on.

Personally though, I'd say the Green policy was more conservative than the Conservative one in some respects. At least a gas tax is user-oay. You don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the gas. With income taxes, there is no way to squirm arond it. You need an income after all.

That's right- not sure which one is preferable, gas tax affects many more people but to a less extend than the people who benefit by the income splitting which can be quite a substantial saving where there is a huge difference between the incomes of the spouses. Where I'd like to see savings is smaller troughs at the political level, like when the G.G. made that trip to the arctic regions did she really need about 417 people in the entourage?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The scary thing is I could go on.........

No doubt you could, Colpy, ad infinitum. The point is whatever his real or perceived wrong, people will forgive much if he fixes the economy. This is what Chrétien did and that trumps any of his other peccadilloes. And many of the things you list are peccadilloes. E.g. he assaulted a protester, indeed. Let us string him up for that.

And, as I've said before, his job was made much easier by the burgeoning gov't revenues brought on by the swelling economy........his task was made easy by the GST and Free Trade.

That may be so, but the fact is, whatever happens during a PM’s watch, the PM gets the credit or the blame for it. Whatever the reasons (and unlike you, I think Chrétien’s sound economic policies had a lot to do with it), he fixed the economy; he cleaned up the gigantic mess left by Mulroney. He gets the credit for that, by Canadians in general, though of course I wouldn’t expect conservatives to acknowledge his contribution.

So Mulroney gets the blame for driving the economy into ground, Chrétien gets the credit for fixing it. Whatever happens during a PM’s watch, the PM is responsible for that.

As i've said before, his greatest achievement was making that other arsehole Mulrooney look like a relatively honest man.

Yeah, right. That is why Mulroney destroyed the PC party, while liberals won an election after Chrétien, and still are a viable party. Mulroney may be honest in your opinion (well, relatively honest), but people didn’t think so. His party was smashed to smithereens because of him.

You may think Chrétien was dishonest, but Canadians don’t think so. They gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberal party remains viable today, long after him.

So whatever your political bias, Canadians don’t see it that way (well, maybe they do in Alberta, but not here in the east).

 

[JLM]

The scary thing is I could go on.........

No doubt you could, Colpy, ad infinitum. The point is whatever his real or perceived wrong, people will forgive much if he fixes the economy. This is what Chrétien did and that trumps any of his other peccadilloes. And many of the things you list are peccadilloes. E.g. he assaulted a protester, indeed. Let us string him up for that.

And, as I've said before, his job was made much easier by the burgeoning gov't revenues brought on by the swelling economy........his task was made easy by the GST and Free Trade.

That may be so, but the fact is, whatever happens during a PM’s watch, the PM gets the credit or the blame for it. Whatever the reasons (and unlike you, I think Chrétien’s sound economic policies had a lot to do with it), he fixed the economy; he cleaned up the gigantic mess left by Mulroney. He gets the credit for that, by Canadians in general, though of course I wouldn’t expect conservatives to acknowledge his contribution.

So Mulroney gets the blame for driving the economy into ground, Chrétien gets the credit for fixing it. Whatever happens during a PM’s watch, the PM is responsible for that.

As i've said before, his greatest achievement was making that other arsehole Mulrooney look like a relatively honest man.

Yeah, right. That is why Mulroney destroyed the PC party, while liberals won an election after Chrétien, and still are a viable party. Mulroney may be honest in your opinion (well, relatively honest), but people didn’t think so. His party was smashed to smithereens because of him.

You may think Chrétien was dishonest, but Canadians don’t think so. They gave him three back to back majorities, and Liberal party remains viable today, long after him.

So whatever your political bias, Canadians don’t see it that way (well, maybe they do in Alberta, but not here in the east).

Actually I would rate Chretien about B+ as a politician but probably C- as a Prime Minister a prime example of the old Peter Principle. "I know when I speak I put the wrong em PHAS is on the wrong syl LAB le"- He was funny.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I disagree, JLM, I would give him ‘A’ for a politician. He was a consummate politician. He learned from the best, Trudeau (who was also a master politician in his own right).

Any politician who gets three back to back majorities is a master politician, in my view. He was generous to his adversaries. I remember during the leadership election, Paul Martin and Sheila Copps were his main opponents. He gave important posts in the cabinet to both of them. That was comparable to Obama making Hillary the Secretary of State. When he was the PM, there was very little dissent in the Liberal ranks. He was very good at people management (so was Mulroney, incidentally).

Contrast this with Paul Martin; he was absolutely vicious to Copps. Martin, while an honest and decent man, was terrible at people management, a lousy politician.

So I give Chrétien an ‘A’ for politics, and ‘B+’ for Prime Minister. He did a good job as PM, but didn’t leave any lasting legacy. Gay marriage is more Martin’s legacy, rather than Chrétien’s.

 

[Ron in Regina]

SirJoe, if you had to, would there have been a Liberal PM that
you would have graded at a C- or even a D ??? Just curious...8O
___________________

 

[JLM]

SirJoe, if you had to, would there have been a Liberal PM that
you would have graded at a C- or even a D ??? Just curious...8O
___________________

Sir Joe may be slightly prejudiced, but my answer would be not since Trudeau, Pearson I think was a great statesman but I'm not sure that he was a good politician.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJoe, if you had to, would there have been a Liberal PM that
you would have graded at a C- or even a D ??? Just curious...8O
___________________

Depends upon what the grade is about, Ron. Trudeau, I would grade a C- for economy. I would grade him A+ for Charter and Constitution.

Martin, I give him an A+ for economy, B for Prime Minister, a C- for politician (he was a lousy politician). Sure he was an honest, decent man, but that doesn’t cut any mustard in politics (look at Joe Clark, or Dion). In politics, nice guys finish last. In politics you need an SOB like Chrétien or Harper.

So it all depends upon what the grade is for. I have no illusions about Liberal politicians; they are no better or worse than Conservative politicians.

The difference is of course that I support liberal principles, that is why I end up supporting Liberal party. I consider myself a liberal, not a Liberal.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Everyone uses their own system for figuring out who they'd vote for.
At a house party, both Joe Clark & Stephane Dion would be fun,
but Harper might be a real drag...but out of the three of them, I'd want
Harper running the country right now. 8O

Years ago I worked in a rental type industry with some very shaky
credit standards. In order to be successful in that industry, you had to
develop some pretty impressive "Spidey Senses" or you'd never see
a bonus. Though I've been out of that industry for quite some time, I
ask myself the same questions when I'm voting as I did back then....
"If I gave this guy a TV, would I ever see the TV or the cash for it
ever again?" That's worked for me for years...:lol::lol::lol:

The Party doesn't matter much to me.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I was impressed with Harper through his first term, but not
so much so far in this second one.

With Layton, I wouldn't get the TV back, or the $$$, and I'd
have to pay to get it out of a Pawnshop.

With Ignatieff, there's just not enough information to know
what he stands for yet...

With Madame Green Party jumping so fast at Dion's Senate
spot that melted out from under her when the Coalition
dissolved, no TV for her...

So at this point that leaves Harper as the best gamble out of
the bunch until someone better comes along.

And yeah....this is Canada and we vote for an MP in a Party
and not for a Leader like the USA...but that doesn't change
things for me.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Good day Ron, having Harper as a financial navigator at this times is sadly unfortunate. $100Billion in 5 years for a federal debt Ron, divide that over 20.000.000 legitimate Canadian tax payers and we are in the glue........Does anyone have a clue what that means? it means that each tax payer is forced to be in debt, for the rest of their tax paying years. The alternative is a strong Liberal Party which is coming soon.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Not to belittle 100 Billion dollars, isn't our national debt
currently over 1/2 a Trillion dollars already?

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Not to belittle 100 Billion dollars, isn't our national debt
currently over 1/2 a Trillion dollars already?

Thanks for the correction Ron, I meant the operating deficit the Conservatives are about to submerge Canada into for the next 5 years.

 

[Cannuck]

Any politician who gets three back to back majorities is a master politician, in my view.

Or just incredibly lucky. There was the Reform/Conservative split during the Cretin years. He had no competition. Lots of people wanted change but there was no credible alternative. I don't give credit where credit isn't due.

 

[JLM]

Not to belittle 100 Billion dollars, isn't our national debt
currently over 1/2 a Trillion dollars already?

Reprehensible isn't it? It would be criminal if it weren't for the fact that children would be in danger of going hungry otherwise. Basic life trumps money.