No matter how you add it up, Harper’s fiscal record is a catastrophe

[Warhippy]

Aaah yes, lets invest in the military industrial complex, great idea!

"Massive military build up..." If Canada could even afford to do so (we can't), we'd still have the equivalent of pea shooters and at the huge expense of just about everything else in the country. It's a completely ignorant and misguided ideology and use of funds.

We already rely on other countries for security! Do you think Russia would hesitate for a second to roll on through if the US wasn't standing behind us cracking it's knuckles with a big old "bring it" grin on it's face?

Also you're veering in to straw man territory yourself. I never said Canada shouldn't have ANY military I said:

The most ironic thing I think people forget is that those countries with the largest standing armies outside of the USA are known as being communist or socialist countries....the people who want them the most are the ones crying about socialism and communism still.

It is sad, and I do mean terribly so that some people STILL live in a cold war mentality when the loudest people were barely kids when the cold war ended.

We do not need a large standing army, the world has moved beyond that. The army we have should be helping rebuild this country, instead it is involved in tearing others down.

And this is what people are arguing FOR....absolute stupidity will attract those with the same mindset and they shall have a party and wear specific coloured coats.

[Warhippy]

Also,

I would dearly like anyone to actually reply to any of my previous comments without claiming they are only my opinion because I would truly like a more educated and researched opinion from the other side of the fence. not just the usual knuckle dragging ignorance so prominent amongst right wing supporters these days

[otherwise]

Again I laughed about hippy because he provided his opinion while wanting factual and credible responses in return, again ridiculous.

So back to the topic at hand?

Ok so you feel the Conservatives are a little out of touch? Fair enough, as do I in some cases specifically marijuana.

Looking at the budget you and others indicate that you don't like the way the Government went about balancing it, ok do you remember the liberals balancing the budget? Ya they absolutely decimated the military and oh ya never got rid of the gst that they promised to do in 3 straight elections.(how quickly some forget)

I never praised Harper in fact he has many flaws in my opinion, however I think he and the Conservative party have less flaws then the alternatives. Remember the liberal scandals? Millions of dollars!

Btw you mentioned the military being in situations they have no business? Well guess Canada has a responsibility to protect, introduced by the Liberals.

And as for the Ndp, no thanks. Do you want to pay more taxes? Ask Manitoba how they liked that. Look at Saskatchewan 50 years of ndp gone and now they're a have province with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western world. I don't think b.c'ers need to be reminded of the neo days, remember the investment in b.c under them? Of course not there was no investment or growth. As for the federal ndp they want to up funding to the cbc so my tax dollars go to a channel I hardly watch, great idea. The federal neo also has at least a dozen mp's that have some sort of separatist views, that's real great for Canada.

I'm for lower taxes and job growth not for pushing away growth and thus have no choice but to tax the people. That is the ndp

1. Please know history. Grant Devine put this province in so much debt. Also several of the members of his government were convicted of fraud for stealing tax payer money.

2. Without the crowns this current government would be in debt up to their eyes. In fact they have sold a couple to get money.

3. The NDP of the 90's had to fix the finiacial disaster left by the previous government.

oh and sask has always had a fairly low unemployment rate... infact some of the worst years were when the cons were in government.

http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/statistics/Labour/PDF/UnempRate.pdf

I listen to Wall a lot on am 650 and like he says 50 years of ndp neglect on infrastructure will take time to address. At least he is being honest and not promising the world all at once. By far the best premier in Canada.

the fact you listen to ckom is all I need to know. They are like the fox news of radio for sask.

edit:

a couple sources... in case you read those

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/saskatchewan-tories-in-fraud-scandal/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/25-years-later-devine-looks-back-on-his-legacy-1.671813

[Warhippy]

1. Please know history. Grant Devine put this province in so much debt. Also several of the members of his government were convicted of fraud for stealing tax payer money.

2. Without the crowns this current government would be in debt up to their eyes. In fact they have sold a couple to get money.

3. The NDP of the 90's had to fix the finiacial disaster left by the previous government.

oh and sask has always had a fairly low unemployment rate... infact some of the worst years were when the cons were in government.

http://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/statistics/Labour/PDF/UnempRate.pdf

the fact you listen to ckom is all I need to know. They are like the fox news of radio for sask.

edit:

a couple sources... in case you read those

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/saskatchewan-tories-in-fraud-scandal/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/25-years-later-devine-looks-back-on-his-legacy-1.671813

man i forgot about that. There was what 5 total investigations? And the selling of two of those is still a huge hot button issue amongst more than a few people.

thanks for the memories on that. It's shocking how revisionist a lot of people are about history when politics are involved

[Warhippy]

Remember Harper blasting the Liberals for the EI issue.

Well...turns out he's "balancing his budget" the same way.

==============================================================

Remember two decades ago, when surpluses in the employment insurance fund started giving the Chrétien government billions in extra revenue to repay debt, cut taxes or fund other things?

For two years only — just until 2017 — those days are back. And how convenient: it's just enough to nudge Joe Oliver's books into the black in time for this year's election.

• Canada's deficits and surpluses: 1963 to 2015
• Analysis: Oliver's promises-kept budget: Ignore the sleight of hand
• Federal budget 2015 overview
• How Joe Oliver balanced the books

The last recession dipped the EI account balance into the red, accumulating a deficit of $9.2 billion by 2011. But as of 2015, that's paid off.

A rate freeze by former finance minister Jim Flaherty in 2013 — ostensibly to protect employees and employers from more rate increases — is keeping contributions higher than necessary to maintain that balance.

That translates into an extra $2.7 billion for 2015-16. Without it, Stephen Harper wouldn't have his balanced budget.

Next year, it'll be worth $1.4 billion extra.

Then starting in 2017, contribution rates will be based on a seven-year "break-even" formula. Premiums will drop to a level that keeps the account in balance, not surplus.

The overall goal? More transparent rates. And an end to multibillion-dollar dipping into EI funds to finance the ambitions of future governments.

But first, a final windfall.

'Slush fund … needs to stop'

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business was among those "screaming and yelling" about payroll tax unfairness.

But president Dan Kelly says that while his members want lower premiums, they understand you need surplus years to balance out deficits.

"I am generally supportive of the government's approach," Kelly said, "and I say that with a bit of a heavy heart, because this year and next, because of this new formula, rates are not coming down as much as they could come down, and so the economy is missing out on that benefit."

"Right now, the EI surplus is subsidizing the books of the government of Canada, I think that's a fair statement," Kelly said.

But by that logic, in bad times the government subsidized the EI account.

"That's why we haven't been lighting our hair on fire on this," he said, emphasizing that consistent rates are what counts.

Kelly said his group asked for a chart in the budget to track the EI account over time. (And sure enough, there is one.)

"We wanted to have that accountability," he said. "EI has been used as a bit of a slush fund for decades and that needs to stop."

Election 'jiggery-pokery'

Liberal deputy leader Ralph Goodale said that while in theory the idea of a seven-year rate-setting mechanism is anti-cyclical — stabilizing rates over time rather than making them rise and fall with economic fortunes — the way the Harper government implemented this was pro-cyclical, making things worse at a time when job creation was supposed to be the priority.

"This is not a time to play jiggery-pokery with EI rates," he said.

Leading up to 2013, the revenue from payroll premiums increased by $600 million in each of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. Then premiums were frozen at that "artificially high" level. Add it together up to 2017 and you've got $14.4 billion in additional revenue for the Harper government, Goodale said.

The former Liberal finance minister — who also enjoyed a hearty EI surplus in his budgeting days a decade ago — said Tories have "used it in such a shameful fashion, all the while proclaiming that they weren't."

"This one was deliberately contrived to suit their election timing," he said. "It was clearly intended to pad the government's books."

Come 2017, Finance Canada confirmed Friday it will not apply its five cent cap on premium increases or decreases. Instead, premiums are expected to drop more substantially — from $1.88 to $1.49 per $100 of insurable earnings — to begin the new break-even strategy.

"They'll drop the rates in a dramatic fashion and say 'Oh my! What a good boy am I!" Goodale said,

'Almost like a tax'

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is disappointed that the government continues to treat EI surpluses like general tax revenue.

"The current government is not going quite [as far as previously], but the principle is the same," said federal director Aaron Wudrick.

"Our big fear is that governments become dependent on it, and start to bake it into their assumptions," he said.

Extra revenue risks government "getting a little loose" with spending, Wudrick said. But if surpluses were used to pay down debt, he'd support that.

"Some people might argue that it's not a big deal that it goes into general revenue," he said. "But we think it is reasonable that the government be honest about what it's doing with the money."

In 1998, former Reform party critic Monte Solberg told then finance minister Paul Martin the government had a "moral obligation" to pay back the extra billions belonging to the "waitresses and plumbers and all those people who have contributed to the EI fund."

Few Conservatives of Solberg's vintage are left to feel discomfort now that the shoe is on the other foot.

[ubcanuck]

I wasn't expressing surprise, was just saying that life experience leaves Mulcair as the only viable option out of the big three. That said, Trudeau is still more qualified to be a national leader than Harper. He had plenty of exposure to real world leaders at 24 Sussex when his dad was PM.

Justin was 13 when his father left office in 1984.

[aeromotacanucks]

My opinion? I am not stating my opinion I am stating facts written by numerous think tanks and recognized news media publications across canada and the globe.

Everything I levied against Harper is simply my opinion. This is what you've been saying the entire time. That every single argument I have presented against harper and in defense of the NDP record of economics at the provincial level is opinion...when I've said numerous times it isn't, that it is fact based.

Here we go, this is all of the links backing up everything I have stated thus far in my argument against Harper and about his governance vs the Libs and the NDP.

I will also post your links that back up your arguments since I entered this thread as well which would only be fair.

Martin/Chretien

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...hikes-1.3032548

http://www.thestar.c..._a_deficit.html

Adscam

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...nd/groupaction/

https://ca.news.yaho...-190531076.html

Action or Stim Scam:

https://raisethehamm...ke_chump_change

http://montrealsimon...ction-plan.html

http://www.thestar.c..._editorial.html

http://news.national...-2011-12-report

Procurement:

Chretien:

http://www.theglobea...article8435147/

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...years-1.1137760

Harper:

http://www.canada.co...18-b12c6f7880a0

http://www.defensein...an-never-05223/

http://thechronicleh...r-over-choppers

F-35:

http://www.ipolitics...papers-on-f-35/

http://www.huffingto...ws/canada-f-35/

Ships:

http://news.national...generals-report

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...stery-1.1300816

Canadian issues of protection:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ement-1.3028589

http://www.policyalt...rper_Record.pdf

http://ottawacitizen...boriginal-women

http://news.national...ng-hungry-study

http://www.huffingto..._n_5041508.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_1588144.html

http://globalnews.ca...ere-are-we-now/

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-says-1.1137445

NDP in provincial politics:

http://www.progressi...itical-parties/

http://behindthenumb...ical-parties-2/

http://news.ubc.ca/w...Performance.pdf

https://canadiandime...askatchewan-ndp

http://www.saskarchi...ecord_of_Change

Harper Flaherty Economics

http://thetyee.ca/Vi.../08/HarperEcon/

http://www.macleans....-or-just-lucky/

http://albertadiary....his-family.html

http://business.fina...ons-to-25-years

http://www.macleans....e-amortization/

http://www.canadianm...gage-rules.html

http://business.fina...ial-initiatives

http://www.huffingto..._n_6569950.html

http://www.ctvnews.c...-banks-1.336255

https://mises.org/li...lobal-recession

All of those are the research and home work I've done to back up my statements in a fact and not opinion based argument about Harper, his record and about his comments and statements about the Liberals and NDP in Canada.

Again, please do understand I am neither a Liberal nor NDP supporter at either the Provincial or Federal level.

RS, here is what you've lent to your side of the argument

......

I rest my case man. Again, welcome home. Seriously it's supposed to be gorgeous here this week. Enjoy it, as I think they're cleaning up the beaches this week as well. Should be a good one in the valley

why this thing always end about military budget and the F-35?

buy a Sukhoi-35 already!

[Warhippy]

why this thing always end about military budget and the F-35?

buy a Sukhoi-35 already!

.....it isn't

Had you followed the entire thread it was answering someones ignorance in regards to things.

They kept saying everything that was said was simply "opinion" so facts were displayed. Then those facts were apparently a "biased media" so facts from the other side that mirrored those same facts were posted.

The main issue is that the crowd supporting the Conservative base in canada on Parliament hill is so self righteous they refuse to accept that their party can do no wrong when in fact all evidence points to them committing the same misuses and abuses of power that the previous party did but on a much MUCH larger scale.

And to deflect they attack a party that has never actually held power in canada at the federal level and somehow accuse them of being something they are patently not. They do this out of ignorance, fear, stupidity...I mean I don't get it myself.

How can you demand facts, be presented those facts from two different sides of the political spectrum and STILL call them simply opinions.

Craziness.

The F-35 and the other stuff though was in direct response to an accusation that i had no idea about the military and what harper had done or...more aptly not done for them while in power. The former party was accused of the term coined "decade of darkness" but facts show that Harper has done the same thing only worse and wasted billions more doing it.

Pretty much summed up. The two big political parties here in canada are a frigging joke and the only difference between them is the colour of their jackets

[aeromotacanucks]

.....it isn't

Had you followed the entire thread it was answering someones ignorance in regards to things.

They kept saying everything that was said was simply "opinion" so facts were displayed. Then those facts were apparently a "biased media" so facts from the other side that mirrored those same facts were posted.

The main issue is that the crowd supporting the Conservative base in canada on Parliament hill is so self righteous they refuse to accept that their party can do no wrong when in fact all evidence points to them committing the same misuses and abuses of power that the previous party did but on a much MUCH larger scale.

And to deflect they attack a party that has never actually held power in canada at the federal level and somehow accuse them of being something they are patently not. They do this out of ignorance, fear, stupidity...I mean I don't get it myself.

How can you demand facts, be presented those facts from two different sides of the political spectrum and STILL call them simply opinions.

Craziness.

The F-35 and the other stuff though was in direct response to an accusation that i had no idea about the military and what harper had done or...more aptly not done for them while in power. The former party was accused of the term coined "decade of darkness" but facts show that Harper has done the same thing only worse and wasted billions more doing it.

Pretty much summed up. The two big political parties here in canada are a frigging joke and the only difference between them is the colour of their jackets

change the country but your final speech applies to ANY COUNTRY.

I normally don´t give my personal opinion on domestic posts since I´m not a Canadian citizen so I leave this to Canadian citizens. altought I look the posts to make my personal opinion...

BUT I can´t deny that in every single post where the word "Harper" appears somehow the F-35 jet also appears

I´m still surprised how the "Avro" didn´t appear yet...

ok. my personal opinion is that Canada is relying too much in USA when comes to the military assistance. ok I know there´s the NORAD and I know there´s something called "Alaska" where USA have tons of military bases there due to the cold war...

I know all this thing.

BUT I think Canada should have some respectable military staff for it´s own protection. come on! Brazil has a military staff 5 to 10 times larger than the Canadian military staff! and who overseas hate us (Brazil)? ISIS?

it doesn´t need to be a larger one. but buy a super expensive jet that it´s not doing the promissed is a waste of time and money and Canadians are paying for that waste.

I´m wondering how the Canadian people feel they´re paying taxes to but a fancy jet that it isn´t doing the job yet. Lockheed is the only one happy with this. does Canada REALLY needs a VTOL (Vertical Take off Or Landing) aircraft? a STOL (Shot Take off Or Landing) plane wouldn´t be a better choice?

or even a smaller but more efective plane. the USAF is buying from EMBRAER the EMB-320 Tucano for border patrol and drug combat near the border.

the Tucano is a single engine turboprop (PT6), cheap, easy to fly, cost efective and battle tested overseas.

or if ok. Canada needs a jet like the F-35. why not a Harrier? A-10 or the good but well proved F-15?

just my opinion...

[Warhippy]

change the country but your final speech applies to ANY COUNTRY.

I normally don´t give my personal opinion on domestic posts since I´m not a Canadian citizen so I leave this to Canadian citizens. altought I look the posts to make my personal opinion...

BUT I can´t deny that in every single post where the word "Harper" appears somehow the F-35 jet also appears

I´m still surprised how the "Avro" didn´t appear yet...

ok. my personal opinion is that Canada is relying too much in USA when comes to the military assistance. ok I know there´s the NORAD and I know there´s something called "Alaska" where USA have tons of military bases there due to the cold war...

I know all this thing.

BUT I think Canada should have some respectable military staff for it´s own protection. come on! Brazil has a military staff 5 to 10 times larger than the Canadian military staff! and who overseas hate us (Brazil)? ISIS?

it doesn´t need to be a larger one. but buy a super expensive jet that it´s not doing the promissed is a waste of time and money and Canadians are paying for that waste.

I´m wondering how the Canadian people feel they´re paying taxes to but a fancy jet that it isn´t doing the job yet. Lockheed is the only one happy with this. does Canada REALLY needs a VTOL (Vertical Take off Or Landing) aircraft? a STOL (Shot Take off Or Landing) plane wouldn´t be a better choice?

or even a smaller but more efective plane. the USAF is buying from EMBRAER the EMB-320 Tucano for border patrol and drug combat near the border.

the Tucano is a single engine turboprop (PT6), cheap, easy to fly, cost efective and battle tested overseas.

or if ok. Canada needs a jet like the F-35. why not a Harrier? A-10 or the good but well proved F-15?

just my opinion...

No arguments and not trying to come off as a dbag so apologies there if I did.

I don't think the issue is what jet we buy, but more how it was brought about, the lying the absolutely dismal procedure to get it and more. We really do need to upgrade. But how it has happened here is so incredibly piss poor that for anyone to rip on the former government for their failures is only kidding themselves.

We've literally wasted billions and thus far the only people that have recieved anythhing, are the corporations that are supposed to be building these for us but haven't even started.

My 6 year old could capably walk to the store and buy everything on a shopping list with less issue than these people could purchase military weapons with decades of experience and billions of dollars.

[aGENT]

Strome's been awfully quiet...

[aeromotacanucks]

No arguments and not trying to come off as a dbag so apologies there if I did.

I don't think the issue is what jet we buy, but more how it was brought about, the lying the absolutely dismal procedure to get it and more. We really do need to upgrade. But how it has happened here is so incredibly piss poor that for anyone to rip on the former government for their failures is only kidding themselves.

We've literally wasted billions and thus far the only people that have recieved anythhing, are the corporations that are supposed to be building these for us but haven't even started.

My 6 year old could capably walk to the store and buy everything on a shopping list with less issue than these people could purchase military weapons with decades of experience and billions of dollars.

you didn´t insult/ofended me dude. relax

it´s just my very personal opinion...

however I´m surprised how the Canadian media is showing this. and I see a lot of overseas media (internet/TV) for a lot of reasons including keep my english good enought and because the Brazilian media sucks in so many levels...

one side shows the F-35 as a needed upgrade for the CF-18 (F-18) and since is a major upgrade surelly takes a long time to develop...

the other side shows the F-35 as a waste of time because there´s the other option avaliable like the F-16 block D, F-15E, Saab Gripen or the Eurofighter...

basically one side sees Harper as a saint while the other sees him as a f#¨#er...

but seems and I don´t understand why the Canadian Air Force cannot buy fighters from other nations? ok there´s the "USA factor" but Canada is an independent country right?

if Air Canada can buy Airbus and Embraer instead Boeing and CRJ why the Air Force cannot buy an European fighter? or even Russians jets?

why this need of "we must buy a fighter from USA"? pretty sure the SAAB GRIPEN NG is a nice choice, small, STOL, Cheaper, ready, nice to put on remote places in Canada. why invest soo much money on a jet that creates more problems every single day?

there´s a lot of things I don´t understand but looks like the USA simply deal with Canadians without the proper respect. when I lived in Vancouver I saw Canadians going to the USA embassy to get some stamp on the Canadian passport just to cross the border.

I don´t get it. both countries have nice levels of economy and education and somehow you still need a passport to visit a country 200kms away?

meanwhile I can go to the ENTIRE SOUTH AMERICA using only my ID/Drive License and vice-versa. we go to Argentina, they come here. no passports, no fancy stuff, just your regular ID and done. bienvenido/bem vindo!

people in Vancouver where surprised with this. it´s not overseas, it´s a country 200kms south from your home. why this thing?

USA may say "is to contain the terrorism". ok CIA but seems not be working at all. being rude with the country next to you it´s not the smartest idea...

I really believe that Canada should stop relying all the "big projects" on USA corporations and start let the Canadian companies do the job. They (Canadian Corporations) know the country, they know the people. so why not let the Canadian people do their job in Canada?

the "Uncle Sam" isn´t the "King Sam". at least not for me...

[Warhippy]

Strome's been awfully quiet...

Maybe he's just keeping his "opinion" to himself

[Dral]

We don't need an army, but we need a navy and an air force would be great. Gotta patrol the arctic and coasts... moar SAR....maybe we should apply to get some US military aid...

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

We don't need an army, but we need a navy and an air force would be great. Gotta patrol the arctic and coasts... moar SAR....maybe we should apply to get some US military aid...

The navy is being overworked. They can't do patrols because they are too busy playing the role of coast guard, something that Harper got rid of. And now people want a bigger navy because nobody's watching the arctic. Sheesh.

[aeromotacanucks]

The navy is being overworked. They can't do patrols because they are too busy playing the role of coast guard, something that Harper got rid of. And now people want a bigger navy because nobody's watching the arctic. Sheesh.

why the hell Harper did it? the Coast Guard is mainly involved in SAR and water patrol while the Navy does the defense part...

once you get rid of the Coast Guard you overwork the Navy...

[Warhippy]

why the hell Harper did it? the Coast Guard is mainly involved in SAR and water patrol while the Navy does the defense part...

once you get rid of the Coast Guard you overwork the Navy...

For the same reason he swore that we had a world class oil spill clean up response without having a clue and then closing a vital coast guard station in Kitsilano.

He has literally no clue at all. Like at all, he does the exact opposite of what the experts tell him to do and then claims victory or intelligence

[aeromotacanucks]

For the same reason he swore that we had a world class oil spill clean up response without having a clue and then closing a vital coast guard station in Kitsilano.

He has literally no clue at all. Like at all, he does the exact opposite of what the experts tell him to do and then claims victory or intelligence

so...

basically Harper is the Canadian version of George W. Bush?

[nucklehead]

He worshipped at his feet, yes.