"A bit rich" - Macleans.ca

“A bit rich”


From the Inkless emailbox, this missive from Ryan Sparrow at the Conservative war room:

“It’s a bit rich for Michael Ignatieff to be talking about the creditbility of election platforms.  It has been 6 days since Michael Ignatieff released his election platform.  Here are the major uncosted items:

” • HST funding for Quebec (Cost — $2.2 billion)

“• New Champlain Bridge (Cost — $1 billion according to Ignatieff)

“• Arenas for professional sports (Cost — unknown.  The Quebec City arena is estimated at $400 million. How many more arenas is he planning to build/fund?)

“• Pharmacare (Cost — Estimated at between $6.6 and $10.3 billion by 2006 Federal-Provincial study)

“• High speed rail (Cost — $18 billion for a Quebec City-Windsor route according to 1995 study.  Obviously the cost would be much more in 2011 dollars)

“Michael Ignatieff has made at least $28 billion in uncosted spending promises in this campaign, even before the costs of his arena program are factored in.    He has no credibility on the numbers; or the economy.”


“A bit rich”

  1. They missed Cap and Trade estimated at $33 billion in the Greens platform.

    • Oh so your coalition phantasy means that the Liberals must defend another parties' platform?
      Sorry, but canard was stretched too thin and already broken a while back.

      • Let me assist you with reading comprehension and math, both of which elude Liberals. The LPC has not costed their page 46 promise on Cap and Trade nor any other carbon taxes they have under that umbrella. Given it was stolen from the Greens by Dion, and is now resurrected by Igggenstein, one can assume the cost to Canadians individually and to Industry in tax increases, not including price increases, is in the area of $33 billion. I know you Libs love paying taxes so good luck with all this transparency by your leaders.

        • Dear Mr. Murphy – you obviously mised the announcements that it is already in place in BC, Ontario, Quebec along with a number of US States – and the real question is – when is the Federal government going to catch up? My answer – when we get rid of the boat anchor aka Stephen Harper!

          • Wheres the carbon trading exchange lad. Do you mean the one in Chicago that closed down – or didn't actually even get off the ground? LOL

          • @Wascally Wabbit,

            Hey there Wabbit, WTF are you chewing on??? What ever it is, it's affecting your brains.
            The USA & Europe are either dumping or has dumped Cap & Trade and Carbon Tax bcos they are either bankrupt or going bankrupt.
            I suggest you do your google search homework. Is the reason that you don't care about this MAJOR TAX GRAB SCAM bcos your on welfare? Well, let you enlighten you on something……your entitlement cheque won't be buying you much food.
            How is this suppose to help the poor or middle class???? Environmental my Aunt's Fanny! Get Real.
            Sorry for the cheap shots, but I am fed up with all the freaking green energy money grab scam! And so should you be!!! This is why Ignatieff came back to Canada……to push Al Gores FAKE Global Warming Scam.

            This video is a must see, if you value you money in your pocket vs bankruptcy.

            Cap and Trade Explained (in plain old English) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrE7ndkSwY

          • Actually they're not.

            And here's a hint…not everything on Youtube is true.

        • Thums up to WW. MM? Meh.

          • Yeah, okay. And when all the new projects in AB shut down, and the ON, NL, NB, etc all have to go home withOUT a paycheque, and the ON plants providing parts etc shut down, etc and the transfer payments end, where the hell will you be?

        • It is a little hard to take someone seriously who thinks a large chunk of the population cannot read or do math because of a political affiliation. I will ignore you now.

  2. Anyone who listens to the little interview you had with whats-his-name will know who lacks credibility.
    Tell us about the Income Trust promise dim-Jim.

    • Do you mean scrap the gst promise?

      • Politicians have broken promises? OMG, my whole world is shattering! Please, someone please tell me this is not so. Please. Anyone. Please. HELP!!!!!!!!!! That's it, I am never ever voting again because *bigwhineycryingface* they are all big mean liars and I just can't take people lying because it's so pathetic and I'll have to live the rest of my life constantly pointing out how one of them lied only to have somebody else point out how the other one lied!


  3. The media won't report this startling collection together as a fact, just as an allegation from from the "conservative war room" if at all. It lessens the blow as if it's just part of the 'he said she said' fog.

    The collection won't be reported as a fact, and certainly none of the detailed scrutiny, as we've seen on the CPC's proposals.

    A magnifying glass to the right, a blind eye to the left.

    • You should read what 'renowned' professor Mendes has written recently:
      article http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/07/errol-mendes-the-r

      And he's considered a constitutional expert. If he writes this sort of anti-Harper diatribe in public, I seriously wonder how the 'academia' talk about Harper behind closed doors.

      Such emptyness coming out of eductated corners. It's unbelievable.

      • "Educated".

        • No, no: "educktaped".

    • The magnifying glass would be to locate CRAP"s respect for parliamentary democracy?

  4. The Liberal platform would tackle the deficit the same way the party did in the 1990s — by bringing the deficit target to one per cent of GDP within two years.
    They say they'll save $3 billion in one year — rising to $5 billion in year 2 — by increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5 per cent, to a level of 18 per cent.
    The Liberals also pledged to eliminate a tax break on stock options for the very rich that, they say, will bring in $300 million to the treasury. Canadians who earn more than $100,000 in annual stock options will have to pay income tax on their earnings.
    The party also believes it will save $500 million in two years by slashing government advertising, limiting the size of the cabinet and the prime minister's office and cutting the amount of money spent on consultants.

    • That's $8.8 billion. Another $19.2 billion and your there.

      Of course the claims about increased revenue from raising the corporate tax rate seems to go against what most economists say, roughly $1 billion, and your almost back to square one.

      • "The way to create jobs in this economy is to invest in skills and training," he said. "The idea that education is a benefit that is only realized down the road seems to me to mistake how important education and training are for Canadians.
        "The real problem we have in terms of creating jobs is skill shortages."
        To pay for the planned $8 billion in new spending over the next two years, a Liberal government would raise the corporate tax rate back to 18% from the current 16.5%, which they insist would still be low enough to keep attracting growth in Canada.
        But economists have warned the Liberal estimates are too high, and raising the corporate tax rate will not yield the numbers they are hoping for.
        Ignatieff shot back Monday, saying their projections were carefully thought out using a variety of independent estimates.
        "We wanted to be very cautious because we only want to make those promises that we can keep," he said.

        • So Ignatieff stands by his numbers of his platform, much like the Conservatives do with their platform. The problem is Ignatieff might want to mention who did these independant estimates, because every economist I've seen estimates extra revenue of only $1 billion.

          '"“By raising the (corporate tax) rate we'll lose $50 billion in capital spending over the long run and we will also lose 200,000 jobs,” Mintz is quoted as saying from a broadcast of the Rutherford Show on April 1, 2011. “It's just such a bad policy to advocate."

        • By the way, included in your own post is this gem: "But economists have warned the Liberal estimates are too high, and raising the corporate tax rate will not yield the numbers they are hoping for"

          I think that's what's called scoring on your own goal:0).

          • No, economists disagree with Harper too….and have all along.

            However since the Libs cleared up the deficit, paid down on the debt, and produced years of surplus the last time they were in…..and Harper promptly blew it all, and put us massively in deficit again…..I know which one Canadians are likely to find credible, and it ain't your boy.

          • Emily – what these self styled economists (and Flaherty don't get) is that the Cap and Trade (or any Carbon pricing model) is based upon a zero sum game – they take from the carbon producing industries and give to individual taxpayers along with incentives for green industries.
            That was the proposal in the Green Shift – and is the same model in the provincial systems already implemented. That these "number crunchers" can't get their heads around the nition is that it represents and incentive for industry and the general public to change their habits – rewarding the good guys and penalizing the bad ones. It also presumes that Climate change is Real and man made pollution is a partial cause of it – which these same folks still do not believe

          • Yes, Cons live in a fantasy world….and don't even trust the 'capitalism' they claim to believe in.

          • Trying to rewrite history WW? Dion himself said the greenshift would bring in $15 billion in tax money. Spending would increase $9 billion. Dion clamied the greenshift was revenue neutral, but could never explain where the extra $6 billion was going to go.

            Perhaps that's why Ignatieff is now the leader and Dion has been non-existant since the 2008 election.

          • Yep. That's why the Conservatives hand the Liberals their arses in every poll asking who Canadians trust with the economy. Any idea why those economists you say have always disagreed with Harper all support the corporate tax cuts?

          • But they don't.

    • “The Liberal platform would tackle the deficit the same way the party did in the 1990s”

      By cutting health & education transfers to the provinces? I don’t recall hearing Ignatieff saying *that*…

  5. Is "creditbility" a Conservative word for I give them credit (votes) now and they will pay the bill later?

  6. Just $28 billion? Harper's budget is in dispute to the tune of $10B (cuts) + $10B (crime) + $30B (or was the US experts difference higher than that) ~ $50 billion or more. If one looks at what Harper/Flaherty said during the last election (no deficit, recession would have already happened) and what actually happened, they probably shouldn't point fingers about "no credibility on the numbers; or the economy".

    • The first expenditure for the jets is still 3 years away. And the $30 billion is over 30 years, and includes maintenance and upgrades, something already costing a similar amount with the current F-18's.

      And you never mentioned the growth in revenues from an increasing economy. Go read the OCED report just released, including the rate of growth for Canada. Not to mention the plan for prisons now includes just refurbishing the current ones.

      But the most important thing you seem to have overlooked is those tax cuts were announced as coming into effect when the budget balances. Liberals platform spending starts right away,much of the Conservative platform comes into effect in 3-5 years. Next Liberal talking point you wanna try?

      • As to timing, the list we are talking about includes things over various timeframes so we should look at Harper's lists over similar time frames.

        I wasn't talking about the PBO's numbers on the jets, I was talking about the US defence experts numbers. Once the government signs a contract, we are stuck with that. You may be fine mortgaging future generations for expensive fighter jets that likely don't even meet the most urgent needs of our military, but I am not.

        On the prisons, the information given did not include how much was for refurbishing and how much was for new prisons. Harper has promised to pass all his crime legislation within 100 days if re-elected, so where would one put the new prisoners that result from new mandatory sentences if not in expanded prison space?

        • "Harper has promised to pass all his crime legislation within 100 days if re-elected, so where would one put the new prisoners that result from new mandatory sentences if not in expanded prison space?"

          Well, according to Emily our prisons are empty.

          • Which is really a shame, because obviously, Carson and his fiance should be in one (or two, I guess).


      • By the way, anyone out there mentioning the likelyhood of higher interest rates? If memory serves, at my age short-term sometimes fails, but wasn't it only about two months ago that we as citizens were all warned that the rates will be going up and that we carry too much debt? Wouldn't governments be affected by higher rates, like for debt servicing charges?

  7. A party that wants to spend billions on fighterjets and empty prisons yet claims they will cut the deficit at the same time questions Ignatieff's credibility???

    Must be Orwell's 'Newspeak'.

    • Empty prisons? So does that mean we can do away with the provisions of 2 fer 1 time served due to overcrowding? I thought Ignatieff was against that.

      "The overcrowding of prisons remains a major concern and challenge in Canada. As a result, the safety of inmates and staff alike is threatened and, ultimately, that of the public. The Canadian Criminal Justice Association is calling on all jurisdictions and the public to address these issues with a view to bringing about necessary and pressing changes, and to defusing a potentially explosive situation."

      • Crime rate in Canada has been going down for 10 years.

        Stock Day suggested building additional prisons….for undetected crime.

        • "Crime rate in Canada has been going down for 10 years"

          And the population of the country has grown by millions over the past ten years. Even with a lower crime rate, we have more people being convicted of crimes. Do the math. And you kind of forgot to mention the overcrowding in prisons. Let me know if you want some links. I guess your google search function is broken.

          • It's a percentage, not a body count.

            Crime has been going down in Canada….and the US in fact….for ten years.

            Replacing ancient overcrowded prisons is one thing….putting up a whole raft of additional ones is quite another.

    • *sigh* Ignatieff is going to buy the jets too.

      ho-hum, day in and day out, huh?

      • oh, and the arenas…that's extra.

        • We already have the money for that in the infrastructure program.

          • I am so extremely tempted to look through your comments and find 3 or 4 where you blast the Conservatives back when they floated out the idea of doing the same.

            Alas, I am on my way out the door. I've got dinner and then Bruce Cockburn at Massey Hall, so I don't have the time. If someone else wants to take up the cause, I will owe them a coke.

      • Maybe, they have to be tendered first.

        • Tenders. Quebec.

          HA HA HA HA HA

          • Indeed. Too bad they can`t tender in Alberta where corruption is legal.

  8. The Liberals don't have to worry too much because nothing will be funded unless the BQ will agree. And the BQ will only agree with what is right for Quebec.

    Once the Canadian public will see such Liberal minority government in action, they will not stand for it and the Canadian voters will find themselves at the polls for another round, shorty after the Liberal minority has been defeated.

    Frequent elections will be held in Canada untill the BQ party participating within federal elections will be dealt with. Untill then, our true Canadian potential cannot be unleased.

    • A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants….cuz they're on fire.

    • You are right; the Bloc is the elephant in the room that no one is willing to deal with. In most other countries they would have been lead out in handcuffs long ago as traitors. At the very least we can de-fund them by getting rid of voter subsidies. That said,I also think Duceppe is a very smart, well spoken guy who would have had a bright future if he wasn't such a traitor.

      • Lots of countries have separatist groups….there's even one in Alberta, so don't get carried away with the rhetoric.

      • “In most countries,” perhaps. Certainly somewhere like China. But not in most industrial democracies (the UK, Belgium and Spain are obvious examples).

      • Yes, if Harper gets his majority, the voter's subsidy will be gone. I would even be willing to leave the voter's subsidy in place for all of the federal parties, and perhaps Harper (?) would be willing to live with that as well, but how to distinguish between the BQ and the real federalist parties if even in the media's reporting not much is distinguished between the BQ and truly federalist parties, so yes, in order for Harper to stop funding the BQ he has to do away with all voter's subsidies.

        Duceppe is politically smart enough, but I'm not so sure he is that much smarter if he had to run a federal campaign. You see, it is relatively easy to just be concerned about one aspect of Canadian life, namely how it's being lived within one province, without having to deal with national concerns or aspirations. When all regions need to be kept in mind, then the leadership qualities come to the fore. And Duceppe has never had to prove himself in such context. Therefore, I have a difficult time regarding him as being a great leader or smart. The thing is, the BQ could never run as a federal party because doing so would eliminate the party. A lot of Canadians don't or won't understand that. That's the sad part in all of this.

        • Maybe they could apply the per vote subsidy in the same ratio as seats contested by th eparty. You run candidates in 76 of 308 ridings, you get about 25% of the per vote subsidy.

          • I appreciate your thought on this, Merrill S. Indeed, there are alternatives possible.

            But my question remains: Why should my federal tax dollar go towards funding a separatist party??

            (Btw: it is not ME who has labelled the BQ to be a separatist party; the BQ and Duceppe do so, and do so everytime they are being asked. They do so publically for all to hear, including the members of the media.)

        • The Bloc Québécois did very well without the vote subsidy – heck, they did better than the Reform Party or the CPC.

  9. If I want to know anything…about the budget, about the proper way to hold a crayon, doesn't matter…Ryan Sparrow is one person I would ignore completely. Jim Flaherty is another. Not to mention Angry Steve Harper himself. When people have a record of never telling the truth, like this crowd in the Harper Party, it's best just to note that they are liars and ignore what they say.

    • Wow…well said Reverend.

    • Amen to the Church of Rev Blair!

    • Because the Liberal Party has such an upstanding record? Really?

      • I don't understand what you mean here? I was under the impression Mr. Harper was supposed to be more open and transparent. Are you saying he doesn't have to be because of the Liberals record? Very confusing.

  10. Wherry's not going to post this stuff, so I'm glad there are some balanced bloggers here on Macleans that will. lol

    • Are blogs required to be balanced? Is yours?

      • Thanks for admitting that Wherry's isn't.

        I don't write in mine much anymore, but I have more pride and less shamelessness than Wherry does in that regard. That's for sure.

        • I said nothing about Wherry, I mentioned yours.

          The one that failed.

          • lol, why are you so angry?

          • Actually I amuse myself yanking your chain.

          • Who are you kidding? This is your life. You get outraged and personally attack people who question your Liberal party agitations on here. You have to be this way, for some reason. It's what you are.

          • Haha, look at you. You get outraged at every Wherry post! My gawd, the GALL!

          • Really. I don't attack him other than on the substance of his blogging, which I think is mindlessly tilted. How is that getting outraged? Nola/Emily, on the other hand, can't defend her agitations, then makes personal insults at me and others; a tactic that many of you on here seem to absolutely adore. Democracy my butt!!

          • And again I yanked it….Dennis you are such a knob. LOL

          • You need to do this. Thanks. Next.

          • Nope, I just need a laugh.

            You provide it.

          • Rofl, why are you so angry all the time?

          • I think you'd have more credibility if you did more than this one-line anonymous nonsense. I guess you can't attack Harper or Conservatives otherwise. Thanks.

          • Lol, next! Rofl. See i write nonsense like you too! It's easy. Kind of like following blindly your leader and avoiding questions. You must be proud of his accountability. Why are you so angry all the time?
            Or maybe we have exhausted our quota on questions. How accountable of you.

          • I don't follow anyone blindly, nor am I angry. In fact, I sign my name to all my posts on here. You? Next.

      • Does Dennis F write in a national press blog, or a personal blog?

        Does Dennis F admit that he's a conservative supporter? I don't think I've seen Wherry admit that.

        Careful with the comparisons. Private political bloggers have tenfold the integrity most media bloggers have.

        • Dennis's blog is an utter failure….

          However, Wherry can post anything he likes….and if you don't care for it….go elsewhere.

          • How is it an "utter failure?" I write some posts once in a blue moon. If someone wants to read, fine.

            Why is politics so personal for you? Why all this resentment?

            And where's your popular blog? lol

          • Nobody wants to read popery and poopery Dennis.

            Sorry, I leave personal blogs to kids.

          • Like Wherry? lol. Next.

          • It isn't a personal blog.

          • lol, sure. Next.

          • Hint….this is a magazine

          • Actually, these are blogs on a website. A magazine you find on a shelf in the news section, for example. Blog items are not published in print on a magazine. You'd think adults would know the difference. Apparently not. They just come on here and call others kids. The gall! lol

          • Ahhh the web confuses you eh?

            Maybe it's your age.

        • I'm actually not here as a Conservative supporter. I'm here because I don't like the one-sided nonsense that passes for democratic advocacy on here.

          • LOL you are EVERYwhere as a Con supporter.

            You are so Con you are blue from the koolaid.

          • Really. Where is "everywhere," Nola/Emily?

            In fact, I don't have any formal allegiance to the Tories or any other party. But I will speak out when I see the nonsense on these boards. That's for sure. And some of you hate that. I know.

          • You are as blue as blue can be….and your brain has long since drowned due to the lack of oxygen

  11. Published On Thu Sep 11 2008
    Bruce Campion-Smith, Ottawa bureau chief
    Joanna Smith, Ottawa bureau
    OTTAWA — The Conservatives have suspended their director of communications for suggesting that a father of a slain soldier spoke out on Canada's Afghan mission because he is a Liberal supporter.

    Party spokesperson Ryan Sparrow has been sidelined for the duration of the campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed at a campaign event at a winery in Ste. Eustache, Que.

    Maybe he's going for a twofer….

    • So? Wow.

      • So that's the kind of partisan slug you're dealing with.

        • Kind of reminds me of that Liberal MP that refused to help a veteran because he never voted for him.

        • Wappel ran for Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons in 2001, seeking support from backbench Liberals and opposition members. He was eliminated after the first ballot of a secret vote by all Members of Parliament (MPs).[25]

          He faced media scrutiny in May 2001, when he refused to help a veteran in his riding whom he suspected of having voted for a rival candidate in the previous election. Wappel wrote a letter to the constituent, asking "How is it that you are writing me for my help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me?"

        • So that's the kind of partisan slug you're dealing with

          • Partisan slugs are partisan slugs paul.

            Wappel was a SoCon…and no longer an MP.

          • Wappel was a Liberal. And Sparrow looks white as snow compared to Judge Rielly.

          • Jeezuz…Wappel was a SoCon in the Liberal party…which is why he's now gone.

            And Sparrow is a sleazebag.

        • In other words, as is usual for you, you don't have a response to the item posted. All the items Iggy hasn't costed must be true. Thanks. Next.

          • Actually, they have been….but why would you let reality into your world?

  12. Dennis F,

    This will stay deeply within the realm of political blogs.

    It will get no press.


    Meanwhile go to Google news. The headlines:

    "Iggy blasts Harpers 10 Billion Dollar Hole"

    "Iggy Blasts Harper on Carson"

    "Carson Story Won't go Away"

    Iggy can indeed blast away, and will in fact have his attacks parroted, comfortable with the knowlege that the startling facts about him going shoulder to shoulder with his party member CURRENTLY charged with a criminal offence, he until a day or so ago had a white Supremist Leader in his party, and defends a candidate who's OK with the "correct" kinda sexual assualt,

    will all be nicely swept under the carpet for him.

    The brave Iggy goes on the attack, while his media friends hold Harper's hands behind his back as he flails away.

    Iggy knows there's a magnifying glass to the right, and a blind eye to the left.

    The corruption scandal of our generation.

    • Actually those are the headlines on NNW

  13. "No, economists disagree with Harper too….and have all along."

    Really. Doesn't seem like it. Most economists are onboard with going ahead with the corporate tax cuts. The only thing they seem to disagree on is the growth numbers used by Flaherty. They think the numbers are too low, and the Canadian economy will grow at a faster rate.

    Of course Flaherty stated he was using growth projections on the lower end to be safe.

    • LOL their own appointed budget officer says Harp's figures are wrong

      Economists said the GST cuts were stupid

      Even the Pentagon has said Harp's figures are wrong!

      • The Pentagon. You do need to pay closer attention when reading. Winslow Wheeler does not work for the Pentagon, although if you watch CBC you might have been led to believe that. You are right on one thing. At the time economists said gst cut was bad policy. Then when the recession hit other countries began lowering their gst rate to help the economy.

        As for the budget officer, and I'm sure you know this but will still feign ignorance, estimated the cost of the F-35 at $30 billion over 30 years, the government $16 million over 20. It is obvious as the jets age their maintenance and upgrades costs escalate, making the PMO and PBO numbers not that far apart.

        Oh, and by the way, the Pentagon, you know, the one you mentioned, stated the PBO included costs in his estimate that we don't pay, such as R&D.

        • Paul, you can believe any nonsense you want….just don't put it on here as truth when it's not.

  14. Ignatieff very clearly stated that as much as he loves the idea of high speed rail, we cannot afford it right now.

    • Shh… facts are for adults

      • Or page #19 of the Liberal platform.

        • It proposes the establishing of a long term infrastructure and transportation strategy which would include such things as high speed rail. Sounds a lot more prudent than the Cons scatter gun approach to funding based on perceived vote rewarding or garnering.

        • I would argue page 46, which will pay for a sh*tload of Liberal promises, while bankrupting the country.

  15. The Conbots are getting testier. As the poll numbers dwindle and the prospect of looking for a real job increases, expect more panic over the next two weeks.

    • Yup….Cons are right wound up today…..and it's sure to get worse. LOL

    • Nanos has the CPC at 41.

      That word you used "dwindle".

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    • Thanks. Have a job. Trying to keep it.

      Page 46 of the latest rendtion of the BS red book render that debatable.

  16. This is why Ignatieff came back to Canada……to push Al Gores FAKE Global Warming Scam.
    Ignatieff's platform, which he does not discuss in this speeches, includes Cap & Trade.

    This video is a must see, if you value you money in your pocket vs bankruptcy.

    Cap and Trade Explained (in plain old English) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrE7ndkSwY

    • It's amazing that you'd be willing to post your ignorance on a public site.

    • Says Harper who didn't see the recession coming, and then ran up the biggest deficit in our history

  17. If I remember correctly Dion and Layton both promised not to put the country in deficit during the 2008 election. Immediately after the election the coalition demanded in excess of $30 billion in stimulus. Please explain how they would balance the budget with $30 billion spent on stimulus.

    And it's funny you treat Ignatieff's words as gospel regarding the Conservative platform but think it makes no sense for anyone to use Harper's words against the Liberal platform.

    Hey, have you had time to read the latest OCED report yet? Something about Canada leading in growth for the next few years?

    • If I remember correctly Harper said that the only way we could have a recession and a deficit would be to elect Dioin.

      By this harperian sort of logic, does it mean that the only reason we've had a recession and a deficit is because we we elected Stephen Harper?

  18. It's a bit rich, those pesky Conservatives taking credit for the natural resources which magically (pixie dust or some other trick) just happened to appear a gazillion years ago under what would end up as Canadian soil. It's a bit rich for any government, Conservative or Liberal, to try to take credit for the enviable position Canada is in… having all this resource wealth that the rest of the world really wants.

    It's a bit rich, Sparrow castigating the Liberals for demanding stimulus funds when Sparrow's hawkish Leader Stephen Harper and his wingman Jimmy Flaherty claimed ahead of, and during, Election 08 that Canada wasn't in a recession and if it were to happen 'it'd have happened already'. More to the point it's a bit rich that Harper and Flaherty both would claim during Election 08 that they would not engage in deficit financing of federal government operations because, as Ministry of Finance records (delayed transmission to us peons, not so to the PCO) would later prove that Harper and Flaherty misled the Canadian public before, during, and after Election 08 about the state of Canada's finances. Rather than being "just fine" through their actions Steve and Jim plunged Canada into new debt with deficit spending at *historic rates*. The early trendline would prove to be entirely accurate in predicting the huge financial hole the two would dig for Canada.

    Of course that too was part of the plan – all it takes is a majority government for Harper to reveal his true colours and show us what he'll cut, given carte blanche by the very deficit hole he created.

    It's a bit rich indeed Ryan.

    • Well, Michael, Quebec is fine with the pixie dust that created Quebec Hydro all those years ago.

      And remember, Google is your friend. The Canadian election was called a week before the meltdown began and, frankly, ended well before the true nature of it was known.

    • I'm guessing Michael has never heard of the Fiscal Monitor.

  19. And what about the cost of the wreckless coalition!?!?!? Coalition, people! Fear it!!!