Claymation Ed Broadbent vs. Dean Del Mastro

The Broadbent Institute released a report today on income inequality. Dean Del Mastro is unimpressed.

With the release of the Broadbent institute’s first report it seems an appropriate time to repeat a time tested truth perfectly articulated by Sir Winston Churchill. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”




Browse

Claymation Ed Broadbent vs. Dean Del Mastro

  1. Why is Big D still in politics? Oh, i forgot…Harper’s still PM.

    Really! Winnie was a great man and a generous spirited one. He’d have no more associated himself with a doofus like Dean Del Mastro than he would have any of the real socialists around at his time.

    • Ad Hominium attack! Lets deal with issue pls?

      • You have to be kidding…Del Maestro deal with issues and avoid ad hominem attacks!…you jest sir. I’ll vote you up for sheer nerve,

  2. …..and Dean Del Mastro uses his brother’s electrical business to fraudulently collect campaign money. He has as even less credibility than Bev Oda

  3. Well, as sock puppets go, he’s fair to middling I guess, but I’m not so impressed with Mr. Del Mastro’s talents as an animator.

  4. Trust on Dean to rely on the comments of a drunk.

    • The British certainly made the right move choosing prosperity over tough Tory times when the war ended… Churchill was the best possible leader in a time of war; but not one in a time of peace…

  5. Haven’t voted NDP since I was a very young adult. But in these times, this Broadbent video invokes melancholy for the old days, when income inequality wasn’t at the exponential state it is today. I remember in university, business ethics classes asking if CEO’s should be paid more than 20 times the front-line workers. Now its hundreds of times more. No thanks to the crap spewed in my economics classes: things like “trickle down, free trade, derivatives, shareholder wealth…

    • Yes, the last thing we would want would be for shareholders of Canadian corporations to be wealthy. In a healthy society, shareholders are impoverished.

      • The shareholders you should worry about are people with RRSPs and defined-contribution pensions. They get screwed every time Bay Street or Wall Street pops one of their speculative bubbles. Minor changes to the top tax rate and the corporate tax rate cerainly don’t impoverish them.

        • So is shareholder wealth good or bad? It’s not clear from your post what you think. It seems clear that Janice Rose thinks it’s bad, after all she refers to the whole idea of shareholder wealth as “crap”.

          • False equivalency bad. Increasing the top income tax rate by a few points (or introducing a $500,000+ bracket with a higher rate) isn’t going to impoverish anyone, by definition. Neither will bumping the corporate tax rate by a couple of points, given the wads of cash Canadian corporate giants are hoarding right now, neither investing in equipment/workers nor distributing to shareholders.

          • Why don’t you give Janice Rose’s post a read. She refers to the very concept of shareholder wealth as “crap”. It is only reasonable to infer, then, that she thinks that shareholders as a general should not be wealthy. I was not making any false equivalency, I was merely doing a plain-meaning reading of what she posted.
            As for distributing cash to shareholders, if the shareholders, who are the owners of a corporation, want the corporation that they own to do that, they have enforceable ways to do that. They can requisition a meeting, start a proxy fight, throw out the directors, etc. etc. But the fact is, flat out distributions of cash to shareholders are taxable events, so often shareholders don’t want that. They would prefer that the corporation either sit on the cash for the time being or spend it on the business.
            I also find it interesting that you seem to think that if a corporation isn’t doing exactly what you want with whatever cash it might have on hand, then the government should jack up its taxes. But I guess you know better than they do what they should do with their money. I mean, you’re the expert and all.

          • Strawman bad.

  6. Great video. Comments by Dean Del Mastro only confirm this.

    How’s that campaign funding fraud case going Del Mastro? Any more cautioned statements? Who is paying your legal bill?

  7. So according to neo-con ignoramuses like Del Mastro, North America was “socialist” 30 years ago…

    I would think free-market ideology is the philosophy of failure considering it led to *two* global economic meltdowns (1929 and 2008) — the second we have yet to recover from.

    Using centrist Keynesian economics in the post-war era, we created modern living standards (which were unprecedented in history,) had strong prosperity that benefited all segments of society and paid down most of our government debt (135% debt/GDP to 35% in America; 100% to 17% in Canada.)

    Over the past 30-year “age of greed,” we had an economic tide that only raised the yachts (living standards were downsized for everyone else,) soaring inequality and debt (now 103% in America; 85% in Canada,) lower GDP and productivity growth, and economic collapse…

    Surely it is a fallacy that neo-cons are good economic managers…

  8. That post is depressing, but the comments on the post are so uplifting. I love Canada.

  9. You know, Pickngrin, you’ve simply convicted dean Del Mastro on the basis of what one of his relatives is accused of doing. How does that fit with our current Canadian system of law, whereby everyone … including you … is innocent until proven, beyond doubt, to be guilty of wrongdoing. If Mr. Del Mastro’s relative is unscrupulous and dishonest, does that automatically mean the whole family is tainted? And, may I remind you, that particular relative also has been accused of fraud, but not convicted in a court of law? If you insist on condemning someone’s credibility before any wrongdoing by that person has been proven, what does that make you, if not a vigilante?

Sign in to comment.