Harper is an Absolute Idiot and Now C. Jr. Jr. Is Pissed off

Ok I know I do not always provide both sides to the debate. I am as biased as anyone else. My question is simple how can you declare there will be no deficit during the election (at a time when people were comparing the economic downturn to the Great Depression) to $85 billion in deficit over the next five years.


(Harper could have led Germany out of the Great Depression - he is that fiscally responsible)

Not the most complicated math but I believe that is a difference of $85 billion. My favourite part to this is that the government says they will be able to bring us back out of deficit within 5 years and the most laughable part is that the projections are based on the government believing this recession will end by the end of the year. I once heard Paul Martin guarantee that the government that takes you into a deficit will not be the one to bring you back out. It is hard to imagine that this government will simply revoke their tax cuts in a couple of years and start slashing spending.

By the end of the year our national debt will be over $492 billion. Pardon me Mr. PM but is it really the best of plans to just pass our problems on to the next generation and the one after that. Did we not learn anything from the mistakes of the last generation? Were the effects of righting the ship under Paul Martin not bad enough? Do we really need to go through this again. http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/interactive/budgetFlashback09/ This is an excellent table that illustrates the budget over the last 20 years and it is quite evident which government brought us deeper into debt and which brought us out of debt. For the party that claims to be fiscally responsible they do tend to have a free spending spirit when they are in office.

Solutions: Hindsight is 20/20 but sometimes when people tell you to not cut the GST (cough... almost every economist) you should listen. So you get back that $10-12 billion annually. Then perhaps you keep a little bit of the extra $8 billion we are spending with little success in Afghanistan and leave it at say 12 instead of 20. So without much work we could have avoided $20 billion in annual Harper mistakes (I will call these Harper Hiccups). Harper Hiccups would have given us an additional $20 billion annually which over 5 years is $100 billion. Hmm simple math and we could have been paying down the debt while spending even more on stimulus.

Not nearly as complicated as this scenario will be for us in a few years is it? Remember Paul Martin slashing programs and what that meant to say healthcare well get ready to do it again.

Another Conservative government got into power and fucked us again. Pardon my language but Harper Hiccups make me, Paul Martin, and Stephane Dion think the Canadian population is not capable of making informed decisions on their own. Now I am sure they will never say that but I am seriously contemplating it myself... perhaps a revolution is necessary or perhaps we should just teach voters a thing or two about this.

Teacher: “Class If we spend more than we have then we have to pay that back later (With Interest).”

Is it me or are we gang raping our grandchildren’s wallets right now (pardon the vulgar imagery but right now I am ashamed the Canadian people are letting this happen to the next generation).

C.

We're Back - And we're $64 Billion Poorer

You have to sit back and wonder what all of those in Canada were thinking when they votes in the Conservative Party of Canada for another minority.

Well, ok, I will take a guess as to what they were thinking. All that these voters cared about was money. You heard it everywhere.

"Did you hear, Harper cut the GST!"

"Wow, Harper promises to strengthen our businesses!"

To bad Canadians are so unintellectual when it comes to voting.

CTV tonight announced that Harper and his pals plan to run a $64 billion deficit over the next two years. Yes, that is right, even thought two months ago the Prime Minister said that we were in fine shape. Yes, in an election, our leader said our economy was in fine shape.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090122/Ottawa_Deficit_090122/20090122?hub=TopStories

So, here we site looking at a government that is going to, in one fell swoop, destroy the progress this country made over the past decade.

What do we have to blame for that?

I would hazzard to guess that a part of the problem is that Harper used his power in government to try and buy votes by slashing taxes. It worked to a degree.

Now, because he tricked enough Canadians by giving them a few cents back on the dollar spent, we get to pony up $64 billion to deal with it.

I hope that those of you who votes "blue" are happy.

I'm not.

Quality Leadership: How can the US get something right before us?

I believe in democracy but perhaps the interpretation we have created and implemented is not the right one. If a decision is too complicated for the average person to understand, i.e. global warming or a financial crisis, why should they have the right to select a course of action? Perhaps the more reasonable approach is through a representative (but in a different fashion than we currently implement). We currently elect representatives to fill these positions, although we do not directly assign them the positions. The PM selects elected representatives to fill cabinet positions and these individuals then make the decisions regarding complicated issues they sometimes are not fully able to comprehend. I simply have a tough time believing that Flaherty is the best person in Canada to be making economic decisions on behalf of the nation.

In the US I think things are done more appropriately. They elect a leader, someone who the people feel is capable of making the best possible decisions for the country, and although this person is often filled with flaws and the system has its flaws as well, they have gotten this part right. No constitution lives for 200 years without some correct portions. The President then selects his cabinet from anyone in the country, not just the elected members of his or her party as is the case in Canada. In the US the cabinet is represented on an issue such as the environment by a Nobel laureate, in Canada we get Jim Prentice. When an economic crisis threatens to destroy the financial system as we know it, Obama consults with the greatest economic minds of our generation, i.e. Warren Buffet; Harper consults with Flaherty and presumably a magic 8 ball.



Perhaps it is time to consider whether the only people making our decisions should be the elected representatives, who fought hard and long for the opportunity, or whether they should only play a role in these decisions. Now, one could argue that the bureaucrats make all the decisions anyways and the cabinet ministers are just puppets, but if this is the truth perhaps we should be questioning whether spending a long time in the civil service qualifies an individual to make decisions on behalf of the nation.

I am not saying we need to do away with democracy; I greatly appreciate the work of all civil servants, even the members of the senate (I personally know how hard it is to write reports about marijuana and Afghanistan). What I am saying is that perhaps it is time we think about who is making decisions on behalf of this nation, I do not think that the most qualified Canadians are Prentice and Flaherty and I think even Stephen Harper would agree with that.

Is it a pipe dream to think that the smartest and most qualified people should be making the most important decisions facing our country and not parliamentarians who, although they perform a great deed by representing the people, do not always have the greatest qualifications (“My dad was an MP”, “I was the leader of the National Citizens Coalition”, “I have a well defined jaw line”, “I had sex with Tie Domi”)? Canada has had a Nobel laureate lead us before, his name was Pearson and that brought us universal health care. How bad could more qualified candidates really be?



I am not excited to fall behind the US when it comes to fighting global warming or promoting social justice, but it looks to be the path that Canadians have chosen. Perhaps we should try letting wisdom rule, maybe then there will be justice.

C.