Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

1277 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

flymeetointment wrote:

There is arrogance enough to go around, about that much I can agree. I have no idea why you have a disdain for TO just as I have no idea why someone who lives in edmonston NB would have a disdain for TO. My point was simply the REALITY that TO is the center of canada. You and others can dispute that, argue that, but it doesn't change the motherfucking REALITY that TO is the center, in every way, of canada.

Oh and I didn't specifically tell you to STFU, I was more expressing central canadas frustration with BC'ers who think they live in a fuckin paradise and the need for them to shut the fuck up about that fact. We know, we 've seen/heard all about it. So I'm sorry if I hurt your western sensitivities but here on the east coast we say go fuck yourself.

I've lived in Hamilton and Toronto for 66 years, and I've never felt the need to tell BCers to "shut the fuck up". It would appear to me that you are a very foolish young man who has not yet developed the judgement to be taken seriously by adults.

 

flymeetointment

Well I guess I should feel redressed by the famous Michael Moriarty. Well let me say this Mr.Moriarty, the East Vs West split in Canada is a real phenomena and any political party who ignores that FACT ignores it at the countries peril. But please Mr.Moriarty, please redrtess my juvenile language while ignoring the substance. Political parties need to purge individuals like you, as people like you continue the same tired cronyism that everything is OK once we are in power. You are the problem, only bravery and courage on the part of a new generation may work. but only if they don't listen to advice from people like you.

Brachina

There is a west east divide on some issues, but that tends to be more the East vs. Tory Alberta, not BC.

Honestly in my experience as an Ontarian BC only comes up when one is talking about the Northern Gateway pipeline or weed.

Brachina
flymeetointment

Brachina wrote:
There is a west east divide on some issues, but that tends to be more the East vs. Tory Alberta, not BC. Honestly in my experience as an Ontarian BC only comes up when one is talking about the Northern Gateway pipeline or weed.

 

You do understand that the current government the reform party, is essentially a protest party against central canada? You do understand that right? You do understand that the Liberal NEP is a memory many older westerners have and hold against central canada? I understand that individual experiences may vary but that is the reality. Why do you think the cons wanted to get rid of the wheat board? Central canada. Western canada HATES central canada, and the current con government is the result which is atttempting to dismantle every "liberal" inspred social program they can think of. It's not about weed it's about west versus east.

flymeetointment

Ina ny case, to resume the thread, Justin will have to unite western a nd eastern canada, including Quebec. Good luck Justin.

jjuares

I don't have too much regard for Justin's career as a teacher for several reasons. First, it wasn't of much duration-two years.  Secondly, it was in a private school. Many people place their children in private schools because they want others (often a class bias is involved) excluded form their child's liife. Sometimes these schools are based upon specific content (religion for example) or they use a particular pedagogical approach. Often, it simply represents an easy gig for teachers. If Justin really wanted to "serve", as he claims,  he could have come to the inner city where I work. His famous name would be a great draw for fundraisers. As for Tory criticism that he is a "drama" teacher I have no use for that line of attack. Drama is a great thing to teach students. It involves many literacy skills and it is highly engaging and helps build self-confidence. If my budget allowed I would have a drama program in my school in a heartbeat.

So while I dislike the Tory attacks on him as a teacher, I find myself being underwhelmed as to his actual career.

flymeetointment

I know we are focusing on what JT has done and that's a good thing but how about forgetting what he's done in the past and focusing on what he is saying today? That could still be a killer, depending on what he says. Here's hoping he's inherited his fathers rebel nature.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi flymeetointment. Welcome to babble. I'm a moderator here, fyi, and it's my job to keep the peace. Just a friendly reminder to abide by babble's policy (to which you agreed when you registered for the site) and resist personally attacking people, particularly for reasons as specious as you don't like the way they post. Speaking personally, I think where a poster is from is always extremely relevant to the discussion, and I am happy to hear it indexed whenever appropriate. I frequently disagree with kropotkin, for example, but I find those differences are mitigated or at least made transparent when I take into acount his speaking position: that he is from Burnaby, the lower mainland, BC, and so on.

On a broader note, I've noticed that you have responded quite aggressively a number of times to posters during your short time here. Please don't do that. I look forward to hearing your perspective here, but you need to first and foremost treat other babblers with respect. Cheers.

flymeetointment

I am well aware of you Catchfire and what moderators do on forums, save your threatening police talk for someone who cares. Cheers.

You are a glorified prison trustee, never forget that.

David Young

I don't hate Toronto, or Montreal, or Vancouver, or Calgary for that matter.

It is the Toronto 'attitude' (or Montreal, Vancouver, or Calgary 'attitude') which I detest.

We are all equals.  Some of us have strengths, some have weaknesses; some have advantages, some have disadvantages; but we are all Canadians.

If we let politicians like Justin (It-For-Me) Trudeau or Stephen Harper divide us, then we deserve what we get.

Remember:

Love is stronger than hate.

Hope is better than fear.

Optimism is better than dispair.

So let us be loving, hopeful, and optimistic; and we will change the world!

And since I'm from Nova Scotia, does that make me 'East'?  Because we can detest the Toronto 'attitude' just as much as anyone from B.C.!

 

 

flymeetointment

So, good is better than bad? Is that what you wanted to convey David? Message recieved.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

flymeetointment wrote:
You are a glorified prison trustee, never forget that.

Well, sheesh. And I was going to come back to tell you that I liked your handle. Well you can forget about that, bub!

Suffice it to say, I think "glorified prison trustee" is a far more prestigious role than what I considering moderating babble to be. But even so, if you'd like to stick around to lob the ol' veiled insult at your fellow politicos, you might as well pretend to abide by the babble policy. Cheerio!

6079_Smith_W

And prison trustees at least get paid for their time, trouble and abuse, no?

6079_Smith_W

Back on topic:

 

 

flymeetointment

Goddamn, Justin is ripped.

Aristotleded24

Hi Sean, good to hear from you!

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
For the NDP, Trudeau must be taken seriously and countered appropriately. Assuming there is no problem and that this ad is not any good is self-serving in the short term and a wrong-headed strategy in the long term. The Liberals may not have our respect or support but they must have our understanding that they can be a potent threat and at times they can do things right. This might be a time when they have better quality decisions.

...

The NDP can win the next election but it will only do that by seeing realistically what the others are doing and respecting opponents while responding appropriately. My guess is the Liberals will put on a better showing in terms of campaign skills than they have in a long time. If the NDP wants the Liberal slide to continue so that the NDP can take power, then it will have to do better than that. It can be done -- but it will not be automatic. Smug dismissals of Liberal initiatives will not serve us well. (By this I do not mean any criticism of previous posts in this or other threads but a acknowledgement of the risk that a party with double the seats of its competitor could be tempted.)

I don't quite agree with your contention that the Liberals need to be taken seriouisly, and I wonder if us living in different parts of Canada plays into that. When the media talks about "Canadians," they talk about Canada as if it is a homogenous country, which it is not. Where I live, Western Canada, Liberals simply have not played a major role in federal or provincial politics anywhere for great lengths of time for as long as I've been alive. The one obvious exception was 1993, but Liberal representation in Western Canada has declined in every election since. There simply is no infrastructure on the ground in most places. I think of Saskatchewan, where the Greens did better than the Liberals in the last provincial election, and Manitoba where the Greens beat the Liberals in a number of key ridings. In Alberta, the Liberals are now trailing the NDP in their bastion of Edmonton, and the provincial Liberal party was the only one that failed to elect non-incumbent MLAs in 2012. And Landslide Annie never reached 50% support in her constituency, but Linda Duncan of the NDP did. Even if there is a Liberal resurgence in other parts of the country, Western Canada is still an NDP-Conservative battlegournd, and it proved to be so in 1988. Don't forget that as Western Canada receives the bulk of the new federal seats in the upcoming redistribution, theat will be an even bigger challenge. There is no on-the-ground infrastructure here, and I'm not sure that Trudeau, with his celebretiy status, is prepared to do the hard work needed in this part of the country. And since the Trudeau name is still cursed in Western Canada, what hard work he will need to do.

In Ontario, the Liberals have had more success, and since the national media filters everything through that lens, I can see your perspective on why the Liberals are a threat. But are they even as strong in Ontario as they used to be? In the north and the southwest, they trail both the NDP and the Conservatives, as evidenced by the fact that the NDP lost Sault Ste. Marie to the Conservatives. These are all constituencies that the Liberals held not that long ago. What's the stage like there? Will celebrity status be able to vault the third-place party to be contenders?

I think the best thing is to hit the ground running, explain why the NDP is in the best position to both replace Harper and do a better job, and focus on that. If the NDP starts talking about the Liberals, that will only give the Liberals attention.

Bluegreenblogger

jjuares wrote:

One of the big advantage Trudeau has right now is Sun News and the Conservatives. Their relentless attacks on Trudeau give him credibility as a progressive. A credibility he does not deserve but credibility nonetheless. He mutters something rather incoherently about root causes and the right wing goes ape. Somehow the NDP must interject in this conversation. The truth of the matter is that the NDP is doing well in the house but the Liberals are doing well everywhere else. The performance in the house you used to give you credibility with the media and that translated into coverage. I am not sure that old paragdim works anymore.

A very good point. I honestly believe that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. Neither reportage of House nor political reporting in general reaches that many people anymore. It has as much, or more to do with the collapse of broadsheet journalism as it does the splintering of broadcast journalism. I dumped my cable subscription over a year ago, along with millions of other Canadians. As a consequence, I do not see Television news anymore. I cannot remember the last time I brought a newsprint paper. My habits alone don't mean anything, but I am representative of a growing number of people. Narrowcast is the future, and that means Big Data

Hunky_Monkey

flymeetointment wrote:

Goddamn, Justin is ripped.

Underweight can give that impression Wink

Jacob Two-Two

I agree, A24. Justin's celebrity is masking the deep structural weakness of the Liberal party. Pretty icing on a cardboard cake. The stuff that really wins elections is the stuff you don't see, the organisation, which I don't think the Liberals have any more.

Aristotleded24

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I agree, A24. Justin's celebrity is masking the deep structural weakness of the Liberal party. Pretty icing on a cardboard cake. The stuff that really wins elections is the stuff you don't see, the organisation, which I don't think the Liberals have any more.

But that's the big weakness of the Liberal party is they expect their celebrity status to save them. Does anybody else remember when Paul Martin won the leadership, and the media were talking about the Liberals making breakthroughs in Quebec and Alberta?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP's biggest success ever in federal politics came in the province that had almost no organization on the ground prior to the election.  They elected candidates on the basis of their provincial media presence that produced a groundswell of support from the public not their ground game and GOTV.  The Liberals will be trying to recreate that phenomena.

Whether or not Trudeau the Lesser's popularity will hold remains to be seen but if it does it could translate into seats without many particularly active riding associations.

Jacob Two-Two

But examples like that are rare and tend to go hand in hand with the implosion of another party. I don't see the Cons or the NDP imploding. In fact, a Liberal implosion is more likely, but still not likely at all. This will be three parties with sizable voting bases, fighting over the right swing voters in the right ridings. Ground game, organisation, volunteers. These things will will be very important, I think. They are things the Liberals have been lacking for a long time. 

jjuares

At this point the NDP may have to consider pivotting a little to meet the Liberal threat. One of the reasons is that Trudeau has being bashing the NDP quite a bit. I just don't believe it's a good strategy to simply take these punches and not throw one back once in awhile. I also believe that they missed a chance when the Libs supported the terrorist legislation just weeks after criticizing the NDP for not supporting the charter. Hypocrisy like that should be denounced-vociferously.

lagatta

Trudeau isn't underweight; he looks very fit. Bit of an airhead (glad to be able to use that about a man, for a change), entitled upper-class, supercilious twit, and not remotely progressive, but rather cute, non? Certainly not voting for him or anyone on that basis...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

CC Checkup today, talking about MPs being able to vote "representing the "beliefs" of their constituents". If I recall this was one of Le Dauphin's latest, greatest hits. Nope no discussion of bill S7. It might embarasse the Libs and Le Dauphin. Does anyone else wish Ian Morrisson would stop sending you emails as "friends of the CBC"?

knownothing knownothing's picture
Bluegreenblogger

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

But examples like that are rare and tend to go hand in hand with the implosion of another party. I don't see the Cons or the NDP imploding. In fact, a Liberal implosion is more likely, but still not likely at all. This will be three parties with sizable voting bases, fighting over the right swing voters in the right ridings. Ground game, organisation, volunteers. These things will will be very important, I think. They are things the Liberals have been lacking for a long time. 

I think that the implosion of the Liberal Party happened three years ago. The lack of ground game, volunteers and organisation has been their focus for the last year. There is a lot of objective evidence that the Liberals are rebuilding very rapidly indeed. Have a look at the riding by riding voter turnout in the Leadership race here:

https://www.vote2013leadership.ca/results/

There are impressive numbers, even in moribund ridings where the EDA has basically collapsed. And Trudeau is a hard working membership and money generating machine. The Liberal Party has acknowledged that, and Trudeau has stated that he intends to hand over day to day duties in the house to his deputies whilst he works the EDA's. This focus on Field organising represents a greater threat than his curly locks, or boxing skills.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Here is a list of the "expert guests" on CCC today:

 

  • John Williamson
    Conservative MP for New Brunswick Southwest.
  • Edward Roberts
    Former Newfoundland Justice Minister, Liberal member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly for 23 years and served as the province's Lieutenant Governor from 2002 to 2008.
  • Ian McClelland
    Former Reform Party MP Edmonton South West 1993-2000.
  • Lydia Miljan
    Associate Professor of political science at University of Windsor.
  • Janice MacKinnon
    Former Finance Minister of Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Roy Romanow. Now Professor of History and Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon

I suppose they are going to insiste that McKinnon represented the opinon of the OO today. What a bunch of jerks this CCC crowd is.

ETA: al Libs/Tory; sorry McKinnon is NOT a New Democrat. She's at best a questionablye "Red Tory".

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Arthur she is ever bit as much an NDP'er as Pat Martin or Roy Romanow. Just because they are in the right wing of the party and you don't like them doesn't mean they are not influential members of your party. Janice is not noticeably more right wing than the current leaders of the federal NDP or  the Manitoba NDP

    My suggestion is you stop listening to CCC. I did about a decade ago because it just made me pissed off and added nothing to my knowledge base.

    By the way Janice is a very good Professor and a friendly woman who believes in most of the same things as you do except she also believes in fiscal restraint and governments living within their means. Most of the NDP partisans on this board preach the same things.

    janfromthebruce

    Tommy Douglas also said that debt was not good because one owed the banks.

    janfromthebruce

    Actually the numbers who voted weren't all that impressive and they didn't buy memberships but were mainly of the supporter category. And so I hear spin.

    Catchfire Catchfire's picture

    Arthur, I admire your dedication and stomach for sitting through Cross-country checkup as much as you do. I remember hearing you give Rex hell a year ago or so, and it (almost) made listening to that pompous windbag worth it.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    You should read her books on American history from a Loyalist perspective. I had the pleasure of taking a History course from her on the relationship between Canada and the US from the earliest colonial period.  I got to know her well and had many chats about her view of fiscal restraint when she was a Cabinet Minister and I was the President of her constituency association. I did not agree with her but I never doubted her sincerity. She too loved to tell how Tommy, before he introduced medicare, spent decades balancing the books so as not to be indebted to bankers. I don't share those views but they are clearly mainstream CCF/NDP ideas.

    The Liberty We Seek: Loyalist Ideology in Colonial New York and Massachusetts [Hardcover]

    While the Women Only Wept: Loyalist Refugee Women [Hardcover]

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    K, you are of course right, but I simply can't help myself. Its like the old gag, "why do you keep banging your head against the wall", asks your friend. You reply, "because when I stop its going to feel so good". I couldn't get through today. I was going to ask why we were't dicussing S7 instead of the Justin Trudeau inspired topic? Didn't get through. It going to voice mail.

    OK, I don't know Mackinnon from a hole-in-the-wall; I have no idea what she looks like. But I know her by reputation, by what she has written, and what she has said when she is on the CBC. She sure sounds like a right winger to me. She may indeed believe what I do, but I haven't ever heard her say it out loud on the public air waves. Oh well, maybe some day.

    Catchfire: thanks for the kind words. I wished I had stayed calm. I would have done better. I can't stand Murphy; he's a pompous, self abosbed, phoney.

    ETA: And, I am an overly excitable, lousy typist; oh well, no one's perfect! Laughing

    Stockholm

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    Arthur she is ever bit as much an NDP'er as Pat Martin or Roy Romanow. Just because they are in the right wing of the party and you don't like them doesn't mean they are not influential members of your party. Janice is not noticeably more right wing than the current leaders of the federal NDP or  the Manitoba NDP

    Except that Pat Martin is an NDP member of parliament who supports NDP policies every step of the way and Roy Romanow is an NDP member and supporter etc...Janice McKinnon was a Saskatchewan NDP cabinet minister 20 years ago, as far as i know she has not been a member of the NDP nor has she supported or voted NDP at any level since the 1990s - she is entitled to her opinion but she should be identified as a Conservative/Sakatchewan party supporter who defected from the NDP rather than having her on panels as if she is supposed to represent the party.

    JKR

    Stockholm wrote:

    Except that Pat Martin is an NDP member of parliament who supports NDP policies every step of the way and Roy Romanow is an NDP member and supporter etc...Janice McKinnon was a Saskatchewan NDP cabinet minister 20 years ago, as far as i know she has not been a member of the NDP nor has she supported or voted NDP at any level since the 1990s - she is entitled to her opinion but she should be identified as a Conservative/Sakatchewan party supporter who defected from the NDP rather than having her on panels as if she is supposed to represent the party.

    I thought she was an NDP MLA 9 1/2 years ago until the 2003 election.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Its good to see you showing that good old NDP spirit of love.  Could you please post a citation to where she claims to be a supporter of either the Conservatives or the Saskatchewan Party because I haven't seen them. I didn't listen to the program but I doubt if Janice said she was on this panel as an NDP spokesperson. Would you complain if Glen Clark sat on a panel and was introduced as a former NDP Premier?  He too needed to balance the books and did with the same type of cuts as Janice used. Both the BC NDP and Sask NDP got sucked into the '90's balance the books at all costs vortex. The BC NDP is proud of their record of more balanced budgets than the right wing coalitions that have governed in the last 30 years.

    What I found interesting was that the only party with a sitting Member were the Conservatives. Now there's something to complain about. That is if one wanted to waste their time listening to the obnoxious Rex.

     

    Quote:

    From 1991 to 2003, she was a Saskatchewan MLA. In addition to being Minister of Finance, she also held the following ministerial positions at various times: Minister of Social Services, Minister of Economic and Co-operative Development, Minister Responsible for Trade, Research and Investment and Government House Leader.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_MacKinnon

    jjuares

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    Arthur she is ever bit as much an NDP'er as Pat Martin or Roy Romanow. Just because they are in the right wing of the party and you don't like them doesn't mean they are not influential members of your party. Janice is not noticeably more right wing than the current leaders of the federal NDP or  the Manitoba NDP

    I am not sure I  buy this. She has written that medicare needs more private clinics . She also believes that EI is a problem that hurts the economy by discouraging labour mobility. Both of those are favourites among the right wing crowd.

    http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/09/19/janice-mackinnon-employment-insurance/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/janice-mackinnon-study-says-patients-should-co-pay-for-health-care_n_2590636.html

     

    JKR

    Fiscal sanity and political success: Canada proves you can have it all

    Quote:

    American Enterprise Institute

    Post-Event Summary

    In the 1990s, Canada was on the brink of a fiscal crisis, with budget deficits piling debt onto both the federal and provincial governments. On Tuesday at AEI, some of the players in Canada's fiscal transformation discussed how the country's successful taming of its debt can serve as a model for the U.S. today. 

    Janice MacKinnon and Stockwell Day, members of provincial governments during Canada's budget crisis, explained how they helped communicate to Canadians the enormity of the debt problem in order to gather public support for spending cuts. Day described the political difficulty of making those tough cuts, while Ron Kneebone of the University of Calgary said that public opinion morphed to the extent that "'deficit' is now a four-letter word."

    Former prime minister Paul Martin then discussed how Canada's federal government was able to make collective, real changes to spending to bring its budget under control, a process that both the U.S. and Europe should take heed of. MacKinnon concluded by advising that the U.S. tackle its problems now before the inevitable budget crisis arrives.

    The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan - MACKINNON, JANICE (1947–)

    Quote:

    She gave up her seat later that year out of concern with the fiscal direction of the NDP. MacKinnon did not return to politics, despite interest from both LORNE CALVERT’s Saskatchewan NDP and Paul Martin’s federal LIBERAL PARTY. MacKinnon’s political philosophy, both in office and in private life, often ran contrary to traditional NDP positions and to those of her own party leaders. 

    Janice MacKinnon Says Patients Should Co-Pay For Health Care In Study

    Quote:

    SASKATOON - A former Saskatchewan NDP finance minister says it's time for a fundamental restructuring of the health system and that includes having patients cough up cash for care.

    Janice MacKinnon makes the comment in a study commissioned by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

    ...

    MacKinnon rejects the idea of user fees, saying they could discourage people from seeking care.

    She said the best way to pay for the costs would be to use the income-tax system with a ceiling at three per cent of income. Lower income people could be exempted.

    ...

    It's not the first time MacKinnon has taken a shot at health reform.

    In 2004, she did a study for the Institute for Research on Public Policy which said Canadians should be required to pay for health care in proportion to how much they use the system, with tax breaks for good lifestyle choices.

    A Peek Behind Closed Doors: Janice MacKinnon, Author of Minding The Public Purse

    Quote:

    MacKinnon says she left cabinet because she couldn't support the 2001 budget.

    "I have said that the 2001 budget was one that I wasn't prepared to serve as a cabinet minister and go out and tell people this is a good budget for you, because if you're going to be a cabinet minister, you've got to be prepared to say this is good news for you and I couldn't do that - because an eight per cent increase in spending when revenue was going down, and balancing the budget with reserves to me was a deficit."

     

    Arthur and Stockholm make good points, MacKinnon shouldn't be considered to represent the NDP's outlook on issues. Her positions seem to be closest to the Liberals and closer to the Conservative's than the NDP's. If the media want to be fair and include a perspective alligned with the NDP's, MacKinnon isn't a person who fulfills that role. Having people like MacKinnon represent the left of centre leaves out the NDP's viewpoint and clouds things against the NDP's positioning on issues. Having her represent the left of centre perspective is probably even worse than having no one represent the left. At least when no one represents the left people will see that the left's perspective was unfairly not included.

    jjuares

    JKR- Thank you. That was the point  was trying to make but you did a much much better job of it than   did.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Here are her views from the Huffy cite you posted. We shall see what the BC NDP comes up with this time when they inherent the black hole left by the Liberals.  If Bruce Ralston is Finance Minister I expect he will embrace many things that I will think are right wing. I think that raising consumption taxes like the PST is just as right wing as some of her proposals. Current NDP governments are resorting to that kind of right wing solution to try and balance the books. At the same time Manitoba's welfare rates are a disgrace. As well Mulcair served in a government that also balanced the books at the expense of services. Janice is definitely right wing on fiscal matters but that seems to be a common trait for NDP Finance Ministers. There is no doubt someone has to pay higher income taxes to pay for services. As an old fart I would prefer it not be me but adding, at most, 3% to my tax rate would not be the end of the world.  Like most tax based solutions, including the PST, how fair it is all depends on the exemption level before the tax cuts in.

    Quote:

    The study says baby boomers will need more health care services as they age, but at a time when many will be retiring, leaving fewer wage earners to pay for a system of open-ended demand.

    MacKinnon said that means the burden will fall on young people, who would face higher taxes to pay the bill.

    "If you look at the economic projections, you're not going to be able to sustain the current system without more money," she said Thursday.

    "But if you link some of it to use of the system, then the baby boomers who will be using the system more will be paying more, and I think it's fair and it's more effective to do it that way."

    MacKinnon rejects the idea of user fees, saying they could discourage people from seeking care.

    She said the best way to pay for the costs would be to use the income-tax system with a ceiling at three per cent of income. Lower income people could be exempted.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/janice-mackinnon-study-says-pati...

     

     

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    "If the media want to be fair and include a perspective alligned with the NDP's, MacKinnon isn't a person who fulfills that role."

    I agree that Rex airs a nasty talk show that is never fair to the NDP.  The line up for this panel was not based on party lines except for the one Conservative MP.  CBC gives NDP raw deal. In what universe is that news? 

    JKR

    jjuares wrote:

    JKR- Thank you. That was the point  was trying to make but you did a much much better job of it than   did.

    jjuares - I thought you did a good job too.

    Seeing MacKinnon do a panel with Stockwell Day at an American Enterprise Institute Event was a bit of an eye opener. I don't think she was there to counter his perspective.

    AEI - wikipedia

    Quote:

    The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an Americanthink tank founded in 1938. Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government,private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense andforeign policies, political accountability, and open debate".[2] AEI is an independentnonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations,corporations, and individuals. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

    Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[3] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.

    David Frum was booted from the AEI as some of their influential donors thought he was not conservative enough!

    JKR

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    Here are her views from the Huffy cite you posted. We shall see what the BC NDP comes up with this time when they inherent the black hole left by the Liberals.  If Bruce Ralston is Finance Minister I expect he will embrace many things that I will think are right wing. I think that raising consumption taxes like the PST is just as right wing as some of her proposals. Current NDP governments are resorting to that kind of right wing solution to try and balance the books. At the same time Manitoba's welfare rates are a disgrace. As well Mulcair served in a government that also balanced the books at the expense of services. Janice is definitely right wing on fiscal matters but that seems to be a common trait for NDP Finance Ministers. There is no doubt someone has to pay higher income taxes to pay for services. As an old fart I would prefer it not be me but adding, at most, 3% to my tax rate would not be the end of the world.  Like most tax based solutions, including the PST, how fair it is all depends on the exemption level before the tax cuts in.

    I think the Manitoba NDP are probably going to lose the next election over increasing the PST. I don't think the BC NDP's going to raise the PST after seeing what happened to the BC Liberals after introducing the HST.  The BC NDP's plan is to raise corporate taxes, personal income taxes on high incomes, carbon taxes, and their going to re-establish the corporate capital tax on financial institutions.

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    K, I don't think I'd be able to handle 3% but as we have seen, these exemption programs never catch enough people to make it fair. The other problem with doing this is it hints at means testing, and once you do that, programs become welfare, and once they become welfare, they're finished. The real issue is that the Public and media have bought, hook, line and sinker the idea that taxes can't be raised and are too high. Here is an area where I feel frustration with the NDP. I know that Tom supports a wealth tax but not saying you will tax Corporations, which Tom has said, and which is a terrible idea, is not something I support. We need to reintroduce the idea that taxation is progressive and fair. The NDP needs to do a better job. Given Le Dauphin refuses to support increasing anyone's taxes, here is where we can hit him. And when he comes back with the old LPC canard about their being good money managers, there is lots of ammo we can use against that. They will have opened the door, and we can hammer them on it. Then when they complain about how old line politics and negative we are being, we can say its positive to give Canadians all the information they need about how they got here, and all the information they need about how we can build for tomorrow by reforming taxation today and how they can make the best kinds of decisions that are in their interest. That is a very powerful and positive populist message. I am not holding my breath, but that is how they should do it. We can turn the egos and arrogance of both old line  parties against them, they'll bite, they won't be able to help themsevles, and they'll stand exposed for what they are. Canadians will finally see the King and Le Dauphin have no clothes. But again, my original post was about how bad CCC was today. Lets not lose sight of that as well. We need to figure out how to put the pressure on the CBC to be fair. They need to start paying for it. They are not a private broadcaster in the truest sense and this gives us the leverage to start significantly putting the screws to them to smarten up. Man I wish the big wigs would pay attention to what we are talking about here. The cowardice the party establishment sometimes displays drives me crazy.

    janfromthebruce

    At least when no one represents the left people will see that the left's perspective was unfairly not included.

    Perhaps the idea of having MacKinnon is to act as the "cat's paw" for the right leaning position and also to confuse viewers. Having said that, Mulcair's talked of the "Dutch Disease" and the idea that oil drives the costs of business up in other parts of Canada, such as in the east, so that the costs (inputs) associated with manufacturing are increased, and thus they can't seel their goods elsewhere.

    Mulcair and the NDP, suggest that a way to rectify that those cost differences is to (I believe) use the tax system, but to essentially quit giving breaks to oil and gas corporations who don't need it. One could say it would be the means test of corporate welfare.

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    This is a bit lengthy, but I thought those here might find this interesting. Please feel free to copy it and send it to anyone you think might be interested. It is correspondence via email between myself and the office of the leader of the LPC. My reply is detailed first, with the LPC original email following. Let me know if you guys think I should switch the order:

    Sir:

     
    Thank-you for your reply.

    I simply cannot let your assertion that the NDP is complicit with the Tories in wishing to suppress the debate over FIPA go unchallenged. Your assertions that Mr. Trudeau wants Canadians involved in debate and hence voted, with, the Tories has not been reported in any significant way in the press. Your reply is disingenuous, at best.
     
    I am old enough to remember how many Liberal Government inspired Commissions have travelled across Canada to collect "voter input", only to see the result disappear into the dusty storage shelves of Liberal Party Insiders, Libearl MP Offices, or those of the Parliamentary Library. The NDP has in fact outlined in great detail its opposition to your agenda and that of Mr. Harper, and has offered legislative counter, all of which have failed to garner the support of your party, or its leader. I am sure you know that. The selling point on the behalf of trade with China on the part of your party and its leadership has always been that trade will bring democratic liberalization within China's borders and foster greater trade between our two countries in a balanced fashion. You know full well this has not been the outcome in any meaningful way. To expect that the NDP will allow you to foist this tired Old Liberal Canard on Canadians yet once more, is to say the least, an expectation that borders on the fantastic.
     
    While I appreciate your reply, I simply cannot believe that you would attempt what is basically a proverbial "pulling of the wool over my eyes" in the hope that you would placate my concerns and win me to your cause. I remain unconvinced, am aware of the lack of sincerity in your reply, and convinced even more now just how much a danger to national economic security the Liberal Party of Canada remains. Please communicate my reply to your Leader.

    In closing, allow me to inform you that I intend to distribute your reply to my many acquaintances, asking that they pass it along as well. I think it is very important people see your reply as it represents your party's position, along with my reply, which in its counter shows the inherent intellectual and moral weakness of your party's position and the reason why the re-election of a Liberal government poses a real threat to the future well-being of all Canadians.

    Yours Truly.

    Arthur Cramer
     

    From: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
    To: acramer@mymts.net
    Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:33:01 -0400
    Subject: Liberals demand a public debate on the Canada-China FIPA

     

    On behalf of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, I would like to thank you for your email regarding the Canada – China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA).

     

    The Liberal Party of Canada believes that foreign investment is good for our economy, but we must always work to protect Canadian interests and the interests of Canadians. The Harper government’s approach appears to be that by “signing” trade agreements with virtually any willing country, it somehow translates into a trade strategy. This is simply not the case, and we must ensure that any international trade agreement that Canada signs will be of net benefit to Canadians.

     

    In order to attract foreign investment to Canada, both domestic and international business communities need to know that the investment rules in Canada are clear and that business deals must adhere to these guidelines rather than be subject to the political whims of the government of the day. As well, Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPA) are important for Canadians investing abroad as well as businesses here at home.

     

    China is rapidly growing into a dominant global player, and is Canada’s second largest trading partner. China is also a centralized economy and operates state-owned enterprises for unfair advantage.

     

    The Liberal Party does acknowledge that there are concerns with this agreement. It is clear that the Canada-China FIPA is different from previous ones that the Conservative government has signed, but we believe that the agreement needs to be improved, not completely discarded. Liberals have raised concerns about provisions of this agreement, particularly on the issues of transparency during arbitration, termination of the agreement, and the length of time the agreement is in force.

     

    But we also see benefits. For example, Canadian companies will be able to resolve disputes outside of the Chinese courts, in independent arbitration tribunals, and beyond that, China commits to treating fairly any Canadian companies investing in China. These company level benefits reduce business uncertainty and encourage the economy level benefits that can come from mutual foreign investment.

     

    The motion that the NDP presented in the House of Commons on April 18, 2013 called for an outright rejection of the Canada-China FIPA and that is something that we cannot support.

    The only way for the Canadian people to properly weigh the pros and cons is to have public scrutiny and debate, and the right place to have that is in a House of Commons committee. This is the reasoning behind the Liberal Party position on Canada-China FIPA, and that is why we did not support the outright rejection of FIPA embodied in the NDP Opposition motion

    The Liberal Party continues to call on the government to have public hearings on the implications of this agreement so that Canadians can have their say. Regrettably, the Harper Conservatives refused to defend their agreement to the Canadian public and have blocked discussion on it. On April 18, the Liberal Party presented a motion in the House of Commons calling for the International Trade committee to conduct public hearings across Canada prior to the ratification of the Canada-China FIPA to ensure that the agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians. Regrettably,the NDP joined with the Conservatives and opposed this Liberal amendment calling for public hearings, which sought to allow discussion of the investment agreement to occur across Canada. These hearings would have given Canadian voices like yours a chance to be heard.

     

    The Conservatives and the NDP are silencing Canadians and fueling the misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding the agreement. The role foreign investment plays in the Canadian economy will remain hugely important going forward. This does not, however, detract in any way from the serious need for Parliament to fulfill its obligation to seek input from Canadians. The Conservatives and NDP must guarantee that this investment agreement with the world’s second largest economy is widely supported and will result in a clear net benefit for Canadian families.

     

    FIPA marks a significant step in our trade relationship with China, and it is important that we have a discussion on the concerns raised by Canadians about issues of transparency, the arbitration process, and the role of state-owned enterprises in our trade relationship.

     

    Thank you for writing to the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

     

    Yours sincerely,

     

    Colin McKone

    Office of the Liberal Leader

     

    These guys REALLY think that anything their leader says will drive people into an uncomprehending, rhapsodic swoon of ectacy.
    Pathetic!

     

    Hunky_Monkey

    There is no accounting for political judgment when it gets caught up in irrational euphoria. The overwhelming victory of Justin Trudeau in the Liberal Party’s leadership race demonstrates just how impoverished the state of our political culture has become. Did the polls — almost completely meaningless at this stage of the political process — so addle people’s discernment that they could not see what was in front of them? In a stunning failure of imagination 80 per cent of those casting ballots effectively declared: We think a pretty face and a famous name is all we need to win and more importantly, all the country needs to lead it.

    Justin Trudeau is allegedly 40 years-old, but his persona is one of a perpetual adolescent who can’t be taken seriously, because he doesn’t take the world seriously. He’s spent his life avoiding anything truly challenging and seems addicted to having a good time — to the exclusion of disciplined political work. His intellectual capacity, whatever it was, is now so atrophied that it seems clear he rarely engages on his own in serious analysis or thoughtful consideration of important political and philosophical questions.

     

    http://murraydobbin.ca/2013/04/23/justin-trdeau-boy-king/

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    -

    Pages

    Topic locked