Today the Liberals decided that it was better to have a reinvigorated Bloc then a Conservative Government. The Liberals have chosen a chance at power over the good of the country. How Liberal of them.
They did this by attempting to remind voters of the Conservative position on the Iraq war way back in 2003.
The plagiarism was only the distraction, the way to grab media headlines. The real reason for this release was part of the Liberal's attempt to link Bush and Harper.
They have done this with this plagiarism, attack ads, and now a new website. Not to mention many hours of pundits on the speaking tours.
We principled Conservatives know this is absolute crap, Paul Martin (former Liberal PM), David Pratt (former Liberal Defence Minister, and Michael Ignatieff (deputy Liberal Leader) all professed support for the Iraq war at one time or the other. The media is not doing a good job reminding voters of this.
I find this disgusting, not just from a partisan point of view either. These attacks, the attempted linking of Harper and Bush will be most effective in Quebec. And where will the Conservative vote go in Quebec? To the Bloc.
That's right, the Liberal Party would rather have a strengthened Bloc then a strong federalist party with seats all across Canada at the head of a government. The Liberal party has put their interests ahead of the countries. Anything to try and return to power. How very Liberal of them.
We're better off with Harper.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Attack of the Liberals
This is hardly surprising, the new Liberal attack ad is trying to connect Bush and Harper. This is the same strategy that the Liberals have used for several elections. What is scary is that it always works.
I hope it fails this time, I really do.
In other Liberal attacks, what is (now) old news is the plagiarism charge leveled by the dishonourable Bob Rae. What a sad state of affairs. The staffer responsible has now resigned, but, my theory is that it was never about the actual plagiarism.
The plagiarism was simply the burning drink going down the throat rotting the gut out of the Conservative campaign, the media attention grabber. Really, the Liberals are more interested in the bitter aftertaste they are hoping to plant by stealth.
This bitter aftertaste is the linking of Harper to Bush and the "coalition of the willing", and the bringing up of old wounds over Iraq. I think this was the real goal of this whole episode.
Link this attack with the new Liberal attack ad and it all comes together. Bereft of any actual policies that Canadians can buy into, the Liberals simply resort to their old pathetic smears. Using the leader of our greatest ally and largest trading partner to smear a good and honest man, a politician that puts country before the polls, something the Liberals will never do.
The Liberals are pathetic, down in the polls, their chance at power slipping through their slimy green fingers they return to their old stomping grounds, smearing Harper with Bush.
We're better off with Harper.
I hope it fails this time, I really do.
In other Liberal attacks, what is (now) old news is the plagiarism charge leveled by the dishonourable Bob Rae. What a sad state of affairs. The staffer responsible has now resigned, but, my theory is that it was never about the actual plagiarism.
The plagiarism was simply the burning drink going down the throat rotting the gut out of the Conservative campaign, the media attention grabber. Really, the Liberals are more interested in the bitter aftertaste they are hoping to plant by stealth.
This bitter aftertaste is the linking of Harper to Bush and the "coalition of the willing", and the bringing up of old wounds over Iraq. I think this was the real goal of this whole episode.
Link this attack with the new Liberal attack ad and it all comes together. Bereft of any actual policies that Canadians can buy into, the Liberals simply resort to their old pathetic smears. Using the leader of our greatest ally and largest trading partner to smear a good and honest man, a politician that puts country before the polls, something the Liberals will never do.
The Liberals are pathetic, down in the polls, their chance at power slipping through their slimy green fingers they return to their old stomping grounds, smearing Harper with Bush.
We're better off with Harper.
Greenpeace and Sierra Club advocate voting Bloc
“If you look at the record of the four other political parties – the NDP, the Greens, the Liberals and the Bloc [Québécois] – they're all substantially better than the positions of the Conservatives,” said Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
Good job Greenpeace and Sierra Club, let's vote for the Bloc so they can destroy the country.
Of course both Greenpeace and Sierra Club have strong ties to other left wing parties that would benefit from this advocacy.
In 2004, Mr. Cox was the campaign director for the NDP in Jack Layton's first campaign as party leader. Shortly after that election, Mr. Cox took up a new position with Greenpeace.
Mr. Hazell took over as executive director of Sierra Club after the position was vacated by Elizabeth May, who entered politics to become leader of the Green Party.
And then there is the issue of third party election law. It would seem like both Greenpeace and Sierra Club are in violation of third party election laws.
Neither Greenpeace nor Sierra Club are registered third parties. Since Sierra Club and Greenpeace are opposing a registered party should they not have to be registered?
I also wonder if they have resolutions permitting them to intervene in the election? According to Elections Canada, corporations must have explicit permission from their governing bodies prior to intervening in the election campaign. Sierra Club has a governing body, it is less clear about Greenpeace.
If the third party is a trade union, corporation or other entity with a governing body, the application for registration must include a copy of the resolution passed by its governing body authorizing it to incur election advertising expenses.
A third party is defined by the Elections Act as such:
"the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated."
Now technically, a news conference doesn't count as third party advertising -- to me, this seems like a big loophole -- but both Greenpeace and Sierra Club have their campaigns on their websites, their don't vote Conservative campaigns. Now, I am not a lawyer but this seems like it is in contravention of the Election Act. It is on commercial websites.
Anybody out there have any insight into these issues around third party election laws?
We're better off with Harper.
Good job Greenpeace and Sierra Club, let's vote for the Bloc so they can destroy the country.
Of course both Greenpeace and Sierra Club have strong ties to other left wing parties that would benefit from this advocacy.
In 2004, Mr. Cox was the campaign director for the NDP in Jack Layton's first campaign as party leader. Shortly after that election, Mr. Cox took up a new position with Greenpeace.
Mr. Hazell took over as executive director of Sierra Club after the position was vacated by Elizabeth May, who entered politics to become leader of the Green Party.
And then there is the issue of third party election law. It would seem like both Greenpeace and Sierra Club are in violation of third party election laws.
Neither Greenpeace nor Sierra Club are registered third parties. Since Sierra Club and Greenpeace are opposing a registered party should they not have to be registered?
I also wonder if they have resolutions permitting them to intervene in the election? According to Elections Canada, corporations must have explicit permission from their governing bodies prior to intervening in the election campaign. Sierra Club has a governing body, it is less clear about Greenpeace.
If the third party is a trade union, corporation or other entity with a governing body, the application for registration must include a copy of the resolution passed by its governing body authorizing it to incur election advertising expenses.
A third party is defined by the Elections Act as such:
"the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated."
Now technically, a news conference doesn't count as third party advertising -- to me, this seems like a big loophole -- but both Greenpeace and Sierra Club have their campaigns on their websites, their don't vote Conservative campaigns. Now, I am not a lawyer but this seems like it is in contravention of the Election Act. It is on commercial websites.
Anybody out there have any insight into these issues around third party election laws?
We're better off with Harper.
The Liberals go long, very long
All the way back to 2003 for their latest attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Bob Rae, one of the leading contenders to replace Dion when the Liberals lose launched this attack on Harper today:
Rae released transcripts and videos of both speeches and suggested they serve as evidence that a vote for the Conservatives is akin to voting for a "Republican-Conservative" government.
Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, also said the revelation raises questions about whether Harper's foreign policy views can be trusted.
"How does a leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any another country's leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing?" Rae said in a statement.
Are you kidding me? So the Liberals have added another plank to their attacks, anti-Americanism. Trying to tie Harper to the coalition of the willing. The coalition of the willing that included most of the western English speaking world.
Is the Liberal Party really that desperate to not implode that this is what they come up with? The Liberal Party has sunk to a new low.
Since I am sure Stephane Dion didn't want to get his hands dirty with this muckraking, I still have to wonder why Michael Ignatieff didn't deliver this speech?
Oh yeah, Michael Ignatieff supported the invasion of Iraq.
The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities.
...
I still do not believe that American or British leaders misrepresented Hussein's intentions or lied about the weapons they believed he possessed. In his new memoirs, Hans Blix makes it clear that he and his fellow U.N. inspectors thought Hussein was hiding something, and every intelligence service they consulted thought so too.
But that is different, Michael Ignatieff is a Liberal. Or something.
Michael Ignatieff supported the Iraq invasion, he kept supporting the Iraq invasion for years afterward. He only stopped supporting the Iraq invasion when it became an impediment for his quest for the Liberal leadership.
Michael Ignatieff stopped living by his principles when he started his quest of the Liberal leadership. How very Liberal of him.
We're better off with Harper.
Bob Rae, one of the leading contenders to replace Dion when the Liberals lose launched this attack on Harper today:
Rae released transcripts and videos of both speeches and suggested they serve as evidence that a vote for the Conservatives is akin to voting for a "Republican-Conservative" government.
Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, also said the revelation raises questions about whether Harper's foreign policy views can be trusted.
"How does a leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any another country's leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing?" Rae said in a statement.
Are you kidding me? So the Liberals have added another plank to their attacks, anti-Americanism. Trying to tie Harper to the coalition of the willing. The coalition of the willing that included most of the western English speaking world.
Is the Liberal Party really that desperate to not implode that this is what they come up with? The Liberal Party has sunk to a new low.
Since I am sure Stephane Dion didn't want to get his hands dirty with this muckraking, I still have to wonder why Michael Ignatieff didn't deliver this speech?
Oh yeah, Michael Ignatieff supported the invasion of Iraq.
The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities.
...
I still do not believe that American or British leaders misrepresented Hussein's intentions or lied about the weapons they believed he possessed. In his new memoirs, Hans Blix makes it clear that he and his fellow U.N. inspectors thought Hussein was hiding something, and every intelligence service they consulted thought so too.
But that is different, Michael Ignatieff is a Liberal. Or something.
Michael Ignatieff supported the Iraq invasion, he kept supporting the Iraq invasion for years afterward. He only stopped supporting the Iraq invasion when it became an impediment for his quest for the Liberal leadership.
Michael Ignatieff stopped living by his principles when he started his quest of the Liberal leadership. How very Liberal of him.
We're better off with Harper.
Another "prominent" Liberal claims Canada is in deficit, lies about income tax
Garth Turner, a self-proclaimed communications expert claims on his blog that Canada is in deficit.
... spend more than Liberals, to reduce a surplus to a deficit,...
Garth Turner. Is. Dead. Wrong.
Repeat after me:
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Let's talk about this "massive" spending increases. As I have already talked about here, you can see that most of the increased spending is in transfers to the provinces and territories. The finance department is now projecting about a 3 billion dollar surplus, a slight increase from the 2.3 billion originally forecast.
If you don't believe, what about what the Globe and Mail said?
Substantial increases in transfers to the provinces have meant that provincial budgets are now far healthier, and federal-provincial bickering has dropped to a dull roar.
Garth, are you against increased transfers to the province to improve health care and education? Would you prefer that the Government of Canada keeps those billions to spend in March Madness and instead force the provinces and territories to raise it from increased taxes?
Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers conceded that "Our schools and our hospitals are in better shape than they would have been otherwise,".
The lowered corporate tax cuts (that the NDP wants to take away) have helped Canada's corporations remain competitive.
The last round of tax cuts, announced last November, were particularly well timed to help stimulate a flagging economy.
Garth goes onto to lay out another whopper out when he claims that "Income taxes have not come down a dime since Harper came to power. In fact, he raised them in his first budget.".
You sir, are deliberately lying.
This government has lowered the income tax paid to the government for all Canadians, in the 2007 fall fiscal update income tax reductions have occurred or were scheduled:
Lowering personal income taxes for all taxpayers, which, together with the GST reduction, provides almost $20 billion in tax relief to individuals over the next two years. It will do this through:
So Garth, can we expect an apology from you regarding your misleading and outright lies contained in your blog post?
We're better off with Harper.
... spend more than Liberals, to reduce a surplus to a deficit,...
Garth Turner. Is. Dead. Wrong.
Repeat after me:
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Canada is not in deficit.
Let's talk about this "massive" spending increases. As I have already talked about here, you can see that most of the increased spending is in transfers to the provinces and territories. The finance department is now projecting about a 3 billion dollar surplus, a slight increase from the 2.3 billion originally forecast.
If you don't believe, what about what the Globe and Mail said?
Substantial increases in transfers to the provinces have meant that provincial budgets are now far healthier, and federal-provincial bickering has dropped to a dull roar.
Garth, are you against increased transfers to the province to improve health care and education? Would you prefer that the Government of Canada keeps those billions to spend in March Madness and instead force the provinces and territories to raise it from increased taxes?
Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers conceded that "Our schools and our hospitals are in better shape than they would have been otherwise,".
The lowered corporate tax cuts (that the NDP wants to take away) have helped Canada's corporations remain competitive.
The last round of tax cuts, announced last November, were particularly well timed to help stimulate a flagging economy.
Garth goes onto to lay out another whopper out when he claims that "Income taxes have not come down a dime since Harper came to power. In fact, he raised them in his first budget.".
You sir, are deliberately lying.
This government has lowered the income tax paid to the government for all Canadians, in the 2007 fall fiscal update income tax reductions have occurred or were scheduled:
- An increase in the basic personal amount exemption to $9,600 from $8,929, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007;
- Two years later, on Jan. 1, 2009, the basic personal amount exemption will be increased to $10,100;
- The lowest personal income tax rate moves to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent, effective Jan. 1 2007, undoing a change made in the first Conservative budget.
Lowering personal income taxes for all taxpayers, which, together with the GST reduction, provides almost $20 billion in tax relief to individuals over the next two years. It will do this through:
- A new Canada Employment Credit—a tax credit on employment income up to $500 effective July 1, 2006. The credit amount will double to $1,000, effective January 1, 2007.
- Increases in the basic personal amount—the amount all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax—so that it grows each year and remains above currently legislated levels for 2005, 2006 and 2007.
So Garth, can we expect an apology from you regarding your misleading and outright lies contained in your blog post?
We're better off with Harper.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Latest Nano's Numbers: Dion's not a leader
By now everyone has seen the latest Nano's numbers. Instead of talking about the voter's intentions I decided to talk about the leadership numbers, and more specifically, Dion's dismal leadership numbers.
You can define leadership as the art of influencing human behaviour, as we can see by the voting intention poll results, Dion fails this miserably. The leadership numbers for Dion show that the electorate consider Dion to be a weak leader.
So the question remains, why are the Liberal's still sitting at 26%? The answer to that is simple, FUD. The good old fear, uncertianity, and doubt being cast about by the Liberals and other left wing parties to sow the seed of fear against voting for Stephen Harper.
We say that just today! The whole abortion debacle that played out on the airwaves today. The sole point of this was to remind voters that Harper "is scary". Tie in the disgusting remarks by Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi. In August, Stephane Dion joined the fun as well.
Plain and simple, the Conservatives Government will
not introduce a bill, nor support a private members bill on abortion.
I say again:
Plain and simple, the Conservatives Government will not introduce a bill, nor support a private members bill on abortion.
Stephane Dion likes to talk about getting back to policy, yet who is leading the smear charge now? Stephane Dion and the charge of the smear brigade.
We're better off with Harper.
- Stephen Harper 110 (+18)
- Jack Layton 54 (+4)
- Stephane Dion 35 (-18)
- Elizabeth May 17 (+6)
- Gilles Duceppe 16 (-1)
- The most trustworthy leader
- The most competent leader
- The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
You can define leadership as the art of influencing human behaviour, as we can see by the voting intention poll results, Dion fails this miserably. The leadership numbers for Dion show that the electorate consider Dion to be a weak leader.
So the question remains, why are the Liberal's still sitting at 26%? The answer to that is simple, FUD. The good old fear, uncertianity, and doubt being cast about by the Liberals and other left wing parties to sow the seed of fear against voting for Stephen Harper.
We say that just today! The whole abortion debacle that played out on the airwaves today. The sole point of this was to remind voters that Harper "is scary". Tie in the disgusting remarks by Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi. In August, Stephane Dion joined the fun as well.
Plain and simple, the Conservatives Government will
not introduce a bill, nor support a private members bill on abortion.
I say again:
Plain and simple, the Conservatives Government will not introduce a bill, nor support a private members bill on abortion.
Stephane Dion likes to talk about getting back to policy, yet who is leading the smear charge now? Stephane Dion and the charge of the smear brigade.
We're better off with Harper.
Leadership via name calling, Dion's way
Sitting Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi declares that Stephen Harper "does not really like 52% of the population".
I guess by extension then that Stephen Harper doesn't like his wife or daughter! This comment is gutter politics of the worse kind. It is simply not true, having a woman say it doesn't make it any better either.
Liberal MP Ratansi must immediately apologize for that uncalled for remark. Do Liberals really think this kind of personal attack is acceptable in democratic debate? What would Dion say and do if Conservative MP said that Dion doesn't like gays?
Here is the Conservative response:
“Yasmin Ratansi’s statement at a Liberal rally today that the Prime Minister ‘does not really like women’ demonstrates just how desperate the Liberal Party has become during this election campaign. They will say anything to try to win votes.”
Tim Powers response:
Yesterday, Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi's said at a Liberal rally that the Prime Minister, "does not really like women." Really? Other than desperation, on what exactly does Ms. Ratansi base that statement? Dion says he doesn't like the name calling and he is running a high-road campaign, yet he allows Ratansi to spew such nonsense.
Is this the leadership of Stephen Dion? Is it? Seems to me it is exactly the kind of smears and attack that we all predicted would come. Stephane Dion, this is not leadership, this is not respectful. And before you say anything, no, two wrongs DON'T make a right.
We're better off with Harper.
I guess by extension then that Stephen Harper doesn't like his wife or daughter! This comment is gutter politics of the worse kind. It is simply not true, having a woman say it doesn't make it any better either.
Liberal MP Ratansi must immediately apologize for that uncalled for remark. Do Liberals really think this kind of personal attack is acceptable in democratic debate? What would Dion say and do if Conservative MP said that Dion doesn't like gays?
Here is the Conservative response:
“Yasmin Ratansi’s statement at a Liberal rally today that the Prime Minister ‘does not really like women’ demonstrates just how desperate the Liberal Party has become during this election campaign. They will say anything to try to win votes.”
Tim Powers response:
Yesterday, Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi's said at a Liberal rally that the Prime Minister, "does not really like women." Really? Other than desperation, on what exactly does Ms. Ratansi base that statement? Dion says he doesn't like the name calling and he is running a high-road campaign, yet he allows Ratansi to spew such nonsense.
Is this the leadership of Stephen Dion? Is it? Seems to me it is exactly the kind of smears and attack that we all predicted would come. Stephane Dion, this is not leadership, this is not respectful. And before you say anything, no, two wrongs DON'T make a right.
We're better off with Harper.
Liberals Continue their negative assault on the Economy
As predicted, the Liberals continue their attack on the economy. Attempting to scare Canadians into voting for the Liberals.
This is inspiring leadership on behalf of all Canadians by the Liberal party of Canada, don't vote for us because we are visionary, and have the best plan for Canada, vote for use because Harper is scary. Big surprise. This is their election strategy now.
And, this announcement was made by Michael Ignatieff, not Stephane Dion.
"Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff warned business leaders in Toronto on Monday that Stephen Harper would lead the country into an "economic crisis" if he returns to government."
If Stephane Dion is elected as Prime Minister of this country, then we will have an economic crisis. Even the most optimistic economic models have the economy contracting in the first 4-5 years. Now is not the time to risk a recession for an unproven, untested tax shifting strategy.
In the time of global economic uncertainty, Canada needs a government that is pragmatic and thoughtful, putting the lives of average Canadians first, a steady hand if you will to chart the good ship Canada through this rough economic waters. Now is not the time for grand experiments to shift tax around.
We're better off with Harper
This is inspiring leadership on behalf of all Canadians by the Liberal party of Canada, don't vote for us because we are visionary, and have the best plan for Canada, vote for use because Harper is scary. Big surprise. This is their election strategy now.
And, this announcement was made by Michael Ignatieff, not Stephane Dion.
"Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff warned business leaders in Toronto on Monday that Stephen Harper would lead the country into an "economic crisis" if he returns to government."
If Stephane Dion is elected as Prime Minister of this country, then we will have an economic crisis. Even the most optimistic economic models have the economy contracting in the first 4-5 years. Now is not the time to risk a recession for an unproven, untested tax shifting strategy.
In the time of global economic uncertainty, Canada needs a government that is pragmatic and thoughtful, putting the lives of average Canadians first, a steady hand if you will to chart the good ship Canada through this rough economic waters. Now is not the time for grand experiments to shift tax around.
We're better off with Harper
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The truth about Conservative Spending
You often hear the opposition claim about the 8% increase in spending by the Conservative Government, but despite what you hear from the likes of Stephane Dion and his "team", the Conservatives are not spending like drunken sailors.
Program expenses for April to July 2008 were $66.1 billion, up $4.9 billion or 8.0 per cent from the same period last year, reflecting an increase in transfer payments, Crown corporation expenses and operating expenses of departments and agencies.
Well, depending on your point of view, that may be debatable. But they are not spending billions by sending it out in brown envelopes, building golf courses or water fountains, nor spending it on a gun registry which cannot work. The Conservatives are not spending it, they are sending it. Sending it to the provincial and territorial governments.
Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have increased transfers to the provinces and territories by a staggering 8.8 percent. Some examples:
All other program spending amounted to a more "misery" 6.5% increase.
Now everyone has the information at hand to dispel the lies the opposition will spread about Conservative spending. The Conservatives are spending more yes, but good chunk of that increase is sent directly to the provinces and territories to provide services to us, the rate payers.
Of course this is still too much money. I agree. The federal government is doing too much, their priorities are scattered, and the spending isn't focused enough. Unfortunately, this is the reality we live in. We cannot expect the Conservatives to have changed this in the short time they have been in minority government.
The fiscal framework is setup so that Ottawa is the arbitrator of our money, they dole it out to the provinces based on their equalization framework, this is to ensure that all provinces can have a similar level of services with a similar level of taxation. In reality, it redistributes the wealth from Ontario, Alberta, and other have provinces to the have nots.
I know this isn't ideal, but until this is changed, this is the reality that the Conservative government lives in.
Transfers increased a total of 3.494 billion (sending), program spending increased 1.398 billion. Debt financing charges decreased 4% from this time last year. The total increase in spending was 4.892 billion dollars.
Remember, billions of the increased spending is not spending at all, it is sending of the money to provinces, territories, and cites. Money that delivers services to you.
We're better off with Harper
Program expenses for April to July 2008 were $66.1 billion, up $4.9 billion or 8.0 per cent from the same period last year, reflecting an increase in transfer payments, Crown corporation expenses and operating expenses of departments and agencies.
Well, depending on your point of view, that may be debatable. But they are not spending billions by sending it out in brown envelopes, building golf courses or water fountains, nor spending it on a gun registry which cannot work. The Conservatives are not spending it, they are sending it. Sending it to the provincial and territorial governments.
Stephen Harper and his Conservative government have increased transfers to the provinces and territories by a staggering 8.8 percent. Some examples:
- Elderly benefits, 3.3% increase
- Canada Health Transfer, 6.0% increase
- Canada Social Transfer, 10.6% increase
- Canada's cities and communities, 23.1% increase
- Human Resources and Social Development, 40% increase
All other program spending amounted to a more "misery" 6.5% increase.
Now everyone has the information at hand to dispel the lies the opposition will spread about Conservative spending. The Conservatives are spending more yes, but good chunk of that increase is sent directly to the provinces and territories to provide services to us, the rate payers.
Of course this is still too much money. I agree. The federal government is doing too much, their priorities are scattered, and the spending isn't focused enough. Unfortunately, this is the reality we live in. We cannot expect the Conservatives to have changed this in the short time they have been in minority government.
The fiscal framework is setup so that Ottawa is the arbitrator of our money, they dole it out to the provinces based on their equalization framework, this is to ensure that all provinces can have a similar level of services with a similar level of taxation. In reality, it redistributes the wealth from Ontario, Alberta, and other have provinces to the have nots.
I know this isn't ideal, but until this is changed, this is the reality that the Conservative government lives in.
Transfers increased a total of 3.494 billion (sending), program spending increased 1.398 billion. Debt financing charges decreased 4% from this time last year. The total increase in spending was 4.892 billion dollars.
Remember, billions of the increased spending is not spending at all, it is sending of the money to provinces, territories, and cites. Money that delivers services to you.
We're better off with Harper
Harper was right: High ranking Liberals "lie" about Canada's economic situation
A few days ago, Harper criticized Dion and other high ranking Liberals for undermining confidence in Canadian's economy, and misrepresenting Canada's economic position in relation to the rest of the world.
A combative Mr. Harper argued that economic commentators are saying the fundamentals of the Canadian economy remain solid despite the slowdown, but what we see is “the Leader of the Opposition and his leading critics going around and trying to tell Canadians the opposite, trying to drive down confidence in the Canadian economy without foundation.”
“And quite frankly sitting on the sidelines virtually cheering for there to be a recession.”
Dion and his cheerleaders reacted strongly to this, and flatly denied it. And yet today on CTV's Question Period, Senator David Smith the Liberal campaign co-chair reiterated some of these same comments that Harper attacked them for.
You can view the segment here.
Senator Smith get's it wrong on many accounts, around the 3:40 second mark on the video Senator Smith talks about the 42 billion dollar debt that the Liberals "inherited" from the PC government of Brian Mulroney. Perhaps this is the end of the story right here, I mean, can we really believe the worlds from anyone who doesn't even understand the difference between deficit and debt?
Senator Smith also conviently forgets to tell what happened to the 12 billion surplus -- also known as massive over taxation that the Conservatives inherited. That surplus was redistributed to tax payers through tax cuts, and increased transfers to the province. Stephen Harper also ensured adequate funding for our Canadian Forces.
Senator Smith goes on to tell misrepresent the truth on the financial states of the Government to Canadians when he talks about a deficit last quarter. He briefly talks about the surplus in this quarter but then talks about the deficit from last quarter. This is just plain wrong. There hasn't been two quarters in this fiscal year.
First off Senator Smith, there has only been one complete quarter in this fiscal year. The fiscal year for the Government of Canada goes from 1 April to 31 March. This means the first quarter of this year is the months April, May, and June.
The fiscal results for the first quarter of the 08/09 fiscal year was a surplus of 1.2 billion dollars. That total recorded surplus to date (April-July) is 2.9 billion dollars. These are the numbers reported by the Department of Finance. So Senator Smith, who is wrong? The Department of Finance or you?
So here we have a very senior Liberal Senator talking about Canada being in deficit last quarter. Since we all know deficits are bad, we can only assume he is trying to scare us.
Mr. Dion, why do you have senior Liberals lying to us about being in deficit in the first quarter of this fiscal year? Why do you support their lies, and the way they talk down about the economy? Why?
We're better off with Harper.
A combative Mr. Harper argued that economic commentators are saying the fundamentals of the Canadian economy remain solid despite the slowdown, but what we see is “the Leader of the Opposition and his leading critics going around and trying to tell Canadians the opposite, trying to drive down confidence in the Canadian economy without foundation.”
“And quite frankly sitting on the sidelines virtually cheering for there to be a recession.”
Dion and his cheerleaders reacted strongly to this, and flatly denied it. And yet today on CTV's Question Period, Senator David Smith the Liberal campaign co-chair reiterated some of these same comments that Harper attacked them for.
You can view the segment here.
Senator Smith get's it wrong on many accounts, around the 3:40 second mark on the video Senator Smith talks about the 42 billion dollar debt that the Liberals "inherited" from the PC government of Brian Mulroney. Perhaps this is the end of the story right here, I mean, can we really believe the worlds from anyone who doesn't even understand the difference between deficit and debt?
Senator Smith also conviently forgets to tell what happened to the 12 billion surplus -- also known as massive over taxation that the Conservatives inherited. That surplus was redistributed to tax payers through tax cuts, and increased transfers to the province. Stephen Harper also ensured adequate funding for our Canadian Forces.
Senator Smith goes on to tell misrepresent the truth on the financial states of the Government to Canadians when he talks about a deficit last quarter. He briefly talks about the surplus in this quarter but then talks about the deficit from last quarter. This is just plain wrong. There hasn't been two quarters in this fiscal year.
First off Senator Smith, there has only been one complete quarter in this fiscal year. The fiscal year for the Government of Canada goes from 1 April to 31 March. This means the first quarter of this year is the months April, May, and June.
The fiscal results for the first quarter of the 08/09 fiscal year was a surplus of 1.2 billion dollars. That total recorded surplus to date (April-July) is 2.9 billion dollars. These are the numbers reported by the Department of Finance. So Senator Smith, who is wrong? The Department of Finance or you?
So here we have a very senior Liberal Senator talking about Canada being in deficit last quarter. Since we all know deficits are bad, we can only assume he is trying to scare us.
Mr. Dion, why do you have senior Liberals lying to us about being in deficit in the first quarter of this fiscal year? Why do you support their lies, and the way they talk down about the economy? Why?
We're better off with Harper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)