[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wow, I can't believe you're justifying a huge tax break for a rich guy while the poor guy in the same instance gets nothing.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

I think you misunderstood.

I'm for the GST cut that will put more money into the pocket of the guy buying the $1000 car. Andy's not for any type of tax break...despite this being a working-poor person trying to buy some basic transportation.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Perhaps the federal Conservatives are incompetent then, because the provincial ones here in Alberta instituted a mandatory pay freeze in 2008, cancelled all bonus programs, cancelled discretionary spending, and froze hiring for three years. Some of those cuts are still in effect even now.

Klein also negotiated an across the board 5% pay cut for ALL provincial employees in the early 90s to help get spending under control, then when the budget was balanced and the economy turned around, returned that 5% to the unions.

It can be done - all it takes is leadership.

Why are you rolling your eyes?

Again, let's compare apples to apples.

A Province which is heavily Conservative is supporting the measures of Conservative Government. That's no shock.

Majority governments-Minority Governments.

It's easy to make sweeping change when you don't need the other parties to help out.

I will say, that if Harper does want to make a squeeze on the public sector, now is the time. The public right now have no patience for union greed.

Please note that, Stephen Harper put forth a plan to cut spending by 11 billion and were defeated by the Liberals and the Bloc last year.

The Conservatives have only been in power for 1 sitting of the house. I think you need to give them more than 7 months as a majority government to turn around the finances of a Country.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Yes. They need it. Are you against income redistribution? And you've just ignored all my arguments to make your simplistic statements. Of course the 1% has more than they need. We have to fund the state somehow - how do you propose to do it? As I said, a median income earner would not see any tax increase, but people above that would.

Have I ever said I wasn't?

My comments are far from simplistic. You're the one making sweeping generalizations making the cure for poverty sound easy. It's not.

And I'm not for taking the benefits from one group of people and giving it to another. You think people barely living on the edge of middle class don't "need" anything...zero tax breaks. I don't agree. Regardless of how much you try to tell me your opinion.

I think we're doing a fine job at funding the state.

Who are the people on the edge of the middle class you're talking about? I've said over and over that people making the median wage should not see a tax increase, maybe they could even pay a bit less. Those are not on the edge of the middle class, so what are you talking about? And what's this hangup with tax refunds - why not just not collect the tax in the first place instead of having all these exemptions?

It may be the case that everybody has to pay more tax - who knows what shape our govt finances are really in. We have to do something about the deficit, and that probably means sacrifice by everybody. But the sacrifice has to start from the top, the people who have the money, instead of cutting from the bottom up, as govts like to do.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Silly me Shep. Fancy me thinking that having paid a shit load of cash into my pension, I should get it when I retire!

You greedy, selfish wanker

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Perhaps the federal Conservatives are incompetent then, because the provincial ones here in Alberta instituted a mandatory pay freeze in 2008, cancelled all bonus programs, cancelled discretionary spending, and froze hiring for three years. Some of those cuts are still in effect even now.

Klein also negotiated an across the board 5% pay cut for ALL provincial employees in the early 90s to help get spending under control, then when the budget was balanced and the economy turned around, returned that 5% to the unions.

It can be done - all it takes is leadership.

Why are you rolling your eyes?

Again, let's compare apples to apples.

A Province which is heavily Conservative is supporting the measures of Conservative Government. That's no shock.

Majority governments-Minority Governments.

It's easy to make sweeping change when you don't need the other parties to help out.

I will say, that if Harper does want to make a squeeze on the public sector, now is the time. The public right now have no patience for union greed.

Please note that, Stephen Harper put forth a plan to cut spending by 11 billion and were defeated by the Liberals and the Bloc last year.

The Conservatives have only been in power for 1 sitting of the house. I think you need to give them more than 7 months as a majority government to turn around the finances of a Country.

Why am I rolling my eyes? Because of your silly 'this is the real world' crack.

If everyone was like you, we'd all still be living in mud huts baying at the moon. People said mankind would never fly, yet we did. The US Patent Office director once said that everything that can be invented has been invented (back around 1900 IIRC). Lots of people dobted we could go to the moon - yet we did.

Lots of big problems are solved in the real world everyday - just because you are incapable of coming up with a solution yourself doesn't mean something is impossible.

Klein negotiated that 5% pay cut within a few months of coming into office - so Harper could have it too. Stelmach's hiring freeze came as soon as the economy turned sour in 2008. Instead, Harper's been too busy rushing other bills through that play to his political base - dismantling the LGR, killing the Wheat Board, getting his omnibus crime bill passed, etc. Frankly, I don't understand it - Harper has a majority and can get take care of that anytime in the next 3.5 years - what's the rush? AFAIK, Harper HASN'T DONE ANYTHING in regards to the deficit since winning his majority. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to believe he's a fiscal conservative? Yeah, right.

Perhaps if Harper spent more time worrying about Canada as a whole and not partisan politics, he might be well on his way to dealing with the deficit. Like I've said a half dozen times now, it's all a matter of leadership - and Harper isn't leading.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Who are the people on the edge of the middle class you're talking about? I've said over and over that people making the median wage should not see a tax increase, maybe they could even pay a bit less. Those are not on the edge of the middle class, so what are you talking about? And what's this hangup with tax refunds - why not just not collect the tax in the first place instead of having all these exemptions?

It may be the case that everybody has to pay more tax - who knows what shape our govt finances are really in. We have to do something about the deficit, and that probably means sacrifice by everybody. But the sacrifice has to start from the top, the people who have the money, instead of cutting from the bottom up, as govts like to do.

Do you think everyone living in the "middle class" is perfectly comfortable financially? If so, you need a reality check.

And I know what you'll say "those people need to manage their money better"....which circles back to your lack of experience and understanding of real World, non-Google, experiences.

You're hiding behind this mask of "no tax increases" for the middle class while at the same time, wanting to take away a rebate or benefit to people in this class.

Regardless of how you spin it, you want to take money away from the middle class because you claim they don't need it.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Why am I rolling my eyes? Because of your silly 'this is the real world' crack.

If everyone was like you, we'd all still be living in mud huts baying at the moon. People said mankind would never fly, yet we did. The US Patent Office director once said that everything that can be invented has been invented (back around 1900 IIRC). Lots of people dobted we could go to the moon - yet we did.

Lots of big problems are solved in the real world everyday - just because you are incapable of coming up with a solution yourself doesn't mean something is impossible.

Klein negotiated that 5% pay cut within a few months of coming into office - so Harper could have it too. Stelmach's hiring freeze came as soon as the economy turned sour in 2008. Instead, Harper's been too busy rushing other bills through that play to his political base - dismantling the LGR, killing the Wheat Board, getting his omnibus crime bill passed, etc. Frankly, I don't understand it - Harper has a majority and can get take care of that anytime in the next 3.5 years - what's the rush? AFAIK, Harper HASN'T DONE ANYTHING in regards to the deficit since winning his majority. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to believe he's a fiscal conservative? Yeah, right.

Perhaps if Harper spent more time worrying about Canada as a whole and not partisan politics, he might be well on his way to dealing with the deficit. Like I've said a half dozen times now, it's all a matter of leadership - and Harper isn't leading.

Because you make it sound easy. It's not.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that your constant references to the past and what was done 10-15 years ago on a Provincial level has little relevance to a Federal government.

If I may, the only one being partisan here is you. Harper did a lot more than worry about partisan politics, they tackled a ton of bills during the sitting of the House. It appears you're unaware of almost everything that took place this past year.

Frankly, I'm not surprised as I doubt you'd actually dig into what took place in the House this year, you're just taking talking points from opposition MP's.

[EyeBrock]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Silly me Shep. Fancy me thinking that having paid a shit load of cash into my pension, I should get it when I retire!

You greedy, selfish wanker

Yea, I have this work ethic that got me off minimum wage. I should have known better. I should have stuck on the bottom rung and moaned about everybody else earning more than me and retiring on a decent pension.

[peck420]

bootlegga,

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Klein and Stelmach have/had no real threat to their power regardless of what they do/did. They could do almost anything short of blatantly illegal and still remain in power.

Prime Minister Harper does not have that luxury.

I would wait to see how it has turned out by the end of the term, not the first couple months in.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

The big thing for govt employees is probably their rich pensions. Those need to be renegotiated. The Govt could set an example by submittig a bill to reduce the rich pensions that mp's get. That would be leadership. Taking a pay cut would help too.

I'm curious if you are making a broad generalization here or focusing on the sweet MP pensions they get after six years. My government pension won't be to bad when I get it, but it took 25 years of contributions and a lot of time away from my family to do it.

Frankly, I deserve it.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Why am I rolling my eyes? Because of your silly 'this is the real world' crack.

If everyone was like you, we'd all still be living in mud huts baying at the moon. People said mankind would never fly, yet we did. The US Patent Office director once said that everything that can be invented has been invented (back around 1900 IIRC). Lots of people dobted we could go to the moon - yet we did.

Lots of big problems are solved in the real world everyday - just because you are incapable of coming up with a solution yourself doesn't mean something is impossible.

Klein negotiated that 5% pay cut within a few months of coming into office - so Harper could have it too. Stelmach's hiring freeze came as soon as the economy turned sour in 2008. Instead, Harper's been too busy rushing other bills through that play to his political base - dismantling the LGR, killing the Wheat Board, getting his omnibus crime bill passed, etc. Frankly, I don't understand it - Harper has a majority and can get take care of that anytime in the next 3.5 years - what's the rush? AFAIK, Harper HASN'T DONE ANYTHING in regards to the deficit since winning his majority. Yet, somehow I'm supposed to believe he's a fiscal conservative? Yeah, right.

Perhaps if Harper spent more time worrying about Canada as a whole and not partisan politics, he might be well on his way to dealing with the deficit. Like I've said a half dozen times now, it's all a matter of leadership - and Harper isn't leading.

Because you make it sound easy. It's not.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that your constant references to the past and what was done 10-15 years ago on a Provincial level has little relevance to a Federal government.

If I may, the only one being partisan here is you. Harper did a lot more than worry about partisan politics, they tackled a ton of bills during the sitting of the House. It appears you're unaware of almost everything that took place this past year.

Frankly, I'm not surprised as I doubt you'd actually dig into what took place in the House this year, you're just taking talking points from opposition MP's.

First off, I never said it was easy - all I said was he (and his team) are all supposed to be pretty smart guys - I'm sure they must have some clue how to help the economy, instead of just sitting on their hands and hoping for the economy to turn around.

Prove that I'm the partisan here - please point to one bill the Conservatives have passed since May that is not high on their supporters list. If I'm wrong I'll admit it - but as I said, AFAIK, I haven't seen him do squat in regards to the economy.

So far, he's passed C-2, a bill to amend the Criminal Code, C-3 which appears to mostly deal with social programs - including authorizing $85 million in grants to organziations, C-6, a bill to force the posties back to work, C-8, C-9 & C-29, bills to give money to the royal family, C-13 which includes income tax changes and creates new tax credits, C-16 a bill on military judges service time, C-18 which will kill the Wheat Board, C-22 a bill dealing with a native band, and S-3 and S-1002, bills dealing with Quebec.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see NOTHING that deals with deficit fighting in that list. Close to half of them are no doubt typical taking care of business stuff (like C-8, C-9, C-16, C-22 and C-29), but all of the rest pretty much follow the Conservative party line. I'll freely admit I didn't read each and every one, but I did scan the ones that deal with the budget.

Those, of course are just the ones that have gotten royal assent. There are others amending the Criminal Code, fixing term lengths of senators, eliminating the the LGR, and so on.

Maybe I've got my 'liberal' blinders on, but those ALL seem like fairly/highly important issues to Conservative party supporters - so I doubt I'm the partisan one here.

But if you can find some bills (heck even one would surprise me) in the 66 he's introduced in this sitting (the past 6 months) that actually fights the deficit and doesn't increase spending or add to the deficit AND doesn't push his own party policies, I'll admit I'm wrong - although odds are even if you can, they'll be far outnumbered by the partisan ones he has passed/introduced.

Heck, I'm in such a good mood to day that I'll even give you a link;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Home.as ... ive&Page=1

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

bootlegga,

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Klein and Stelmach have/had no real threat to their power regardless of what they do/did. They could do almost anything short of blatantly illegal and still remain in power.

Prime Minister Harper does not have that luxury.

I would wait to see how it has turned out by the end of the term, not the first couple months in.

Nope -it's apples to apples. Harper has a majority for the next 4 years - he doesn't have any threats to his power either. He can literally do anything he wants, and so far, he pretty much has, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it for four years.

And you don't think the PCs here don't have any threats to their staying in power?

I guess you've never heard of the Wildrose or are aware that close to a dozen old party stalwarts (Ken Kowalski, Iris Evans, Lloyd Snelgrove, Ron Liepert, etc) are retiring and not running in the next election. Redford may be popular in Edmonton and Calgary, but the Wildrose might be able to split enough seats to create a minority government situation here in Alberta.

[peck420]

Completely different.

Harper has to be aware and planning his future in politics. He is a politician after all.

Klein, on the other hand, had no such worries.

There is a vast amount more you can do when you have a consistent massive majority vs a first time majority that may not make it at next election.

As for the PC's in Alberta, no they have no credible threats other than the 'other PC' party. Until the Liberals and NDP do something about that, our leaders will be far more bold than the average...if they feel like it, of course.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Do you think everyone living in the "middle class" is perfectly comfortable financially? If so, you need a reality check.

And I know what you'll say "those people need to manage their money better"....which circles back to your lack of experience and understanding of real World, non-Google, experiences.

You're hiding behind this mask of "no tax increases" for the middle class while at the same time, wanting to take away a rebate or benefit to people in this class.

Regardless of how you spin it, you want to take money away from the middle class because you claim they don't need it.

No, that just seems to be what you want to run with. It's probably true that everybody will have to pay higher taxes if we're going to do anything about the deficit - and cut government spending as well. If you don't are about the deficit, then sure, cut out all the stupid loopholes and just lower taxes. Wouldn't you rather not pay in the money in the first place than get it back depending on what you've spent it on?

You don't want tax increases for the rich, because they'll just take their money and leave the country. You don't want to cut out loopholes for the middle class, because some are not "perfectly comfortable" financially. (Funny how your heart bleeds for the financial comfort of the middle class, but not the poor) So how do you propose to go about addressing the deficit/debt?

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

The big thing for govt employees is probably their rich pensions. Those need to be renegotiated. The Govt could set an example by submittig a bill to reduce the rich pensions that mp's get. That would be leadership. Taking a pay cut would help too.

I'm curious if you are making a broad generalization here or focusing on the sweet MP pensions they get after six years. My government pension won't be to bad when I get it, but it took 25 years of contributions and a lot of time away from my family to do it.

Frankly, I deserve it.

You paid into it, you're due what you agreed to. Doesn't mean that pension plans can't be change for new hires. Funny how when I come up with a bit of right wing dogma, that benefits are too high for govt workers, all of a sudden you guys turn all left on me. Same with OTI who wants his MTV tax loopholes. Those two bits are standard right wing policy, something I agree with if we're going to ever get or debt under control. I just think that the sacrifice should start at the top, rather than always the bottom, as opposed to the right wingers. If we're going to cut govt spending, cutting benefits for govt employees would have to be included in the mix.

You guys like to come off all hard ass righties, and that I'm a lefty dreamer. Threaten your own little socialist slice of the pie tho, and it's 180 time.

[EyeBrock]

No, we are righties who got off our arses and paid into our pension funds that have high premiums.