Harper Government tells Canada's three oceans to go eff themselves.

[CaptainCrunch]

General Curtis LeMAy wanted to Nuke the Oceans because they hid enemy submarines.

We're much nicer to the Oceans.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Aww, how cute. Elizabeth May thinks she matters.

People did vote for her and she is an MP. Unless you are saying people's votes don't matter... in which case, I might agree with you.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

People did vote for her and she is an MP. Unless you are saying people's votes don't matter... in which case, I might agree with you.

When you are a caucus of one, you are basically an independent. May is, of course, an elected MP, but the lowest ranking Tory or NDP backbencher has more influence within Commons than she does, simply by virtue of party support.

[CaptainCrunch]

Especially since she pretty much threw the rest of her party under the bus in order to win her seat, I consider her a independant.

I think she's been the worst thing for the Green Party and actually stopped them from any kind of evolution in terms of gaining seats.

[Azure]

What I find interesting is that the Liberals spent a hell of a lot less on government programs in the 90s than the Conservatives are spending now.

How was that even possible?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

We need more bias in the thread title and original post.

He's not a journalist.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Azure

What I find interesting is that the Liberals spent a hell of a lot less on government programs in the 90s than the Conservatives are spending now.

How was that even possible?

Inflation, economy in the crapper and a half-decade of minority governments, I'd wager.

A better comparison would be Harper's Conservatives vs. Martin's Liberals.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

What I find interesting is that the Liberals spent a hell of a lot less on government programs in the 90s than the Conservatives are spending now.

How was that even possible?

Its because they were fiscal conservatives. Now we have social conservatives who are addicted to their deficit. Thankfully they got a majority though, because now they have no one else to blame their inadequacies on.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

What I find interesting is that the Liberals spent a hell of a lot less on government programs in the 90s than the Conservatives are spending now.

How was that even possible?

Liberals view large surpluses as prudent, Conservatives view large surpluses as the government taking too much of their money.

Also, Conservatives need to buy votes because not enough people like them otherwise.

Go ahead and compare Martin's government to Harper's ... the comparison still favors the Liberals as smarter budget managers.

[MoneyGuy]

I'm in Victoria now discussing the Pacific and them piping raw effluent into the ocean.

[Azure]

I never even meant it that way.

What I mean is that the Liberals spent less money on government programs, and the country still functioned. Obviously they neglected the military, but it is widely known that there was almost a 20% reduction in spending across the board.

I'm not impressed with how the Conservative spend, spend, spend. While I'm relieved that they might be able to balance the budget sooner than expected, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't cut another $5 billion per year.

[TurnedTheCorner]

**** the oceans

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Fire

It's refreshing to see the actual reduction of government in this country. All we ever see is more committees and more departments added but never a reduction.

It's good to see a government having the courage to look at different departments and find ways to reduce government waste.

Dump it in the ocean?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

I never even meant it that way.

What I mean is that the Liberals spent less money on government programs, and the country still functioned. Obviously they neglected the military, but it is widely known that there was almost a 20% reduction in spending across the board.

I'm not impressed with how the Conservative spend, spend, spend. While I'm relieved that they might be able to balance the budget sooner than expected, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't cut another $5 billion per year.

Well at least a piece of this is because of inefficiencies they've created, and another piece is because of the GST cut.

The inefficiencies are things like their creation and use of things like tax credits. These are much more costly to administer than a straight tax reduction.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm in Victoria now discussing the Pacific and them piping raw effluent into the ocean.

I just love that example. It's the epitome of the hippies that claim to care about the environment, yet they crap all over it just the same.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm in Victoria now discussing the Pacific and them piping raw effluent into the ocean.

sh*tty.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well at least a piece of this is because of inefficiencies they've created, and another piece is because of the GST cut.

The inefficiencies are things like their creation and use of things like tax credits. These are much more costly to administer than a straight tax reduction.

Ah right. I didn't even think of the GST cut. Which I agree was stupid and nothing more than a ridiculous vote grab. Worked though, so to the Conservatives probably think it was worth it.

Tax credits aren't all bad, but I do agree that a straight over tax cut would be better.

[Mike F]

I'm betting they just saw this picture and figured with all the water in one place from now on monitoring would be easy

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

We need more bias in the thread title and original post.

Would you say the same about this thread?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=117296

[kn]

I'm not worried with May on the case...