Can you trust Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You mean when the Liberals balanced the budget and reduced the deficit?

Yes they did... thanks to Paul Martin, a very untypical Liberal, who was very unpopular with the Liberal old guard.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Waiting for Rerun to explain how he is right and everyone else is wrong.

No it's Rerun preaching he is right and wanting everyone else to be right.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The first paragraph and a bit is pretty hilarious. Yes you run a government like a business, but like a not-for-profit. The goal should always be balanced budgets, which the Conservatives have not and likely will not be able to achieve in their reign. You say you don't like wasting for social programs, but a prison system is a social program, its just one with mostly costly social and economic consequences. Being $10 billion off on a projection (which is only a 66% misstep...whoops) for a fighter jet suggests to me they aren't going to manage finances very well.

I'm all for punishing the worst offenders as much as possible. The crime bill isn't doing that though. Its mostly creating new punishments for low level crimes that will increase the current prison population, hence why we need new jails, new guards etc. It's a catastrophic waste of money if you know anything about the American system (i.e. it doesn't work)

As far as I know, they haven't purchased these fighters yet so hold off on the tar and feathers.
As to what you say about the new crime bill, you may be right, or you may be wrong... its speculation on your part and other Bill C-38 opponents. The Conservative party thinks otherwise. I will wait and see... just like I'll do with Bob Hartley.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You know as I look back at Kenney's adventure, his biggest sin was spelling Lukaszuk wrong. If you're going to insult a guy, at least get his name right. Like me saying "Jasin Kinneey is a lazy arrogant prick who can only win elections because he's in Alberta", it just doesn't work as well if I can't get his name right.

Can't say you're wrong there. Not really a big fan of Kenney.
As for spelling Luksazuk's name wrong? Who cares. It was supposed to be an internal e-mail and it was probably a typo.. Who doesn't make typos?

[Flash Walken]

Uh, speculation? It's the words in the document.

Do you read a book and then wait a year to see what the outcome is?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I know Rerun, I was just being a smart ass as always. He can make typos, thats cool. Hitting reply all? Come on man, get on that! Who still makes such egregious errors? Twitter and the reply all button will undoubtably be the death of western civilization.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Who is John Galt?

John Galt is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is not identified by name until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.
As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator, philosopher, and inventor who symbolizes the power and glory of the human mind. He serves as a principled counterpoint to the collectivist social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism, which the novel associates with socialistic idealism.

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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Translation : Better to be governed by corrupt politicians who can be bought than an honest autocrat who believes he's doing whats best for Canada?

If Stephen Harper honestly believes he's doing what's best for Canada, then he's dumber than I thought.

Originally Posted by Rerun

Lets face it... the government of Canada is a business... a billion dollar business in fact. You can either run it in a fiscally responsible manner where expenditures don't exceed revenues or you can run it irresponsibly where vast sums of money are spent recklessly and inprudently on every social program out there and you end up like most European countries.

I'd rather have a businessman, who understands economics, running this country, than a socialist who only understands that the taxpayer can always cough up more money, if necessary, to finance a welfare state.

As for the prison issue, I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand I want rapists, murderers, child molester, etc (generally the scum of society) kept in prison as long as possible, but I do understand that with this attitude incarceration costs will increase, and of course I hate to see this... but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet and pay the piper to see justice done.

Have you looked at the Conservative and Liberal spending records? You can even stop in 2008 to remove the effects of the recession. Your perceptions seem to have no basis in reality.

Also, I'd rather spend money on social programs that actually help people than on an unwinnable war on drugs.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I know Rerun, I was just being a smart ass as always. He can make typos, thats cool. Hitting reply all? Come on man, get on that! Who still makes such egregious errors? Twitter and the reply all button will undoubtably be the death of western civilization.

They should put those two gd buttons a lot further apart... like on opposite ends.. as to twitter... stupidest thing ever invented IMHO.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Being $10 billion off on a projection (which is only a 66% misstep...whoops) for a fighter jet suggests to me they aren't going to manage finances very well.

Pretty sure they knew the real cost, they just figured that they didn't need to tell parliament or the public. Which of course, makes me question whether or not we can trust them...

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Uh, speculation? It's the words in the document.

Do you read a book and then wait a year to see what the outcome is?

Uh yeah... still waiting patiently for the Winds of Winter to come out..

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Uh yeah... still waiting patiently for the Winds of Winter to come out..

That is clearly the point that most urgently needed a response... deflect! Deflect!

Lets not forget that this thread was originally about Bob Rae, who apparently you CAN trust.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

If Stephen Harper honestly believes he's doing what's best for Canada, then he's dumber than I thought.

Have you looked at the Conservative and Liberal spending records? You can even stop in 2008 to remove the effects of the recession. Your perceptions seem to have no basis in reality.

Also, I'd rather spend money on social programs that actually help people than on an unwinnable war on drugs.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/comment...service=mobile

In the 1960s, the federal government nationalized 18 per cent of Canada's GDP - to express, without euphemism, the share of the country's GDP that the government spent. As it happens, this was the same percentage it spent in 2009, the worst year of the Great Recession. In an oddball way, this documents the cool-hand restraint of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his adroit Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty.

Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty should not have humoured the opposition as enthusiastically as they did. It will take another four years, or more, to get the federal share of GDP back to its pre-recession level. Nevertheless, it's obvious that a Liberal government (whether dependent on the NDP or not) would have spent much more. Contrast pre-recession spending of the Conservatives with pre-recession spending of the Liberals. In 2006-2008, the Conservatives nationalized (on average) 15.1 per cent of GDP a year. In 2002-2005, the Liberals nationalized (on average) 15.9 per cent. The difference (on average): 0.8 of a percentage point a year.
This may not seem important. But it's in fractions of percentage points that limited government wages continuous war with big government. And 0.8 per cent of $1.3-trillion in GDP isn't insignificant: It's $10-billion. From this perspective, the minority Conservative government, in its three pre-recession budgets, denationalized $30-billion of GDP.
When it commandeered only 14.9 per cent of GDP in 2008, the Harper government achieved this country's best one-year fiscal victory (total expenditures as a percentage of GDP) in 50 years. Compare this percentage with 2004 when Liberal Paul Martin (in his first budget as prime minister) nationalized 16.3 per cent of GDP. The consequence of this 1.4 percentage-point difference was the confiscation, in a single year, of an extra $14-billion of GDP - a hidden tax increase.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's times like this I wish I could access YouTube at work so I can post Officer Barbrady's thoughts on Atlas Shrugged

[GP_Matt]

I don't know a lot about Jason Kenney, but I always thought that he was one of the hardest working politicians in Parliament. In fact, I seem to recall that Macleans had him as the best overall MP in Ottawa from a poll amongst MP's.

I don't know who will replace Stephen Harper, but my early prediction was that Jason Kenney would be a contender. For what it's worth, I think Allison Redford will take a stab at it as well.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

That is clearly the point that most urgently needed a response... deflect! Deflect!

Lets not forget that this thread was originally about Bob Rae, who apparently you CAN trust.

Yes, apparently I can, but then again, he came to become a Liberal in his later years.

Two thumbs up for Bob.... one Liberal I would consider voting for.

[GP_Matt]

http://xkcd.com/1049/
The hover text on this one is pretty great.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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

Whoosh.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Whoosh.

Not really. Perhaps I should have posted the quote in green?

[Rerun]

You know, frankly I'm just tired of arguing with all the Libs and NDP'ers on this.

You're right. I'm wrong.

Canada would be much better off if Michael Ignatieff was Prime Minister and Mulcair was the Leader of the Opposition (oh wait... he is... isn't he?) and the Conservative Party of Canada was relegated to 3rd place in Parliament. Happy Days would finally have arrived here in Canada.

Think of all the money we'd be saving from not building prisons to incarcerate criminals or even better... not spending it on the military. We would probably even have lots left over to even bail out the EU (whats with that stupid Stephen Harper and his ridiculous stance on that?)...