Is Harper bent on destroying Canada?

ooh-ya-more

Member
Aug 30, 2004
202
0
16
Nope, you are probably correct.

Stephen Harper likely grew up with the dream of destroying Canada. It took a long time and a lot of hard work to get decent grades through high school and onwards. Right through getting his Masters Degree in Economics.

Spent time heading the National Citizens Coalition, high school in the Liberal Party and other nefarious diversions to allow hi to continue with his sinister plan to destroy Canada


As a simple Member of Parliament he did not have enough power to carry ot his "hell bent" desire to "destroy Canada" . So he had no choice but to become Prime Minister.

It is not easy to appear to have good intentions to try to govern this complex country in an even more complex world but good to see enlightened, erudite intelligent and informed people like you Volley see through his transparent attempts to hide his intention to DESTROY CANADA!


I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I KNEW HE WANTED TO DESTROY CANADA :frusty:
 

mcKaos

New member
Apr 8, 2012
70
0
0
Nope, you are probably correct.

Stephen Harper likely grew up with the dream of destroying Canada. It took a long time and a lot of hard work to get decent grades through high school and onwards. Right through getting his Masters Degree in Economics.

Spent time heading the National Citizens Coalition, high school in the Liberal Party and other nefarious diversions to allow hi to continue with his sinister plan to destroy Canada

As a simple Member of Parliament he did not have enough power to carry ot his "hell bent" desire to "destroy Canada" . So he had no choice but to become Prime Minister.

It is not easy to appear to have good intentions to try to govern this complex country in an even more complex world but good to see enlightened, erudite intelligent and informed people like you Volley see through his transparent attempts to hide his intention to DESTROY CANADA!

What I don't get here Rub is that your putting words in his mouth ... he actually was wondering if his policies were hurting Canada's economy which is not the same as destroying the Country. Some policies do, some don't but on the whole the Conservatives have operated within their mandate and that's all we can ask of any Government. Do I agree with the mandate, no but unlike many of both sides of the political spectrum I do respect that elections have consequences. As long as the Conservatives operate within their Party platform during the election I'm a reasonably happy camper. Why you have to go on a rant here is beyond me. This kind of hyperactive partisanship, which both sides are guilty of just isn't helpful to any constructive conversation.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,711
4,196
113
Actually John Infrastructure spending during the recession did not account for the pileup of debt. What little they spent came from general revenues. The pile up of debt starts occurring with the ill advised cuts to the sales tax and the fact that to make our Corporations tax efficient cuts had to be made there for them to be competitive with foreign Companies. A cut to personal tax would have been more efficient.
Actually?
You are allocating where money came from, which is a completely arbitrary process and in your case the allocations have a very left hand biased
Infrastructure spending was significant and the corp tax vs. personal tax cut is whole different debate
Implying the average Joe Canada is more economically efficient than corporations is a non-starter

Now as to the economic crisis and the PM ... you conveniently forget that everything blew up in the States months before an election where the PM in the debate denied Canada was in a recession when it was obvious to everyone that wasn't true.
If it was obvious to everyone, why did the PM get re-elected with a majority?

I will help you
The liberal leader Ignatia (Spelling?) turned everyone off and as a whole Canadians are smart enough not to let the NDP run the show because they are not financially responsible

Oh and you forget our own Bank crisis ... CIBC almost failed and had to be re capitalized
Not even close.
CIBC was no where near failing. It is the bank that runs with scissors and some concerns, but failing? Come on
If one of the Canadian banks was to fail, look out below

I give Finance props for that and the Banks got capital prior to the fall of Leeman which would have made it impossible after the US Bank crisis. Even top Canadian Bankers laughed at the notion the Conservatives put forward during that election (no recession) ... mind you the PM corrected that notion 2 days after the election when he announced that we were in a serious recession. Aw you gotta love politics.
Its politics 101
It does not mean Harper is destroying Canada and the original poster stated
 

mcKaos

New member
Apr 8, 2012
70
0
0
Actually?
You are allocating where money came from, which is a completely arbitrary process and in your case the allocations have a very left hand biased
Infrastructure spending was significant and the corp tax vs. personal tax cut is whole different debate
Implying the average Joe Canada is more economically efficient than corporations is a non-starter
Actually most economists, including those from the Banks feel that the GST cuts were bad public policy. It was simply good politics and good answer to Martin's 1% cut across the board on personal taxes. In fact had we not done the GST, which in fact left it below most of the Western World with the exception of the United States which has none, and did the 1% personal tax cut we would not have this deficit at the tail end of the recession. It would have allowed greater flexibility regarding Corp incentives to get people back to work. In fact fiscally we would be in a position to cut taxes on personal income thus freeing up far more money for people to spend freely ... which is your goal. Good politics lousy economics. BTW infrastructure projects they just were not used. The Conservatives were very good at announcing large dollar amounts but less than 70% of announced spending was used largely based on the hoops you had to through to get the money ... not only did you have to front the money you had to complete the project within a rather short timeline before they would consider repaying. In addition good luck if were a City or Province that had little or no members of the Conservative caucus.

If it was obvious to everyone, why did the PM get re-elected with a majority?

I will help you
The liberal leader Ignatia (Spelling?) turned everyone off and as a whole Canadians are smart enough not to let the NDP run the show because they are not financially responsible
Sorry fella you got the wrong election. The recession debate was for the late 2008 election and just after Leeman's collapse the previous month. The previous 6 months showed serious issues with the Banks, both here and the States ... jobs were falling, jobless claims were up ... Corp profits down.

Not even close.
CIBC was no where near failing. It is the bank that runs with scissors and some concerns, but failing? Come on
If one of the Canadian banks was to fail, look out below
This actually is very funny and revisionist history. CIBC was forced by Feds to to issue a highly diluted deal when their stock dropped from near the near 100's to about 75 to private investors at 65 a share with rights to purchase more a 60 ... that's a fire sale and dragged everyone down. You forget the Canadian CDO problem and how US insurers of debt told all CDN Banks that they may not be able to cover their obligations. In fact the main one CIBC used went bankrupt. We only avoided this becoming a US or European Bank problem due to Banking rules that limit this kind of exposure. Banks weren't in trouble????... tell that to the widows and orphans that watch the value of Bank stocks in Canada drop nearly 2/3rds of their value by mar 2009.



Its politics 101
It does not mean Harper is destroying Canada and the original poster stated

Not really sure what you mean here but that still remains open to debate if the economic policies this Government follows is helping or hurting. I'm not sure myself because at this point since European Banks failed to correct themselves as the Americans did, this overhang has the ability to shove us back into a recession and this deficit precludes our ability to medicate the effects.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,711
4,196
113
Actually most economists, including those from the Banks feel that the GST cuts were bad public policy.
Thank you for proving my point

It was simply good politics and good answer to Martin's 1% cut across the board on personal taxes. In fact had we not done the GST, which in fact left it below most of the Western World with the exception of the United States which has none, and did the 1% personal tax cut we would not have this deficit at the tail end of the recession. It would have allowed greater flexibility regarding Corp incentives to get people back to work. In fact fiscally we would be in a position to cut taxes on personal income thus freeing up far more money for people to spend freely ... which is your goal. Good politics lousy economics.
You are using "In fact" to express your opinion wrt personal vs. corp tax cuts. (I think ???)
At this point exactly how you stand on this issue is very unclear.
Read what you wrote. It is filled with contradictions

e.g The GST replaced the manufactures tax
Not sure how you drew the the conclusion that corps would be hiring more people if they were taxed at the point of production

The GST was a very unpopular, but very necessary evil need to pay down the high govt debt load accumulated prior to its implementation
Had the gov't been scaled back further there would be flexibility to reduce the GST


BTW infrastructure projects they just were not used. The Conservatives were very good at announcing large dollar amounts but less than 70% of announced spending was used largely based on the hoops you had to through to get the money ... not only did you have to front the money you had to complete the project within a rather short timeline before they would consider repaying. In addition good luck if were a City or Province that had little or no members of the Conservative caucus.
Do you have a source or is this just your opinion?

Sorry fella you got the wrong election. The recession debate was for the late 2008 election and just after Leeman's collapse the previous month. The previous 6 months showed serious issues with the Banks, both here and the States ... jobs were falling, jobless claims were up ... Corp profits down.
Now you are just being annoying
If it was obvious to everyone, why did the PM get re-elected in 2008, 2011?
Despite all the doom and gloom that you described ?
Because Canadians knew that the conservatives economic policy is far better than the alternatives


This actually is very funny and revisionist history. CIBC was forced by Feds to to issue a highly diluted deal when their stock dropped from near the near 100's to about 75 to private investors at 65 a share with rights to purchase more a 60 ... that's a fire sale and dragged everyone down. You forget the Canadian CDO problem and how US insurers of debt told all CDN Banks that they may not be able to cover their obligations. In fact the main one CIBC used went bankrupt. We only avoided this becoming a US or European Bank problem due to Banking rules that limit this kind of exposure. Banks weren't in trouble????... tell that to the widows and orphans that watch the value of Bank stocks in Canada drop nearly 2/3rds of their value by mar 2009.
Now you are being foolish.
1. Any issues CIBC had in 2008 are hardly Harpers fault
2. 99% of all equity securities had a similar performance in the time period you describe.
That was driven by fear, not economic or business specific risks
It was the buying opportunity of a lifetime. How are the widows and orphans doing with their CIBC investment?
Up 47% since Mar 2009 + a rather juicy dividend yield
However I guess you know better than the market

Not my first choice of CDN banks to invest in, however they were not any danger of failing.
Not even close
 
Last edited:

losty

New member
Nov 21, 2008
45
0
0
JohnLarue, my conclusions are from numerous articles that I've read, and thus are my opinion. Which I am entitle to.
I asked a question, which you've provided no answer.

Gar, we went from a 2 Billion dollar surplus to a 55 Billion deficit during Harper's term in office? Why is he still there??
He is still in power because the liberals in this country (a majority of the population) are stupidly split into two parties, which allows Harper to win elections with 39% of the popular vote. Some great thinker once said: "Every nation has the government it deserves."
 

gargravarrh

Member
Apr 3, 2011
155
0
16
I guess you missed the fact that there was this little thing called a world wide recession
That negatively affected the govt revenues - Hardly Harpers fault
He did increase stimulus spending for a two year period , which you can criticize, if you feel it not the right thing to do
However, before you do, I suggest you think about the size of the deficit had the liberals or (shudder) the NDP had been in charge

You can second guess Harpers policies on a number of issues other than the handling of the economy
Canada has weathered the economic crisis far better than rest of the world
Obviously I've heard about the recession used as an excuse previously. I don't accept it as an excuse. I find it as specious especially since the Harper government has sold itself on fiscal restraint but has proven itself to be anything but restrained. One has to look at the current goings-on.

There are several loads of unsubstantiated bunk in evidence here; propaganda, which has no relation to reality: Two simple messages, both of which have no basis in the truth: Conservatives show fiscal restraint: Liberals and NDP are fiscally irresponsible. Both inferences are total and complete trash. Simple messages for the masses.

The current Jetgate 25 billion dollar misprediction is one example of excessive expenditure, as are the 45k baseball game, as are McKay's helicopter rides. Government spending and staffing has exploded during his term, including those 1500 people or so hired to spam forums like this one and to print those 'Canada's Economic Action Plan blue erection thinly-veiled electioneering posters".
 

spraggamuffin

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2006
3,291
161
63
Whatever keeps the economy afloat while he is PM. It's all about riding a wave of prosperity that has nothing to do with his doing.

High oil prices,housing industry is what's keeping things afloat.

Instead he just does the minimum required to feed it and keep it going while he is in power without regard for inflation etc.

It affords him a positive legacy.

It also ensures that the person who comes in after to clean up the mess most likely will not command as buoyant an economy.

This subsequent leader also will not receive the praise Harper received for the prosperity of the country he had little to do with.
 

duang

Active member
Apr 17, 2007
1,121
0
36
Whatever keeps the economy afloat while he is PM. It's all about riding a wave of prosperity that has nothing to do with his doing.

High oil prices,housing industry is what's keeping things afloat.

Instead he just does the minimum required to feed it and keep it going while he is in power without regard for inflation etc.

It affords him a positive legacy.

It also ensures that the person who comes in after to clean up the mess most likely will not command as buoyant an economy.

This subsequent leader also will not receive the praise Harper received for the prosperity of the country he had little to do with.
Harper is trying to get government out of the way so that people who want to work hard can be successful. Unfortunately, his early years had him spending like a bloody Liberal but hopefully he will return to his roots and act like a Conservative and minimize government.

You are saying Harper has no regard for inflation? What inflation are you talking about? Are you blaming him for something that might not even happen and if it does, it's likely to be way down the road? Interesting.

I find it very amusing to talk about a goverment coming in after the Conservatives to "clean up the mess": usually it is Conservatives coming in to clean up after the socialists [e.g. Harris after Rae, anyone after McGuinty, etc.]. Perhaps by "clean up the mess" you mean to rebuild unions, raise taxes and increase bureacracy? If that's what you mean then I hope we never get cleaned up back into that nanny state.

D.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Harper is just rewarding his friends and the rich people that finance the Conservative party. If you are not rich, and you voted for them then you are STUPID. The problem with democracy is, if people are too stupid to vote in their own interest.. then it simply does not work.
Right...Harper is the inventor of Canadian political patronage.

Are you suggesting that Harper's policies have a particularly negative impact on the poor?
 

duang

Active member
Apr 17, 2007
1,121
0
36
Harper is just rewarding his friends and the rich people that finance the Conservative party. If you are not rich, and you voted for them then you are STUPID. The problem with democracy is, if people are too stupid to vote in their own interest.. then it simply does not work.
Even if it was true that the Cons are rewarding their supporters it is the norm since all politicians reward their support groups. Maybe you'd be more comfortable back in Mother Russia, Cuba or North Korea with the others who don't like democracy.

Arrogant of you to call people stupid since because they differ in their political preferences. Maybe you can't understand that some people want smaller government and to be treated like adults rather than living in a nanny state that intrudes into too many aspects of their life.

I'm sure you love democracy when the NDF or Liberals are in power so don't be a sore loser. Deal with it.

D.
 

mcKaos

New member
Apr 8, 2012
70
0
0
Thank you for proving my point
Only a first class idiot makes this kind of point ... you have no reason to make such a statement since you made several mistakes in your original posting.



You are using "In fact" to express your opinion wrt personal vs. corp tax cuts. (I think ???)
At this point exactly how you stand on this issue is very unclear.
Read what you wrote. It is filled with contradictions

e.g The GST replaced the manufactures tax
Not sure how you drew the the conclusion that corps would be hiring more people if they were taxed at the point of production

The GST was a very unpopular, but very necessary evil need to pay down the high govt debt load accumulated prior to its implementation
Had the gov't been scaled back further there would be flexibility to reduce the GST
Boy did you go a long way to make this stupid point. Clearly the cut by Harper in this case was aimed at popular support by the public. What in your little mind makes this a corporate tax v personal tax argument is clearly ... well argumentative on your behalf because you have no support your original dumb idea.




Do you have a source or is this just your opinion?
Yes I do. It's well documented I suggest you look it up. Clearly from your answers your ego will not allow you to be wrong so I would clearly be wasting my time on you. Get your self informed and stop living in ignorance.



Now you are just being annoying
If it was obvious to everyone, why did the PM get re-elected in 2008, 2011?
Despite all the doom and gloom that you described ?
Because Canadians knew that the conservatives economic policy is far better than the alternatives
Annoying ... you were flat out wrong and used your dumb ass idea to take a swipe at Iggy. Actually in 2008 Dion, surprisingly was closing the gap in the polls on the Conservatives until CTV, as it turns out under orders from a Halifax member of the Conservatives and employee of CTV's station in Halifax, published outtakes on the net of Dion flubbing a English phrase, not his first language. This is unheard of to use outtakes. Anyways the only one that provided an economic plan in 2008 was Dion ... Harper largely kept out of it except to say he was a good manager of the economy even though the evidence shows that he completely wasted the surplus he was given so he could chance votes in Quebec.

Any ways it wasn't picky to point out your foolish statement regarding elections since it was an answer back on Harper's denial we were in a recession when everyone knew we were.




Now you are being foolish.
1. Any issues CIBC had in 2008 are hardly Harpers fault
2. 99% of all equity securities had a similar performance in the time period you describe.
That was driven by fear, not economic or business specific risks
It was the buying opportunity of a lifetime. How are the widows and orphans doing with their CIBC investment?
Up 47% since Mar 2009 + a rather juicy dividend yield
However I guess you know better than the market

Not my first choice of CDN banks to invest in, however they were not any danger of failing.
Not even close
Really!!! Not many Companies I know that are healthy issues shares at a 10% plus discount and give an option of almost 10% lower to raise capital to cover unexpected losses. The point was not what the stock is doing today (BTW they haven't recovered their pre 2008 high) but the mess they were in then and the very real possibility of failing without this infusion of capital. That was point i was making ... the fact that they got capital saved their butts.

And foolish person ... It is not a question about whether I know better than the markets but looking back history and seeing how a disaster was avoided ... again I think I gave props in my original post to the Minister of Finance stepping in, it showed good insight for the time.

Again clearly from your posts you are an argumentative person for argument sake and a ill informed one at that.
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,765
2
0
JohnLarue, my conclusions are from numerous articles that I've read, and thus are my opinion. Which I am entitle to.
I asked a question, which you've provided no answer.

Gar, we went from a 2 Billion dollar surplus to a 55 Billion deficit during Harper's term in office? Why is he still there??
You should focus your anger on Trudeau. HE is the one who truly ruined Canada, financially (and socially, but that's a separate discussion).
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
18,711
4,196
113
Only a first class idiot makes this kind of point ... you have no reason to make such a statement since you made several mistakes in your original posting.
You are starting to piss me off

Again clearly from your posts you are an argumentative person for argument sake and a ill informed one at that.
My thoughts about you are similar
Your logic is convoluted and difficult to follow
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
10,875
2,945
113
You should focus your anger on Trudeau. HE is the one who truly ruined Canada, financially (and socially, but that's a separate discussion).
but for the many who think Trudeau defined Canada, Harper is destroying that vision of a free and compassionate "just society" which appreciates and promotes peace, diversity and the arts. Harper brings war, division , stifling of dissent, disregard for the environment and oil uber alles!
 

bigshot

Active member
Aug 16, 2003
1,362
20
38
Nope, you are probably correct.

Stephen Harper likely grew up with the dream of destroying Canada. It took a long time and a lot of hard work to get decent grades through high school and onwards. Right through getting his Masters Degree in Economics.

Spent time heading the National Citizens Coalition, high school in the Liberal Party and other nefarious diversions to allow hi to continue with his sinister plan to destroy Canada

As a simple Member of Parliament he did not have enough power to carry ot his "hell bent" desire to "destroy Canada" . So he had no choice but to become Prime Minister.

It is not easy to appear to have good intentions to try to govern this complex country in an even more complex world but good to see enlightened, erudite intelligent and informed people like you Volley see through his transparent attempts to hide his intention to DESTROY CANADA!
Thanks for this, RM. I wish I could have written that one. All these dopes who say that Harper has destroyed Canada seem to feel that our country is quite fragile. That is is already past the point of no return. Quite the contrary, we're still the envy of the world...
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,479
12
38
I guess you missed the fact that there was this little thing called a world wide recession
That negatively affected the govt revenues - Hardly Harpers fault
He did increase stimulus spending for a two year period , which you can criticize, if you feel it not the right thing to do
However, before you do, I suggest you think about the size of the deficit had the liberals or (shudder) the NDP had been in charge

You can second guess Harpers policies on a number of issues other than the handling of the economy
Canada has weathered the economic crisis far better than rest of the world
Just on that point I bolded: Harper negatively affected his own government revenues. Let's remember that The Smartest Man in The Room promised his government would never run deficits when he lowered the GST—against the advice of all sorts of wise and informed experts—and only quite some time afterwards did a world-wide recession show up to make a liar out of him. The part about ignoring good advice, leaving yourself no safety margin and winding up in a hole was all His.

I can't leave without commenting on your rigorous logic: comparing an imaginary deficit to a real one. As meaningless as a Harper promise, I'd say. And at variance with the fact that Harper inherited a Liberal surplus—as gargravarrh, the guy you supposedly are refuting pointed out—as well as the regulatory system that kept our banks high and dry.
 

Joe-Dart54

Banned
Oct 30, 2011
574
0
0
he could be an idiot but he's actually a jackass
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts