Quote:
Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..
Most of it has already been documented in the press.
My friend was the fellow who caught an election official plugging a ballot box with foney votes when nobody was looking.
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but if this witness account of your friend's is true, I can't foresee how he or anyone could know just what party the phony ballots were supporting. Did he see which candidate's name the "X" was beside?
People assume it would be NDP votes (because they won), but it could have also been votes for Steen that the elections official was stuffing in.
Remember, the Conservatives in Manitoba have a not-so-distant history of serious violations of our election laws (Filmon & Sokolyk, 1995 provincial election). I'm just saying, the elections official could just as likely be a Conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid
Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer
This is pretty basic old school economics...
Kaysian economics suggests the best time to introduce major government projects and tax cuts is during periods of slowing economic growth or declining economies.
|
If companies don't pay taxes when they don't make a profit, how are tax cuts going to help them? Sure, it will help them when they become profitable again, but looking just at forestry, they never do become profitable. They go under. And big government projects and cutting government spending don't quite go hand in hand, I think. Especially when you throw in tax cuts, that's just asking for a deficit, and having to borrow money is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Keynesian, btw. Now tell me why I don't understand the theory you can't spell the name of.
|
Exactly. In fact, the Harper Cons essentially went through the campaign yapping about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Then late last week, Harper and Jim 'The Ludicrous Leprechaun' Flaherty conceded that there will have to be deficit spending in 2009. Merrill Lynch indicated that we'll have about a $10-Billion spending deficit in the 2009/10 fiscal year.
It truly didn't have to be this way. A dangerous 2% cut to the GST (1% would have been more reasonable), the second 1% cut at an annual cost of $6-Billion and it came well after the credit crisis and the economic slow-down began.
As well, $8.8-Billion spending on pork-barrel and non-essential items in the few months leading up to the election (June 2nd to September 4th). In fact, it was the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation that decried the $8.8-Billion pre-election spending (which is ironic as the CTF is a group normally participating in a four-way circle-jerk with the Cons, the Fraser Institute and the National Citizen's Coalition).
Yeah, the Cons are great managers of the Canadian public purse! And those Harper tax cuts really comes in handy when a year later the economy tanks.
Just watch the Cons try to hastily explain their way out of it, by claiming that they weren't warned about the "R" word or even just an economic slow-down (or "correction"), prior to the dangerous spending and unreasonable tax cuts. This has been on the horizon as long as they've been in office. Just have to look to our US neighbours to see it coming. Duh!
$10-B Deficit spending for 2009/10:
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/518341
2008 pre-election spending:
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954
How and when the credit crisis began:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...rnrock.banking
The cost of the second GST cut (which came after many warnings of the economic troubles on the horizon):
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...33ed9a&k=95436