Harper renegs on election promise
2Cdo @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:08 am
Derby, not condoning the fact that the PM reneged on a promise but are you that upset that you would be willing to put the Liberal party back in charge with THEIR record of broken promises, wasted tax dollars, and just plain ordinary criminal behaviour? Give the PM credit, at least he's doing something which may in fact ease the tax burden on average working Canadians, instead of raising taxes or implementing health care "fees" like our provincial Liberals did.
Oh wait, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Just new "fees". 
Tricks @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:01 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Tricks Tricks:
DerbyX DerbyX:
ridenrain ridenrain:
This is just Derby protecting his fat cat bay street friends again 
No. Just showing you that the cons are every bit the politicians you accuse the Libs of.
Suck it up.
Not at all. Its time conservatives started accepting responsibility instead of blaming the Liberals as they always do.
This is case in point. We hear non-stop about how Chretein reneged on the GST promise yet nary a word of criticism comes out of the con camp when their golden boy does the same thing, yet again.
In this thread and others they try desperately to turn it around and put it back on the Liberals.
Look at RR. He accuses me of "protecting fat cat bay street chums" yet it is nothing but a red-herring.
My motive is irrelevant as is what the Libs were or were not going to do.
The only point here is that Harper reneged on an important election promise and one that helped get him votes.
Everything else is irrelevant. We hear nothing from the cons about how they are mad or feel betrayed, all we here is them treying everything they can to put it back onto the Liberals.
Once again. Harper lied. Why he did it is irrelevant. He lied.
Come election time we will bring out the fact that he has been lying with a good deal of frequency as he renegs on yet another aspect of his election promises.
He lied. Again. N'uff said.
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:07 am
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Derby, not condoning the fact that the PM reneged on a promise but are you that upset that you would be willing to put the Liberal party back in charge with THEIR record of broken promises, wasted tax dollars, and just plain ordinary criminal behaviour? Give the PM credit, at least he's doing something which may in fact ease the tax burden on average working Canadians, instead of raising taxes or implementing health care "fees" like our provincial Liberals did.
Oh wait, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Just new "fees".
Oh wait, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Just new "fees".
First off you guys hate the Libs for an election promise that they did keep, ie the helicopters yet hold little malice towards Mulrouney for him not keeping up his promises (to buy nuke subs for instance).
They also kept their promise concerning the debt. They take nothing but slings and arrows yet they said from day one they would budget with the idea of producing a surplus. They also kept their promise about paying down the debt and still many here hold them in contempt for that yet its a pivitol reason that surpluses kept going up. The only "wasted tax dollars" were dollars not spent "buying votes" because evidently it earned them no favours.
Sure Harper brought down taxes but so did the Libs and he didn't face the budget crisis that the Libs did. Harpers record to date is to simply ignore or reneg on all promises concerning accountability, non-partisanship, political porking, gov't openess and of course the infamous "we won't accept floor-crossers". They specifically campaigned against all that and promptly started doing those things (when they fought out they had to) from day 1.
I give Harper credit for what he's doing when it merits it. I supported whole-heartedly all military purchases he made and paying down the debt and find it hard to believe when I meet Candians who don't understand why that is so important to a country like Canada and our situation in the world.
The bottom line is that virtually every single Con on here gives any non-Conservative no reason whatsoever to cut Harper and/or the CPC any slack. They have done no such thing to merit such treatment. Case in point is this recent scandal. In both threads the Con supporters simply attacked the Liberals and the media which amounted to nothing but an appeal to motive fallacy.
That isn't right. Accept that the party you voted for has done something wrong without trying to lay blame on others. We had to over the GST incident and you guys should do the same.
BTW, You guys keep saying the Libs of today are the same as the Libs of yesterday yet that is the same as us saying the CPC is just the PC with a new coat of paint.
ridenrain @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:09 am
When you're party is in power longer than the Russian Communist party, you get all the blame. It all happened on you're watch.
Now we're trying to clean it up and you're stalling every bill put foreward. Who's the one playing politics with the country?
Suck it up, buttercup.
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:10 am
Tricks Tricks:
ROTFL So basically, I don't care if he did it to better Canada, he lied so he is a bad man. That's a great way of thinking.
No, thats not it at all.
You just seem to think that when any con lies its OK but in the same breath vilify the Libs for the same behaviour.
Not eliminating the GST was far better for Canada then any income trust taxation yet you and others attacked them for that "lie".
All you do is excuse behaviour in your party that you find inexcusable in others.
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:16 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
When you're party is in power longer than the Russian Communist party, you get all the blame. It all happened on you're watch.
Now we're trying to clean it up and you're stalling every bill put foreward. Who's the one playing politics with the country?
Suck it up, buttercup.
Now we're trying to clean it up and you're stalling every bill put foreward. Who's the one playing politics with the country?
Suck it up, buttercup.
Your party was in power for 9 years and nearly destroyed Canada and it took the Liberals to save us.
You cons still fought tooth and nail against the Libs from day 1 and did everything possible to destroy any progress Canada made on everything.
When you were the opposition you said it was "their duty to oppose" yet now you say "can't we all just work togeather".
Pathetic hypocracy and yet another red herring where you try in vain to shift the blame off of your guilty party.
You just can't stand it that when anyone attacks your little party yet no-one is worse then you in that regard.
The Liberals are dead. Long live the Liberals.
It must really cheeze you off that despite everything you said you voted for the same Liberals. You just call them by a different name.
Clogeroo @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:28 am
I actually agree with Derbyx partly (scary). The Tories still went back on a promise good or bad they still didn't keep it and it has upset many people. But for the liberals if they are suddenly going to run on a campaign whom do you trust? I think it would be political suicide for them. As for the liberals going back on their promise some years ago not to cut the GST. They ran an entire campaign basically promises to do so. It would have been like the Tories not making their GST cut, it was one of their 5 priorities. Income trust wasn't really up there from my memory.
Also the opposition are they not glad that the Tories went back on it? They all support it I take it. In a minority government sometimes you have to give leeway and the Tories just did. So yes we can jump on the conservatives for not keeping a promise but lets not forget many are glad that they did not especially all the other political parties. If something is hurting Canada then government does have to act even if it means going against something they said they would. I think the ends justify the means in this case.
2Cdo @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:46 am
[quote="DerbyX"]
The bottom line is that virtually every single Con on here gives any non-Conservative no reason whatsoever to cut Harper and/or the CPC any slack. quote]
The same could be said though about every single Liberal apologist. 
I have mentioned in the past I agree with paying down the deficit, I think it was actually the only thing I agreed with in regards to the Liberal party. But to attempt to discount the absolute arrogance that the Liberal party displayed during the Chretein years is to condone their behaviour. The sheer financial waste that was a big part of the Chretein years, and a lessor degree in Paul Martins short reign, could have been either used to lower personal income taxes, or pay down even more of the deficit instead of being filtered to Liberal friendly firms with no accountability or actual work done.
Do you honestly call for a return to those days? 
ridenrain @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:59 am
$1:
Income trust decision not a broken promise, Harper says
Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 02, 2006
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied breaking a major election pledge with his government's surprise decision to tax income trusts, saying the party promised only to protect the incomes of Canada's seniors, not the profits of major Canadian corporations and foreign investors.
As the Conservatives and the Liberals warred over the bombshell move, which reverberated all day on Toronto's Bay Street, Harper on Wednesday told the House of Commons his government acted in response to the intentions of corporate giants such as Telus and BCE to convert to an income trust, a designation that allows the company to avoid paying corporate tax and returns higher dividends to investors.
"The commitment," Harper said, "was not that we would have no taxes for Telus. It was not that we would have no taxes for BCE. It was not that we would have no taxes for foreign investors or no taxes for major corporations. It was a commitment to protect the income of seniors."
The Conservative campaign document said the party, if elected, would "stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."
The Conservatives were the only party to make such a pledge in the election campaign and opposition parties quickly produced on Wednesday dozens of old statements from Harper and other prominent Conservative MPs urging the Liberal government-of-the-day not to tax income trusts and promising that a Tory government would never do so.
Nevertheless, Harper's message was reiterated by Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Government Leader in the Senate, who said of the campaign promise: "We were specifically dealing with seniors in our policy platform."
All opposition parties appeared reluctant to oppose the substance of the decision on income trusts, which the government estimated could have cost them at least $500 million in lost corporate-tax revenue over four years. Because the decision calls for a tax to be levied, the opposition would have the opportunity to defeat the government in the Commons by voting against the new measures.
Instead, they attacked the apparent broken Tory campaign promise, which they said risked creating a climate of investment uncertainty in the country.
In question period, the Grits said the decision of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty led to a revolt at the Toronto Stock Exchange, which they referred to as "Black Wednesday," "a Day of Infamy" and a "$25 billion breach of faith."
"Innocent Canadians are suffering an economic bloodbath ... because they believed the prime minister," said Bill Graham, the interim Liberal leader. "He gave his word. Canadians acted on his word. He then broke his word."
Liberal finance critic John McCallum called for Flaherty's resignation, and accused him of having "converted the Canadian capital markets into the wild west."
"This flip-flop by Mr. Flaherty has made our markets a laughing stock," he said.
The Liberals have been under a cloud on the issue of income-trust tax rulings since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police launched an investigation into an alleged leak of a November 2005 decision by then-finance minister Ralph Goodale not to tax income trusts.
The investigation was announced in the middle of the election campaign and was credited with shifting substantial voter support to Harper's Tories.
Goodale's income-trust ruling came just days before the Liberal government was defeated in the House of Commons, but there was heavy investment in a number of income trusts that day and suggestions that government officials may have given Bay Street advance warning of the favourable news.
"There were no leaks, no e-mails, there were no deals with friends on Bay Street," Flaherty said of his handling of the decision. "There was confidentiality, deliberation and the provision of certainty for capital markets in Canada. Finally, there was an effort to create fairness for individual taxpayers and their families."
Conservative MPs and government officials acknowledged that Tuesday's income trust decision was "difficult politics" in the short-term.
"In the long term it's good public policy and I think Stephen Harper, if anything, has a reputation for making the tough choices and the correct policy decisions," said James Moore, the parliamentary secretary for Public Works. "The financial times are changing and this was a large and growing fiscal problem and it was creating a fiscal black hole."
But the tough decision is also a reflection of the reduced role that corporate Canada can play in federal politics, particularly if Conservative legislation to completely eliminate corporate donations passes through the Commons, said Jason Kenney, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister.
"We've eliminated corporate funding for political parties and we don't think corporations should get away without paying their share, and this is the problem," he said.
[email protected]
Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 02, 2006
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied breaking a major election pledge with his government's surprise decision to tax income trusts, saying the party promised only to protect the incomes of Canada's seniors, not the profits of major Canadian corporations and foreign investors.
As the Conservatives and the Liberals warred over the bombshell move, which reverberated all day on Toronto's Bay Street, Harper on Wednesday told the House of Commons his government acted in response to the intentions of corporate giants such as Telus and BCE to convert to an income trust, a designation that allows the company to avoid paying corporate tax and returns higher dividends to investors.
"The commitment," Harper said, "was not that we would have no taxes for Telus. It was not that we would have no taxes for BCE. It was not that we would have no taxes for foreign investors or no taxes for major corporations. It was a commitment to protect the income of seniors."
The Conservative campaign document said the party, if elected, would "stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."
The Conservatives were the only party to make such a pledge in the election campaign and opposition parties quickly produced on Wednesday dozens of old statements from Harper and other prominent Conservative MPs urging the Liberal government-of-the-day not to tax income trusts and promising that a Tory government would never do so.
Nevertheless, Harper's message was reiterated by Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Government Leader in the Senate, who said of the campaign promise: "We were specifically dealing with seniors in our policy platform."
All opposition parties appeared reluctant to oppose the substance of the decision on income trusts, which the government estimated could have cost them at least $500 million in lost corporate-tax revenue over four years. Because the decision calls for a tax to be levied, the opposition would have the opportunity to defeat the government in the Commons by voting against the new measures.
Instead, they attacked the apparent broken Tory campaign promise, which they said risked creating a climate of investment uncertainty in the country.
In question period, the Grits said the decision of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty led to a revolt at the Toronto Stock Exchange, which they referred to as "Black Wednesday," "a Day of Infamy" and a "$25 billion breach of faith."
"Innocent Canadians are suffering an economic bloodbath ... because they believed the prime minister," said Bill Graham, the interim Liberal leader. "He gave his word. Canadians acted on his word. He then broke his word."
Liberal finance critic John McCallum called for Flaherty's resignation, and accused him of having "converted the Canadian capital markets into the wild west."
"This flip-flop by Mr. Flaherty has made our markets a laughing stock," he said.
The Liberals have been under a cloud on the issue of income-trust tax rulings since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police launched an investigation into an alleged leak of a November 2005 decision by then-finance minister Ralph Goodale not to tax income trusts.
The investigation was announced in the middle of the election campaign and was credited with shifting substantial voter support to Harper's Tories.
Goodale's income-trust ruling came just days before the Liberal government was defeated in the House of Commons, but there was heavy investment in a number of income trusts that day and suggestions that government officials may have given Bay Street advance warning of the favourable news.
"There were no leaks, no e-mails, there were no deals with friends on Bay Street," Flaherty said of his handling of the decision. "There was confidentiality, deliberation and the provision of certainty for capital markets in Canada. Finally, there was an effort to create fairness for individual taxpayers and their families."
Conservative MPs and government officials acknowledged that Tuesday's income trust decision was "difficult politics" in the short-term.
"In the long term it's good public policy and I think Stephen Harper, if anything, has a reputation for making the tough choices and the correct policy decisions," said James Moore, the parliamentary secretary for Public Works. "The financial times are changing and this was a large and growing fiscal problem and it was creating a fiscal black hole."
But the tough decision is also a reflection of the reduced role that corporate Canada can play in federal politics, particularly if Conservative legislation to completely eliminate corporate donations passes through the Commons, said Jason Kenney, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister.
"We've eliminated corporate funding for political parties and we don't think corporations should get away without paying their share, and this is the problem," he said.
[email protected]
source
ridenrain @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:26 am
Looks like not everyone feels the outrage of you Liberals..
DerbyX @ Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:52 am
2Cdo 2Cdo:
DerbyX DerbyX:
The bottom line is that virtually every single Con on here gives any non-Conservative no reason whatsoever to cut Harper and/or the CPC any slack.
The same could be said though about every single Liberal apologist.
I have mentioned in the past I agree with paying down the deficit, I think it was actually the only thing I agreed with in regards to the Liberal party. But to attempt to discount the absolute arrogance that the Liberal party displayed during the Chretein years is to condone their behaviour. The sheer financial waste that was a big part of the Chretein years, and a lessor degree in Paul Martins short reign, could have been either used to lower personal income taxes, or pay down even more of the deficit instead of being filtered to Liberal friendly firms with no accountability or actual work done. Do you honestly call for a return to those days?
Remember I don't count people like Maggie or Cagey. They aren't real people and aren't presenting anything but childish tantrums masquerading as political commentary.
Gov't waste is the definition of gov't. It exists in all forms and at all levels. Hell the company I work for lays off workers to save money yet they waste $500000+ dollars bringing in a think tank that tells them the same things we told them long ago.
I don't need to remind you that the old adage of "using up your dept budget or you get less next year" was alive and well in the military. How many pairs of perfectly good boots got burned?
Harper won't be any different then Martin because none of them can change the realities of people spending money that isn't theirs.
Adscam was nothing but poltical fodder. The registry was a black hole of money and deserves death but it began as a gov't responding to what the people wanted and thats the truth. T.O.'s summer of the gun spooked alot of people to stupid to realize that no regstry or gun control was going to do anything if the gangbangers wanted to play. All it served as was a plecebo for people who just wanted action. We have our own citizens to blame.
Mulrouney blew billions in "make work projects" which produced no lasting value beyond min wage jobs to people in an effort to fight rising unemployment.
In both cases the gov't was trying to help but in both cases it simply made things worse. Perhaps a lesson is in there somewhere.
As Canadians we have developed a culture of blaming others and its very sad. Some blame the Americans for everything, some blame the Liberals for everything, some blame (insert group) for everything. Hell, all any prov politico has to do is blame the feds and they score instant points regardless of what party they are or what party is in power.
All of this shifts the blame from the people really responsible, the seperatists.