Harper handled the Canadian economy with the aplomb of the Mulroney government. Mulroney caused the recession of the ninties, we just got out then elected another Conservative government and look what happened.

You'd think Canadians would see a connection.

 Why Harper's supposed to be so good at economic issues:

Most people don't understand economic issues.  I don't even quite get economic issues.  Most people can see that he's phenomenally incompetent at everything else.  That makes the economy the last big smokescreen he can keep up.

Also, the economy is a huge part of the right-wing mythos.  In a country with very little radical Christianity, it's basically the point of conservatism.  If you talk about it a lot, people will assume you're good at it.

I would be the wrong person to explain that to you RevMatt.... since I obviously have never bought that bizarrely manufactured reputation. But I would like to highlight a phrase he used in #7 which really underscores a) his total lack of any comprehension of the principles of economics, and b) his delusions of grandeur and ego-maniacal tendencies: he says: the government is running the economy.

Governments do not run economies in free market societies. They can attempt to manage them well, or they can totally misunderstand them and manage them poorly. But the whole concept of a free market is that the government does NOT run the economy.

The irony of course, is that Harper's words seem to reflect a penchant for communist practices... and the economy is not the only subject on which Harper's platform resembles communism.   

And I would add, it highlights the myth that Harper is a Libertarian Consevative who believes in a "small government" that doesn't "impose" itself on the people ....

Look Ma, that man's blowing smoke out his backside!

LB

Libertarian conservatives work to dismantle the remaining elements of the interventionist state and move towards “a market society for the 21st century.”     Stephen Harper, 1997

 :)  - that made me laugh!

Harper is the only one in the country who couldn't see the crisis, and it's because he put pride before duty.  He should have some ideas about how the whole system works, but he was too busy being SMRT.

SMRT like a sack of hammers.

One thing he needs to sit in a corner and think about for awhile is that money is not the only motivator, not the sole driving force in an economy, and also that a country is NOT an economy- it is people.

Hi Rev Matt

I'm not a huge Harper fan but I'll give it a go.

1. On Sept. 15, 2008, Stephen Harper said, 'My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.' 

Alot of economists didn't feel that a recession was a given.  Until the total fall out from the USA was seen it wasn't really forseen.

2. On Sept. 15, 2008, Harper said, 'The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid.' 
 

They were and are.  That said, the Global effect from the USA  meltdown has effected everyone.  We are tied to them and are feeling a backlash, but we are still sound

3. On Sept. 23, Harper said, 'I think when ordinary working people. . .see a gala of a bunch of people at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough. . .I'm not sure that's something that resonates...' 
 

This was aid during the Toronto Film Festival Gala events.  I gotta admit, that as a tax payer it is annoying to see galas or Brad Pitt et al and all the free stuff and free gifts and free booze and ........  That said the Film Festival is international and brings in alot ot tourism dollars to Toronto.  But really , does Brad Pitt need a $5000 bag from Roots?

4. On Sept. 26, 2008, Harper said, 'The only way there is going to be a recession is if they (the Liberals) are elected and that's why they're not going to be elected.' 
 

Big mistake there.  Obviously no matter who is in power we will have a recession.  Lets hope it's a short one.

5. On Oct. 6, 2008, Harper said, 'There's nothing on the horizon - notwithstanding the storm clouds, and they are significant - (that) indicates to me that we should immediately go into deficit.' 
 

There wasn't a clear indication in October that things were tanking. 

6. On Oct. 7, 2008, Harper said, 'I think there are probably some great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as a consequence of all this panic.' 
 

There were and still are.  It's just that we are all afraid to take a chance.  I know we are in our household.  But the deals are out there for the brave.  I guess the brave will make a killing and we will all regret not being brave.

7. On Oct. 11, Harper said: 'You're asking me to say what would Canada do if our economy went to hell in a handbasket. This government is running the economy so it can't go to hell in a handbasket.' 

Nice try but it didn't work.  I don't think anyone could stop the slide the Americans put the world into.

8. On Nov. 22, 2008, Harper said, 'These are, of course, the classic circumstances under which budgetary deficits are essential.'
 

These are.  Any economist will tell you that there are times when you need to fund a deficit to keep things going.  Ideally to fund it with short term plans so the deficit spending doesn't become a permanent event.

9. On Nov. 22, 2008, Harper said, 'The financial crisis has become an economic crisis, and the world is entering an economic period unlike - and potentially as dangerous as - anything we have faced since 1929.' 
 

Agree

10. On Dec. 15, 2008, Harper said, 'The truth is, I've never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future.... I'm very worried about the Canadian economy.'

Agree

I don't think any party would have do differently.  I think it is a Liberal advantage to have this happen.  They have lots of fodder for years of commercials and in the end will let soemone else deal with it.  Good timing for Ignatief all around.

well, there is the problem that this collapse was forecast years ago by many economists. There is also the problem that i cannot recall a single mention by Harper of any of the circumstances that were leading to trouble though, as I say, there were many warnings. As to the Canadian economy being sound, that's just a  mindless one. If the US tanks, we tanks.  otherwise, it's like saying your cabin on the titanic is still above water.

It is true that governments should spend in a recession, The question is how and on what. I don't think bailouts are necessarily a wise choice. I also think it should lead to a basic rethinking of our much touted free market system. After all, our conomic system has just had a heart attack. Massage it by all means. But you also have to start looking at things like diet and exercise.

a good and noble try, though.

graeme

In today's budget, Conservative Finance minister Jim Flaherty  is promising us $20 billion in personal income tax reductions over the next six years. This sounds like a lot of money in your pocket, but it really isn’t.  Given that Canadians owe over $50b on their credit cards, this tax break doesn’t come close to  getting  us out of paying off our debts. 

A single person earning $40,000 would save $115 a year from measures announced in this budget.  The government hopes you will spend this extra money to stimulate the economy.  $155 will buy you a coffee at Tim Horton’s every day for all of three months. 

Consumer spending will not get us out of this kind of economic difficulty. Consumerism cannot save us. What could that  same $20b accomplish if we were to invest it in Canadian made equipment for our military? Energy saving green technology?  More education or health care innovations?

Could you imagine the impact that $20b would have had if we chose to use it to train more doctors and nurses?

Heh, I can imagine that particular scenario very well at the moment.  Tax cuts are stupid, stupid policy.

I have to agree with RevJamesMurray on this. This one is not just a matter of recharging the system we have. It's a matter of redesigning the system, and taking a hard look at the rest of the world, and figuring    exactly where we are going to fit in.  It's also important that any government spending be targeted very pecisely to be efficient, and to help us in the new economic world we seem to be heading into. An indiscriminate cutting of taxes doesn't do either of those things.

graeme

you know, the posts are coming so fast on this one that mine was printed even as another one was - rev matt's - which I also agree.

The home renovation one is a good example of its lack of imagination and insight. In order to get a small rebate, you have to spend many, many times more. It really isn't much of an incentive, and most people won't be able to afford it. Worse, much as it is nice to have renovated homes, i t does nothing to prepare us for a different economic future. Our money will have to be spent a lot more t houghtfully and efficiently than that.

graeme

This is a small quibbling point but one that displays Harper's keen ability to blow smoke out his ass and deflect the public from the real issues.

The Federal government did not provide funds for the TIF's galas - these are corporate sponsored and operate like all charity events.  TIF's major corporate support is Bell Canada and others.  The hospitality industry in Toronto are also major supporters because they rightly recognize that the festival is a huge contributor to their annual revenues.

One of the great squabbles of the 2008 galas was that "ordinary" people who had paid to attend could not because there were too many donors in attendance.  TIF organizers responded that they had to recognize and thank their corporate sponsors.

Government sponsorship is directed at promoting individual artists and Canada's film industry as a whole.  This promotes jobs from the catering truck driver up to the film director.  It equally helps to promote Canadian works of art to be distributed not just in Canada but around the world.

We can continue to be distracted by the smoke or seek to find the answers for ourselves, but allowing the myths Harper presents as facts to be perpetuated will only feed his opinion that he is not accountable to the Canadian public.

LB

We all know that Art is not truth.  Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand.      Pablo Picasso

i gotta agree that tax cuts right now are STUPID.  giving me another $150 a year??  how on earth is that going to do me any good whatsoever??    its a friggin' drop in the bucket, and its laughable that harper thinks that this is going to make any sort of a difference.

what a rube.

yes yes yes.  Agreed all around.

Time for a new system (like James said) - putting the saving of the system on consumer's shoulders is short sighted, old economics that needs to die. 

There are a few things that are ok in this budget, but overall, we need a new direction NOW.  Harper showed his lack of vision, compassion & passion for Canada again.  

Iggy doesn't seem to project any of that either though.

I'm hoping, against hope, I'm afraid that Mr. Ignatieff finds a way to do so, in the next few minutes.

in the long run, mo5, i'd say that harper would be in better shape if iggy pulled the trigger on the government right now.

as it is, he has basically gone back on most of the promises he made during the last campaign, and there is no doubt in my mind that if he is allowed to fumble around for another year, it will be the end of his political career.  as has been pointed out, this budget lacks vision, and will do very little to help the canadian economy weather the storm that we are in.  in fact, the reason that we are even in this mess is because of political ideals the likes of harper.  if the coalition steps up now, it will spell certain doom for all the parties involved, and if they fall apart and we have an election, the conservatives will win a landslide.  i shudder to think what the results of that could be.

this whole mess occurred under harpers watch, and the whole time the storm was building he kept chirping about how he was the man to get us through this and how deficit budgeting was the death knell for the canadian economy.   imho, the guy has already shot himself in the foot, hopefully iggy is just allowing him to get into the coffin.

 ...and Ignatieff found a middle ground.  Damn.   I mean, wow.

I think he's letting Harper hang himself - either by selling out his Conservative soul, or by breaking more promises and not following through with his budget plans (several of which were pressed on him by other parties).

yeah...  i'd say that right now, being the PM is probably the kiss of death, cause no matter what you do, you aren't going to make much of a difference.

i remember watching when obama was sworn in to office, and thinking that he really didn't 'win' anything... he has inherited a huge mess and now has to try and deal with it.  same thing with harper, except that harper has NONE of obamas charisma or intelligence.  i can't see him coming out of this next year politically.

You mean Harper, not Obama, right?

Just like on 9/11 - the only person wiping his brow (just for half a moment) was Al Gore.

oh yeah, i meant harper!!  obama is going to be just fine... once you have jon stewart and stephen colbert handling your opposition, its clear sailing, boys!!

Except, sigh, what about all those people who are being hurt by these regressive, repressive and reprehensible policies in the meantime?

When analyzed purely in terms of strategy, I can get there. But when factoring in the real effect on many, many people, I feel sick to my stomach.

I agree, Ignatief found some sort of middle ground. It will be interesting if his attempts to hold the government accountable will actually do that. I heard someone on CBC today say that this has put Harper into a box, and that he does not like being boxed in. Poor baby.

I have a question. How can you increase spending AND cut taxes at the same time? Isn't that like me cutting my salary and deciding to spend more? I get the need for a deficit.....I think. I don't get the cutting taxes at the same time. That smacks of hanging on doggedly to ideology rather than being creative and finding a new solution. Not that I expected the conservatives to be creative, for the record.

I'm afraid even Iggy's promise to hold the government accountable is meaningless, just more political posturing. Once he accepts that budget, he accepts something that isn't going to work. Whether the government carries out even those sections that Iggy mentions doesn't really matter. It still won't work. He made that statement just to look as though he is somehow the man in charge.

graeme

Fiscal responsbility says you can't.

It is not hanging onto ideology it is catering to populist power and both Harper and Ignatieff are the chefs of the meatless pie. 

It is extremely shortsighted on their part but I also hold the Canadian public responsible - they keep yelling about the fact that they pay too much in tax while demanding the benefits of government programs.  Where do people think the money for those programs come from?

As RevJames pointed out those tax breaks are meaningless but the accumulated 20 billion in the coffers could have been applied to programs that could offset the damages that the recession will inflict on those least capable of avoiding them - which to be honest will be all of us.

LB

The truth is we are all caught in a great economic system which is heartless.     Woodrow T. Wilson

Indeed, how do people think that they can get access to and/or qualify for programs that their taxes can't possibly support?

I think we need to bear a few principles in mind.

1. Canada cannot end the recession. it will end for us when it ends in the US and our major market can buy from us.

2. This is not 1929. We do not have the basis of a strong economy which simply needs stimulus. Nor do we have untouched borrowing capacity. With the rise of China, India and others, and the decline of major sectors of our economy - like automotive - we need to plan for where the world economy is going.

3. We need to examine our diplomatic relationships.

Since we cannot end the recession, it is silly to waste money on that. We should be looking at easing the pain.

We need a serious look at where the world is going, and where to put our money to make us more effective for the kind of international trade we are going to see. That may mean that bailing out the auto industry is not long term, but only a very expensive investment in an industry that is going to die anyway.

We need to think through the social and economic consequences of continuing to act as Obama's northern state. Close economic ties to a declining US will not be helpful. The economic ties also involve military ones which could become very onerous, indeed.

graeme

Amen Graeme.

What this country needs is vision, not tax breaks.  We need a change of direction from using old methods that are just band aid solutions; temporary stop gaps between economic crises.  Harper is following the Regan/Bush economic plan - and look where that led the US.  Does he actually believe it will some how be different here in Canada?

Now I don't actually know if this was real or a nightmare - I fell asleep with the tv on and I could swear I woke up and heard a news broadcast that said Wall Street was handing out 14 billion dollars in bonuses for last year with the reasoning that if they didn't hand out these bonuses people would quit.

Now call me naive, crazy even, but if it was me running the show I would not be upset by people, who thought they deserved a reward for participating in the greatest financial disaster since 1929, all quitting the field....

LB - somebody wake me from this nightmare

You get what you reward. Be clear about what you want to get and systematically reward it.     Bob Nelson

 And Toronto City Councillors just gave each other raises to over $100,000(many voted against it and even tried to pass another motion for a pay freeze)

Stupid.

Well said, Graeme. We are headed down a dark road, it seems.

Birthstone - is the real problem how much our politicians make, or is it how much CEOs make? I know this is terribly socialist, but perhaps there should be a ban on anyone making over $100,000/year. Any personal profit over that either has to be reinvested in local efforts or it is taken as tax.

Of course, I realise this is a ridiculous suggestion. But really - does any one person really need more than $100,000/year?

We need more smaller, more sustainable local projects. As it stands, I'm not sure that Canada evens own many methods of production anymore.

The French Revolution took 10 years... it started with a financial crisis and was fueled by war... will we never learn?

 nah - the french revolution was fueled by psychosis I think.  The Darwin awards need to be handed out to the whole lot of them involved in that mess.  How screwed up and inhuman can a supposedly 'civilized' nation be?  Ick.  (I read a biography of Marie Antoinette this fall - she wasn't half bad, except maybe dumb)

$100000 - I have no idea (I might if I could get my head around your suggestion - would be worth a thread all in itself)  but the question is do the Councillors need it this year?  They have been raked over the coals for a couple of years now, and when more than half voted against it (but its not enough to pass)- they didn't need the raise.  It is just more example of the wealthy white collars being far far removed from real lives of people.

I think the better idea is that there should be a maximum salary ratio, rather than amount.  It can even be relatively generous - no greater than a 10:1 ratio, maybe.  That would still let most CEOs make $350,000, which is really more money than any person deserves.

Oh, and this MUST apply to sports teams, too.  Let those useless spoiled brats suffer on 10x the hotdog seller's salary.

And bonuses follow the same ratio.

And on Q yesterday, I heard Senator Pamela Wallin mention how the salary for a senator isn't that much but is enough to live on so that one can pursue pet project. Basic pay - $130,000 plus benefits isn't much...hmmm. Unlike some, I don't begrudge paying our elected officials well for a number of reasons but this comment is rather elitist and out of touch, reflective of Harper himself.

CEOs shouldn't be getting a penny of the bail-out money. Who deserves bonuses (at all in that sector) when the industry is tanking? And, I hope like hell this doesn't happen here. Why should a CEO get tax money when government supports are shrinking?

Holden, I'm sorry, on a personal level and for our country. How sad for us all!

Tangent but really wanna know . .

Why is it that we are indebted to the stockmarket.  The way I see it, for the stock market to have crashed the way it has is because of the deaths of quantities of individuals who actually had money in the bank - individuals whose small term deposits and savings accounts actually bolstered the banks and lending institutions in the previous 3 recessions ( 81- 83, 87 - 89, 92- 94)  . .

Why is it that we believe that the stockmarket is not all a ponsey ( sp?).  It seems to me that obviously, it is, in order for this crash to have occurred.  And to add to my naivety, I am surrounded by individuals whose parents and grandparents lived through the 30's and who, for the most part deal with the stock market at arms' length. They all personally manage their money in term deposits.  A few have friends who have had mutual funds but that has only been one aspect of their savings. 

I think that the worst freakin' problem is that the necessity of companies to establish RSP's for their own benefits for their employees is really screwing a lot of people . . . those lucky enough to still be employed, that is. 

HC

It would be very un-CCF of me not to say, "I told you so!"  Welcome back, buddie!

Jlin

I think that a CCF'er would say something like

""I am hurt, but I am not slain;
I'll lay me down and bleed a while,
And then I'll rise and fight again. "1
 

1 TC Douglas quoting the Balld of Sir Andrew Barton

Holden,

TC was a late starter. The early CCF'rs - the political extention of the Wheat pool were deffinitely more blunt and got way more said and done in a short time than in a flowry speech meant, mostly to entertain.  

And

I had forgotten to mention that I echo Mof5's sentiments.  Still, the coalition did push the Conservatives to do something.  Regardless of Ignatiev's PC ( being an egoist and believing in thePersonal Choice of  being a Progressive Conservative) initiative, a precedent has been established.

If the NDP and more socialistically oriented individuals in this country allow this precedent to diminish, then no one has had an ear out to the Canadian public. 

WE need a delete mode.