[Proculation]

Curtman Curtman:

ASLplease ASLplease:

The national daycare program is simple, he's going to start the whole process with a wrecking ball. Those that he claims to be helping will immediately see a reduction in daycare support ( because it's beer money)

Alright... That's enough craziness from you.

$1:

The Liberal Family Care Plan will introduce:

* A new six-month Family Care Employment Insurance Benefit similar to the EI parental leave benefit, so that more Canadians can care for gravely ill family members at home without having to quit their jobs; and

* A new Family Care Tax Benefit, modeled on the Child Tax Benefit, to help low- and middle-income family caregivers who provide essential care to a family member at home.

If they leave their plan to follow the "Quebec's way" and give money directly to the parents, then that's much more sane.

[Curtman]

ASLplease ASLplease:

that doesnt mention whats going to happen to my Harper bucks, will Iggy continue to send me my 'beer money'?

I hope not. I hope you can afford your own beer.

[ASLplease]

Curtman Curtman:

ASLplease ASLplease:

that doesnt mention whats going to happen to my Harper bucks, will Iggy continue to send me my 'beer money'?

I hope not. I hope you can afford your own beer.

spoken like a true Liberal. My 'beer money' goes towards my son's childcare. I see nothing has changed in the Liberal platform.

[1Peg]

Curtman Curtman:

The NDP has no chance at forming a government without the Liberals. The Bloc are Conservatives, they have no place in a Lib/NDP coalition, unless they choose to support it again.

Just like the liberals have no chance with the NDP and the Bloc for that matter.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I noted the comment the NDP are not interested in Iggy. I didn't think of that. Could the mess in Ottawa get any worse - probably.

[Curtman]

1Peg 1Peg:

Curtman Curtman:

The NDP has no chance at forming a government without the Liberals. The Bloc are Conservatives, they have no place in a Lib/NDP coalition, unless they choose to support it again.

Just like the liberals have no chance with the NDP and the Bloc for that matter.

I guess we'll see.. Looks like you guys are right about Jack though.. He's come out swinging today..

Jack Layton Jack Layton:

My Friend –

For the third time in a month, Michael Ignatieff has taken a shot at my leadership.

Last week in a Liberal video he knocked my many years of service to the Canadian people.

While Michael Ignatieff spent 34 years outside of our country, I was rolling up my sleeves as a city councillor to get things done for people – building green initiatives in Toronto, overseeing one of Canada’s largest public hydro companies, presiding over the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I’m incredibly proud of this record. I don’t know why Mr. Ignatieff expects me to hide from it.

While Michael Ignatieff was writing papers at Harvard supporting George Bush's invasion of Iraq, and supporting the use of state assasinations and coercive interrogations, I was working to build a revitalized, principled, fiscally responsible New Democratic Party that is ready to take on Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

Again, I’m not inclined to hide from this.

I am incredibly proud of my record. Of the things you and I have accomplished together.

It’s this record of Canadian leadership that I will take to voters as I ask them to join with me to defeat this out-of-touch Conservative government.

Very sad..

[ShepherdsDog]

I notice that he fails to mention that he was living in subsidized housing when his income should have prevented him from doing so....ripping off tax payers and using space some less fortunate could have used.

[Khar]

Some quick thoughts in passing...

$1:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has announced that Ottawa posted the biggest deficit in history last year at $55.6 billion. That was $1.8 billion more than anticipated and about $13 billion more than the previous high in 1993-94.

... unless you adjust from nominal to real values. The GDP deflater has been positive for most of the years since then, so if you adjust it into real Canadian dollars the values being posted by Flaherty are less than the values being posted in the '93-'94 statistics.

Of course, this is where Lemmy swoops in and shows me I did it wrong or something, thus deflating my point itself, but fairly certain that compared to the base year (and doing some quick math) that the real value is still lower. Not saying that this is good or bad or supporting anything, but I think that the statement provided by the news article is hence a bit erroneous in that regard.

$1:

"The one consistent fact about Flaherty's projections is that they've always been wrong," said Goodale, adding that the government has been moving certain expenditures from one fiscal year to another.

I would by far be more concerned if he was consistently right, I would say. A projection is not fact set in stone. It's not going to say "this is how much we are going to spend." It says "this is how much were think we are going to spend if nothing happens or changes between now and then." You extrapolate a prediction from looking to the past, not being prescient about future events. This is a silly blanket comment which would be largely true for a lot of governments facing ongoing changes, especially during a period of economic turmoil.

I may be ripping this a little hard though. I feel that either the media failed to adequately capture the entirety of his response past what is in the quotes and the bit at the end about moving expenditures around or Goodale failed to properly communicate his thoughts, and would assume Goodale would have said something more about the projections being well out of the range of Flaherty's projections, which would have been a more acceptable criticism, in my opinion. As mentioned later on in the article, Flaherty is adding on to the degree of potential error due to economic uncertainty by quite a bit, and the Liberals would also have had a factor like that.

The way in which the article displays this is something off the mark, but that might just be me.

$1:

As they highlight the Harper government spending billions on fighter jets, prisons and tax breaks for large corporations, the Liberals also plan to provide more details on their family-focused initiatives that will build on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's $1-billion family-care plan.

In other words, no matter what is being said, both sides are deciding to spend quite a bit on something for their platforms which we don't currently have. Ignatieff has made quite a few announcements, such as his promise to support the ailing Vancouver ship building industry, which were not mentioned in this article, which was carrying quite the price tag. I'm not sure this article truly encapsulates the direction of the spending habits of both parties, but since I'm no expert on that I can't really criticize them either.

Keeping in mind that a good amount of money went to two Provincial Liberal governments to transition over to a new tax too. Five and a half billion dollars is a good deal more than the upkeep for the registry, or quite a lot of other investments, and is a bit more than a drip into the pond that is the deficit.

It'll be really interesting to see where the austerity measures discussion goes as a result. In the past months, Ignatieff, Harper and Layton have all made remarks about austerity measures, but both Ignatieff and Harper have, in my memory, actually discussed reducing the deficit. When it comes to putting this all into context of an article on austerity, it'll be interesting to see where the criticism comes from and who it goes to first.

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I notice that he fails to mention that he was living in subsidized housing when his income should have prevented him from doing so....ripping off tax payers and using space some less fortunate could have used.

He did ask for a donation though...

$1:

I’m asking you to make a pre-election donation right now. Canadians are looking for an alternative to Stephen Harper, and you and I are going to give it to them. Together we are going to defeat Conservatives across the country.

I guess thats what the "Report Spam" button is for.

[ShepherdsDog]

Harper's going to be PM until the Liberals can actually put forward someone who doesn't make him look good. Dion, Ignatieff

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Harper's going to be PM until the Liberals can actually put forward someone who doesn't make him look good. Dion, Ignatieff

I think Iggy's been doing pretty well lately.. We may make a Liberal out of him yet.

Harper has never had a full time job outside of politics. Thats a great message.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Yup. Edit to Yup to making Harper look good. I think Ignatieff is ineffective to awful

[ShepherdsDog]

I don't know. With his past, I think he might have been PM if he ran for the Conservatives.

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I don't know. With his past, I think he might have been PM if he ran for the Conservatives.

Not enough sweaters and kittens yet...

[bootlegga]

ASLplease ASLplease:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yeah, sorry. I forgot facts never were your strong suit...

Dude, you've misread my posts 3 times in a row, and each time you argued instead of asking for clarification. 3 times I'm tried to explain it to you. You are either very embarassed and dont want to admit your mistake, or english is a second language and you've gotten your reading comprehension a bit mixed up. I suspect the later, since this has happened with you on several occasions

Bullshit dude! You trotted a partisan talking point and got nailed on it. The only one not capable of admitting error here is you. But then you probably still believe the earth is flat too (see I can use ad hominem attacks too).

ASLplease ASLplease:

we are still wasting money on a duckgun registry, and its the liberals fault

Nothing here...just trotting out the usual partisan garbage you're well known for.

ASLplease ASLplease:

Nice liberal lie.

the 2003 liberal estimate for making the gun registry acurate was 'a billion dollars or more'. We are only spending $4 million thanks to the Conservatives.

plus consider that the original 1 billion was spent after a liberal estimate of $2 million, I shudder to think what a 'Liberal 1 billion or more" is going to cost us.

So here you say it cost $2 billion, but your tone insinuates that the Liberals paid $1 billion annually, which is factually incorrect. Best of all, you mention the $2 million the Liberals predicted the LGR would cost. Do you know where that figure came from? The Liberals expected to take in $117 million annually in registration, while costs were expected to be $119 million, hence the $2 million figure. They were grossly incorrect (and deserve hefty criticism for it), but that's where the $2 million dollars come from. It was never expected to only cost $2 million, which is yet another distortion of the facts you fling like feces everywhere in the hopes that it will stick.

And finally, by tossing out the $4 million the Conservatives are now paying, you make it sound like they are paragons of financial wisdom, when in fact they created the largest deficit in Canadian history (and it definitely belongs to the Conservative and no one else). Trudeau must be rolling in his grave with jealousy!

ASLplease ASLplease:

wow, you misread my post and erupted, I didnt say 1 billion in 2003, I said in 2003, the estimate to reach a specific milestone ie 'acurate' would cost another 1 billion LIBERAL dollars, so you better multiply that by 1000 to get a real number.

The way you phrased, you deliberately made it sound like it cost the government it costs far more than it really does.

The only one lying here here is you.

ASLplease ASLplease:

2million + Liberal + a bunch more zeros that they are too incompetant to forcast = $1 billion dollar boondoggle

And here you state $1 billion, yet in earlier posts you said $2 billion

"the 2003 liberal estimate for making the gun registry acurate was 'a billion dollars or more'. We are only spending $4 million thanks to the Conservatives.

plus consider that the original 1 billion..."

The problem here isn't me, its you and your lack of consistency.

BTW, when you have as many spelling and grammatical errors as you do in your posts, you shouldn't be questioning someone else's English ability. Pot meet kettle!