GM Screwing Canadians
Canuck57
$13 billion not including the little stuff. Given GM sold some 18,959
vehicles in October. Each one subsidised by taxpayer assuming the $13
billion in debt.
For each vehicle sold in Canada, that is $57,140 taxpayer debt cost per
vehicle assuming October sales are indicative of annual averages.
And we wonder why Canadian manufacturing can't compete with the Chinese.
And I hear they want more taxpayers money....
If our politicians had any balls they would confiscate GM Canada's
assets for debt. Then sell off the assets to reclaim some of this utter
waste of taxpayers wealth.
Even socialists and lefties should be up in arms. With this kind of
cash being pissed away on a US company there are lots of good $13
billion could do in Canada be it hire doctors or returned to the
taxpayer... With the current paradym, be you left or right, you are
being screwed.
Pat Bay
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3bLLm.2584$kY2....@newsfe01.iad...
> GM has been on corporate welfare this year. What does it cost?
>
> $13 billion not including the little stuff. Given GM sold some 18,959
> vehicles in October. Each one subsidised by taxpayer assuming the $13
> billion in debt.
Why whine?
Buy a Volkswagen.
Pat Bay
"E. Barry Bruyea" <terml...@democracy.com> wrote in message
news:k631g59iofuu83o00...@4ax.com...
> that's not our tax dollars (or our workers).
Well then buy a BMW.
Canuck57
If they don't have any parts or content associated with GM, GMAC,
Chrysler, Carlyle, Cerberus, CAW or UAW...
I just might buy them next. I don't support the afformentioned
companies and unions any more. It is a perversion of the tax system to
extend it to massive corporate welfare. If my business taxed them this
way they would whine like stuck pigs.
Canuck57
> that's not our tax dollars (or our workers).
True. But not by us and they have overall better quality. If the
Germans are dumb enough for the scam, I get their government to subsize
it saves me money. It is as good as logic as what the auto industry has.
Screw our workers, they told the government to charge their debt to the
taxpayers. This is not ethical nor fair. Screw them all to hell.
fred
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:08:20 GMT, "Pat Bay" <pat...@islandz.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
> Which is also subsidized by their government. But, what the hell,
> that's not our tax dollars (or our workers).
>
So VW doesn't make *any* cars in Canada? I find that very hard to believe.
Alternatively buy a Honda or a Toyota. Both make cars in Canada and both
contribute as much to the Canadian economy (if not more) than the US big
three.
fred
news:3bLLm.2584$kY2....@newsfe01.iad:
> GM has been on corporate welfare this year. What does it cost?
>
> $13 billion not including the little stuff. Given GM sold some 18,959
> vehicles in October. Each one subsidised by taxpayer assuming the $13
> billion in debt.
>
> For each vehicle sold in Canada, that is $57,140 taxpayer debt cost per
> vehicle assuming October sales are indicative of annual averages.
>
> And we wonder why Canadian manufacturing can't compete with the Chinese.
>
> And I hear they want more taxpayers money....
>
> If our politicians had any balls they would confiscate GM Canada's
> assets for debt. Then sell off the assets to reclaim some of this utter
> waste of taxpayers wealth.
>
> Even socialists and lefties should be up in arms.
Why would socialists like corporate bailouts? That's a right wing schtick.
Even W did it. That's *why* we're in such a mess in the first place.
> With this kind of
> cash being pissed away on a US company there are lots of good $13
> billion could do in Canada be it hire doctors or returned to the
> taxpayer... With the current paradym, be you left or right, you are
> being screwed.
>
And your suggestion is a socialist solution. Interesting.
whitebread
Got news for you, Canut - it was the "socialists and lefties" that fought hardest to keep
corporate bailouts from happening. And a rightwing Conservative government under Stephen
Harper that insisted it was a good idea. Never underestimate the thievery from taxpayers
when a rightwing government starts playing footsie with corporate Canada. He even bailed
out the BANKS - which were still making huge profits throughout this recession.
whitebread
> whitebread wrote:
>> Got news for you, Canut - it was the "socialists and lefties" that
>> fought hardest to keep corporate bailouts from happening. And a
>> rightwing Conservative government under Stephen Harper that
>> insisted it was a good idea. Never underestimate the thievery
>> from taxpayers when a rightwing government starts playing footsie
>> with corporate Canada. He even bailed out the BANKS - which were
>> still making huge profits throughout this recession.
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC6A321D5A...@209.197.15.171...
> Bullshit. Taliban Jack and Iggy whined LOUD about how the
> Conservatives weren't giving out enough money.
>
> How do you bail out a bank when they are not in need of bailing out?
You're the one steeped in bullshit, Nobody.
Here's a Liberal, John Manley, on the issue:
Liberals would do well to remind themselves of the words of one of their own: former
finance minister John Manley: "The problem with government intervention is not picking
winners and losers; the problem is governments can never shake the losers. They sink big
money into something and then they keep throwing good money after bad." That's what he
said back in 1997.
In 2002, he criticized Canadian companies for their poor productivity and relying on the
dollar exchange rate as a "crutch". In a special guest column for the Globe and Mail a few
years ago, he repeated his views and also stated that no company, particularly those in
Ontario, should ever approach him for "corporate welfare", because they didn't deserve it.
Manley left no doubt as to what he thought the real problem was. He specifically singled
out the manufacturing companies in Ontario that didn't make any investments in innovation
and relied for their profits solely on the favourable exchange rate between the Canadian
and US dollars at the time. Once the Canadian dollar reached par with the US dollar in
2008, the outcome had already been preordained: Ontario's manufacturing industry was no
longer competitive and was bound to fail.
Manley, a Liberal and former finance minister, should have been listened to. He's been
warning about the problems of Ontario's manufacturing industry for years. He knew back
then, as he does now, that the industry was going to founder, recession or no recession.
Ontario's manufacturing sector, and that includes the big auto makers, was like a house of
cards built on sand. They should have known that profits generated from a favourable
exchange rate only, rather than innovation and productivity, could not last forever.
And here's NDP leader, Jack Layton:
"We believe that Mr. Harper has been reckless in the way that he has approached financial
matters."
For example, the Conservatives bring in tax cuts that help industries already doing well
such as banks and oil companies, allowing them to make even greater profits, Layton
argued. Meanwhile, high oil prices are fuelling the high dollar which is hitting other
industries such as manufacturing, forestry and agriculture.
Nor is it about to get better, Layton predicted.
"There is no question that when you look ahead to 2008, you're looking at a year in which
the squeeze that has been on the middle class for the last number of months is going to
become more intense. We can see it with working people just losing their jobs by the
thousands in the manufacturing and forestry sector. We can see it with people having a
tougher and tougher time just trying to make ends meet."
Layton was sharply critical of the $1-billion bailout Harper announced last week for hard
hit companies in one-industry towns, saying it doesn't go far enough and shouldn't be
conditional on Parliament adopting the Conservatives budget.
"The NDP in power in provincial governments has the best record of balancing budgets -
better than any other party in power . . . That's because we understand that the dollars
people pay in taxes they had to work hard to produce."
Pat Bay
"whitebread" <white...@shop.ca> wrote in message
news:DdEMm.21657$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
Yeah? and just how many of those socialists and lefties worked the car chain
at GM's plant in Windsor?
Want to see thievery from taxpayers? Look at the NDP thieves who ran B.C.
for 10 years. Didn't do much for the province, and sure as
h-e-double hockey sticks didn't do much for the poor either bub.
gordo
wrote:
>
Living in BC I saw that things were far better under the NDP than what
they are now.The liberals(not really liberals) gave themselves a
million dollars worth of tickets to the Olympics,themselves a good
raise and slashed funding such as health care beyond the bone.Eg.
emergency health services announced it will save a paltry $250,000
across BC by not funding advanced first aid training for senior
firefighters.Ensuring top notch first aid skills for first responders
should be a given.BC,Alberta and Harpers neo-conservatives are indeed
practicing thievery with the taxpayers money by playing footsie with
Corporate Canada and Corporate US.
Dudley Hanks
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
> whitebread wrote:
>
>>
>>> whitebread wrote:
>>>> Got news for you, Canut - it was the "socialists and lefties"
>>>> that fought hardest to keep corporate bailouts from happening.
>>>> And a rightwing Conservative government under Stephen Harper
>>>> that insisted it was a good idea. Never underestimate the
>>>> thievery from taxpayers when a rightwing government starts
>>>> playing footsie with corporate Canada. He even bailed out the
>>>> BANKS - which were still making huge profits throughout this
>>>> recession.
>>
>>
>> "Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CC6A321D5A...@209.197.15.171...
>>> Bullshit. Taliban Jack and Iggy whined LOUD about how the
>>> Conservatives weren't giving out enough money.
>>>
>>> How do you bail out a bank when they are not in need of bailing
>>> out?
>>
You get the finance department to buy $2.5 billion worth of the banks' high
risk mortgages and say, "It's not a bailout; it's an investment in our
banking institutions..."
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
>not $2.5 billion...
Dudley Hanks
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
That was a typo, what I meant to say was $25 billion, which is what the
source I found stated...
point is, that isn't really
> a bailout. The government now owns the mortgages. The mortgage
> default rate is VERY low compared to the USA. There is a possibility
> to actually MAKE money on this.
Heard it before... Isn't that what they said about the '76 Olympics...
And, then there was that Gainers the Alberta government invested in...
Petro Canada: "We're gonna make money, while we save Canadians when they
fill up their tanks..."
I doubt the government could pull
> that off but the possibility is still there.
We can all hope... :)
But, I don't have much hope a government will be able to bring in a
profit... regardless of the ideology or level of the government...
whitebread
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you bail out a bank when they are not in need of bailing
>>>>> out?
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> You get the finance department to buy $2.5 billion worth of the
>> banks' high risk mortgages and say, "It's not a bailout; it's an
>> investment in our banking institutions..."
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
> I heard it was more like 50 billion. The point is, that isn't really
> a bailout. The government now owns the mortgages. The mortgage
> default rate is VERY low compared to the USA. There is a possibility
> to actually MAKE money on this. I doubt the government could pull
> that off but the possibility is still there.
You heard that the Harper government bought "50 billion" worth of mortgages and you didn't
recognize it as a bail-out? Where do you suppose the government got the $50 billion"?
Dudley Hanks
It's interesting, that without that "little investment," the Cons could just
about have balanced the budget...
The banks said they were in good shape, better than the States, yet Harper
and his RightOffs just felt SOOO generous...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
I am dead against bailouts at any level. But given NDP and Liberals
criticised Harpo for not debt-spending enough how do you explain that?
Canuck57
That is wise and true.
> Nor is it about to get better, Layton predicted.
>
> "There is no question that when you look ahead to 2008, you're looking at a year in which
> the squeeze that has been on the middle class for the last number of months is going to
> become more intense. We can see it with working people just losing their jobs by the
> thousands in the manufacturing and forestry sector. We can see it with people having a
> tougher and tougher time just trying to make ends meet."
Hey, none union middle class in this country pay a lot of money to banks
and corporations. And they wonder why the middle class is shrinking.
Layoon isn't very brilliant.
> Layton was sharply critical of the $1-billion bailout Harper announced last week for hard
> hit companies in one-industry towns, saying it doesn't go far enough and shouldn't be
> conditional on Parliament adopting the Conservatives budget.
One good thing if the NDPs got elected. They would bankrupt the
government faster than anyone else and then we could get onto
reconstrcting a government for the people, and get away from people for
the government.
> "The NDP in power in provincial governments has the best record of balancing budgets -
> better than any other party in power . . . That's because we understand that the dollars
> people pay in taxes they had to work hard to produce."
Hm, BC, SK, MB, ON all up to debt to their eyeballs. Ok, PQ hasn't
voted NDP yet, that is 100% on the Liberals.
2010, year of hyper-stagflation. I figure 15 to 25% annualize is the
minimum by this time next year. Ottawa will be sure to print/create
inflationary money to drive the loonie down.
Get out of cash, bonds and GIC/CDs.
Canuck57
> Do you have anything relevant? Those comments of Manley's were made
> years ago, before any 'bailouts'. Taliban Jack wants to be Robin
> Hood and take everything from the rich so that anyone that wants to
> can go on EI for as long as they want. I see why you idolize him.
> Nice try though.
Real problem with NDiaPers is "rich" is defined as anyone who is
productive and fiscally prudent. Because they have something a debt
ridden loser wants, money. Our money.
Canuck57
> You get the finance department to buy $2.5 billion worth of the banks' high
> risk mortgages and say, "It's not a bailout; it's an investment in our
> banking institutions..."
No different than the US did. And it was $75 billion.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007
And each declared a profit with executive bonuses.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/143105-there-is-more-to-why-canada-s-banks-are-better
The Canadian banks are better because working middle class taxpayers
just got saddled with the debt.
This gives me an idea for a revolutionary web sight, organizing a tax
revolt.
Canuck57
> a bailout. The government now owns the mortgages. The mortgage
> default rate is VERY low compared to the USA. There is a possibility
> to actually MAKE money on this. I doubt the government could pull
> that off but the possibility is still there.
HAVE i GOT A DEAL FOR YOU!
I will sell you $500,000 of debt paper, and cheap too, say $250,000.
Want some? It is a real deal? I mean real!
Banks just unloaded insolvant debts to the taxpayers of Canada.
Canuck57
I still see a typo, you need to read stuff that isn't liberal urinalism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&refer=canada&sid=a0ADvoKvDJjQ
Canuck57
Yet Iggy and Laytoon said they were not generous enough!!! Listen to
the news, CBC has Iggy shooting his mouth off all the time.
Canuck57
> bailout or not. Best you enlighten yourself about the issue before
> looking more like a fool.
You should be a turd saleman, you know how to polish them shiny. You
can call it something else other than a bailout, but it was a 100%
bonified bailout. It is exactly what the US did in every way.
Canuck57
You mean $75 or possibly $140 billion.
whitebread
> whitebread wrote:
>> You heard that the Harper government bought "50 billion" worth of
>> mortgages and you didn't recognize it as a bail-out? Where do you
>> suppose the government got the $50 billion"?
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC8A3D5DD4...@209.197.15.171...
> Where they got the money has nothing to do with whether it was a
> bailout or not. Best you enlighten yourself about the issue before
> looking more like a fool.
When a profit-making corporation goes a-knockin' for government financial help, it's
called a bailout.
If you can't grasp that concept, you're in no position to be calling someone else a fool.
whitebread
> whitebread wrote:
>> You heard that the Harper government bought "50 billion" worth of
>> mortgages and you didn't recognize it as a bail-out? Where do you
>> suppose the government got the $50 billion"?
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
Dudley Hanks
But, hey, when Harper comes back with policies to "help" those "home
owners," who they gonna vote for?
Harper just bought himself some political currency... And, more tax dollars
will be spent...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
The figure will vary, depending on who you talk to, but, the bottom line
remains, the Cons bailed out the banks who, themselves, said they didn't
need a bail out...
Why, to buy the Cons some political currency, not to help the banks... And,
they could have balanced the budget had they stayed true to their
principles...
Knuck, I'm sure even you and I can agree on that...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Have any links?
I couldn't find any...
Even if Ignatieff would give more, it's in keeping with Liberal ideology --
but it's completely opposite Harper's, RIGHT?
Liberals want to help; Cons want to punish...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
None of us will no fur sure what the final tag will read, not for a few
years yet...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
>> I still see a typo, you need to read stuff that isn't liberal urinalism.
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&refer=canada&sid=a0ADvoKvDJjQ
>
> The figure will vary, depending on who you talk to, but, the bottom line
> remains, the Cons bailed out the banks who, themselves, said they didn't
> need a bail out...
Knowing government, they polished the number down. But it is generally
agreed, Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $75 billion so banks get
profit and bonuses for screwing up.
> Why, to buy the Cons some political currency, not to help the banks... And,
> they could have balanced the budget had they stayed true to their
> principles...
If banks screw up, I have no problem with government steping in. But I
expect failing banks liquidated, sold off and leave shareholders,
executives and bond holders in the lurch. This way they get better
tallent in the board room and executive.
If some fat over paid ass making $12 million plus bonuses can't keep a
bank solvant, they so need to be so fired.
> Knuck, I'm sure even you and I can agree on that...
I agree they should have paid a heavy price for writing some $75 billion
in bad paper. And shifting the bad debt to taxpayers is corruption, not
capitalism.
Capitalism would have the CEO of RBC, BMO, TD and others deal with their
bad paper and face bankruptcy. A capitalist would not condone using the
tax system to support corporations, and the money grab going on.
Don't worry, I wasn't expecting Ottawa corruption to cease, that is why
I bought a lot of bank stock earlier this year and am looking at a 30%
profit. But have since sold most as round 2 is coming for this
recession/depression. But the moral is, you can always count on
government corruption, so when they bailed Canadian banks, I profited.
In fact, ever since I have factored in government corruption and
interferances to the market place, my investment profits have been much
better. Did similar with Ford, bought a whole lot at under $2.25
knowing if GM went under, Ford would likely pick up market share and
profit. If GM became Government Motors, I too would win as brand damage
to GM.... now that was a way to almost tripple the money in 8 months. I
since sold it all.
Keep supporting big fat interfering and corrupt government, I make money
on your support of the rouse government gives the people.
Canuck57
I don't need to. It is public knowledge. Wath CBC and CTV news once an
awile. Or work he fingers with google.
Want me to find proof 2 + 2 = 4?
Canuck57
We do know from earlier statements mad at annoucement that $45 billion
was committed immediately on the announcement. $0, $25 billion, just BS
numbers. The real cost to Canadian bailouts this year is over $100
billion and the reason the government claims a lower deficit is that
they are taking the worthless paper debt assumed at face value. When
the real value is pennies on the dollar.
That is why I bought banks when it happened, it was an opportunity for
the banks to dump every mistake, every bad loan, every unpaid debt right
onto the Canadian taxpayer. Iggy and Laytoon supported it with chirp
that it wasn't enough.
But like a good capitalist, I could see banks balance sheets were going
to be really cleaned up, so I bought them and profited. That is what a
capitalist does, looks for ways to make money. When dealing with the
market, what I think and what you think isn't worth a damn. It is like
chess, what is the market going to do. Looking reality straight into
the face is what counts. Get right into the market's thoughts.
That is why so many fools like you and other liberals fail to understand
the markets. Your egos get in the way for starters. You think the
market cares what you think. You influence is zero. I mean ZERO. The
market is driven by cold hard facts of economics in the most purest of
objectives, make money. It isn't clouded with academic or government
bullshit, hyperbole or Obama's big mouth and idle promises. While those
work on naive populations, it doesn't work the market. The market is
results driven.
But knowing governments propensity for corruption, goes a long way to
profit these days.
Canuck57
> doesn't make it a bailout.
In this case, major Canadian banks, GM and Chrysler got bailouts. The
taxpayers were forced to bailed them out by assuming the debt to finance it.
Canuck57
> mostly mortgages. ALL mortgages have not/will not be defaulted on.
> As a matter of fact, the default rate is quite low in Canada compared
> to the USA.
I really doubt banks give the taxpayers solvant loans that are
diligently being paid. It was a chance for the banks to get bad paper
off the books for loose as a goose lending practices.
Don't fool yourself, the US, about $480 billion went directly to banks,
in Canada it was more than proportional at $75 billion. The cost per
axpayer isn't that much different, in fact so close I am not sure who
got screwed worse, Canadian ot merican taxpayers... I suspect Canadian
taxpayers as the US economy has more elasticity of taxation than does
Canadians.
Be lucky to see 10 cents on the dollar returned.
Canuck57
> them as that is who he would tax the life out of while the lazy get the
> gravy.
Trouble is, that is why NA workers can't compete with other countries.
We have to support too much dead wood and statism that it is not
economically feasable for us any more.
Too bad we reward incompetance and bureaucracy and steal from producers.
Or in at least, that is what the tax system has become, paracitial
slavery. Taxation has gone far past common good, now used for
corruption, statism and bailouts more than anything else.
Canuck57
> mortgages over what the CMHC did. remember that, even when a
> mortgage is defaulted on, the bank still owns the propewrty and that
> has value.
My understanding is both. CHMC is reputed to push it to possibly $140
billion for the total cost if this keeps up.
> If a person defaulted on a $500,000 mortgage but the property was
> worth $450,000 the loss isn't half a million dollars. However, this
> isn't true for the highly leveraged derivatives that severely slammed
> the USA and other countries.
Nope, but it works this way.
Buy, zero down %500,000
Miss 6 payments of $2500, $15,000 more.
They walk away.
Sold, $300,000 because they trashed it on the way out.
Sales fees, $13,000
Legal fees, $10,000
Bank fees, $10,000
Net loss, $248,000 for about a 50% loss.
I don't recall it being mortages only, I read it as toxic debt. That
can also include consumer debt and defunct business debt.
> Check this out as well. It was another major contributor to the
> 'crash'. Greed never ends.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
Yep, ponzi scheme on debt.
This whole recession/depression is about people not making their
payments due. Hopefully debtors courts come back.
durablepsyche
> Hm, BC, SK, MB, ON all up to debt to their eyeballs. Ok, PQ hasn't voted NDP yet, that
> is 100% on the Liberals.
The "Liberals" in BC are an extreme right-wing government. Don't ever confuse them with
the federal Liberals.
And you might want to note that under the NDP in BC the books were either balanced or in
surplus. Since the Gordon Campbell government took power, we've seen nothing by increased
taxes, reduced services and record deficits - and the books for the 2010 Olympics haven't
even been released.
Remind me: wasn't it the federal Liberals who reduced the deficit, balanced the books and
then recorded surpluses - under Paul Martin's stewardship? Quite a comparison to the
Conservative governments of Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, isn't it?
durablepsyche
> Trouble is, that is why NA workers can't compete with other countries. We have to
> support too much dead wood and statism that it is not economically feasable for us any
> more.
Or it could be that those "other countries" pay their workers 60 cents a day and OUR
corporations have decided that they prefer them to our cost-of-living-adjusted workers.
> Too bad we reward incompetance and bureaucracy and steal from producers.
Too bad we have corporate-ass-kissing rightwing governments who don't tax the shit out of
any Canadian corporation that kills Canadian jobs to increase their profit lines by using
cheap foreign labour.
> Or in at least, that is what the tax system has become, paracitial slavery. Taxation
> has gone far past common good, now used for corruption, statism and bailouts more than
> anything else.
All corporate and rightwing government controlled. Rail at them, not the working people
of Canada.
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:DImNm.17283$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>> Hm, BC, SK, MB, ON all up to debt to their eyeballs. Ok, PQ hasn't voted NDP yet, that
>> is 100% on the Liberals.
>
>
> The "Liberals" in BC are an extreme right-wing government. Don't ever confuse them with
> the federal Liberals.
You don't know right wing. Liberals in BC are leftist-statism. Big,
fat, inefficient government.
> And you might want to note that under the NDP in BC the books were either balanced or in
> surplus. Since the Gordon Campbell government took power, we've seen nothing by increased
> taxes, reduced services and record deficits - and the books for the 2010 Olympics haven't
> even been released.
Balanced only because they CAN'T borrow money like they are accustomed
too. Bond offerings have been made by the BC Liberals and hey didn't
fill... sort of like going to the bank for a loan and getting turned
down flat. This is the only way NDP and Liberals ever balance a budget.
> Remind me: wasn't it the federal Liberals who reduced the deficit, balanced the books and
> then recorded surpluses - under Paul Martin's stewardship? Quite a comparison to the
> Conservative governments of Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, isn't it?
After the conservatives screwed us with more taxes and trimmed some fat
off of Ottawa's ass, the Liberals came in and pushed health care to the
provinces and kept the GST and high taxes.
Liberals are scum bag liars and theives. Mind you, anything Ottawa is
corrupt even the conservatives. Just a puss hole of dysfunction the
west does not need. But the Liberals have a longer track record at it
and to this day, Turdeau is the biggest debtor of them all, a Liberal
piece of debtor-shit.
Federal Liberals don't even have the downpayment credit for a leadership
convention and are in debt. If they can't manage a stinking party
budget, what makes you think he ass holes can manages Ottawa sized pork?
USENET
> "Canuck57" <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:DImNm.17283$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>
> > Hm, BC, SK, MB, ON all up to debt to their eyeballs. Ok, PQ hasn't voted NDP yet, that
> > is 100% on the Liberals.
>
> The "Liberals" in BC are an extreme right-wing government. Don't ever confuse them with
> the federal Liberals.
> And you might want to note that under the NDP in BC the books were either balanced or in
> surplus.
The "Fudge It" budget was a typical NDP defecit.
Since the Gordon Campbell government took power, we've seen nothing by
increased
> taxes, reduced services and record deficits - and the books for the 2010 Olympics haven't
> even been released.
>
> Remind me: wasn't it the federal Liberals who reduced the deficit, balanced the books and
> then recorded surpluses - under Paul Martin's stewardship? Quite a comparison to the
> Conservative governments of Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, isn't it?
Harper ran surpluses while cutting the GST. He only ran into defecits
when the global financial crunch hit and he by all accounts is
managing it as well or better than any other world leader.
Canuck57
And the Liberals/NDP whined he wasn't doing enough, before and after the
big bailouts.
Canuck57
> the E.I. fund, and cut transfers to the provinces; that's how they
> accomplished this economic slight of hand.
And don't forget adscam to line thei own pockets.
The Doctor
And Harper.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
Canuck57
> I'll remind you that the fed liberals used the dreaded GST they had
> sworn to cancel, raided the E.I. fund, and cut hundreds of millions
> from the provinces in order to perform their economic slight of hand.
> And you're bragging?
Liberals have short memories. They deny the facts of Liberal rule in
the past. You are right, Liberals promised to remove GST but found they
loved taking money from the taxpayers they kept it. Probably to fund
ad-scan like deals.
durablepsyche
> durablepsyche wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:DImNm.17283$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>>> Hm, BC, SK, MB, ON all up to debt to their eyeballs. Ok, PQ hasn't voted NDP yet,
>>> that is 100% on the Liberals.
>>
>>
>> The "Liberals" in BC are an extreme right-wing government. Don't ever confuse them
>> with the federal Liberals.
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:U4IOm.24475$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
> You don't know right wing. Liberals in BC are leftist-statism. Big, fat, inefficient
> government.
Okay - now we KNOW you know fuck all about the Gordon Campbell government in BC. Alberta
Conservatives used to say: 'It makes Ralph Klein blush to see the BC Liberal policies
further to the right than his own'. Get smarter.
durablepsyche
"durablepsyche" <durablepsy...@home.ca> wrote:
> The "Liberals" in BC are an extreme right-wing government. Don't ever confuse them with
> the federal Liberals.
> And you might want to note that under the NDP in BC the books were either balanced or in
> surplus.
"USENET" <gregcarr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
The "Fudge It" budget was a typical NDP defecit.
Except, when the Auditor-General issued his report on the NDP budget, it was revealed that
it not only was not a deficit budget, but a surplus one. And the BC 'Liberal' lies about
it ("fudge-it budget") were able to tumble an NDP government and replace it with the most
extreme right-wing one in Canada.
That's how conservative governments work: smear tactics, lies, and media backing for
those lies. Until we can see through phony party re-namings (BC 'Liberals' were once
Social Crediters under Bill Vanderzalm), we will continue to elect governments whose only
intent is to make the rich even richer and convince the working taxpayers that it's their
role to do so.
durablepsyche
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5aROm.37632>
> And don't forget adscam to line thei own pockets.
I must have forgotten. Just WHICH Liberals "lined their own pockets through adscam". I
must have been reading all the wrong newspapers - could have sworn it was advertising CEOs
in Quebec that were charged with the 'pocketing'.
Quite a difference from Conservatives taking cash in brown envelopes from those who can
further their careers, isn't it? I wonder how many friends - real friends - Brian
Mulroney has left after the recent Schreiber testimony?
durablepsyche
news:20gog5h8nj4lmhkjf...@4ax.com...
>
> I'll remind you that the fed liberals used the dreaded GST they had
> sworn to cancel, raided the E.I. fund, and cut hundreds of millions
> from the provinces in order to perform their economic slight of hand.
> And you're bragging?
Remind us about this:
. In a February 2005 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources,
Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, then
Official Opposition HRSDC critic Peter Van Loan said:
"The Conservative Party believes that the government needs to be held accountable for the
cumulative balance in the Employment Insurance account which continues to grow year after
year, despite repeated objections by the Auditor General that it violates the Employment
Insurance Act." (page. 71).
"We believe that the slate must not be wiped clean. It is important to all contributors
that the government be held accountable. The 'notional surplus' (now $46 billion) has been
tracked for a reason - that is to recognize what contributors have paid into Employment
Insurance. The Conservative Party believes that this surplus is the property of those who
have made the contributions to Employment Insurance - the workers and employers of
Canada."
And compare it with this:
Ottawa's employment insurance program has amassed a $51-billion surplus thanks to ongoing
over-taxation of workers and employers. Auditor-General Shelia Fraser noted in her 2004
annual report the federal government "has not observed the intent of the Employment
Insurance Act." The auditor-general also criticized the fact that the EI surplus is
automatically transferred to the government's general revenue because employee and
employer premiums are supposed to cover benefits for the unemployed, not pay for other
programs.
Conservative opposition MPs called the over-taxation "highway robbery" and a "raid" on the
wallets of working Canadians. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds: the governing Conservatives
are using the fund just like the Liberals, to pad the federal budget.
The government reduced the EI tax rate on January 1 for both employees and employers but
it also raised the income threshold the tax is applied to. (It was the first increase in a
decade.) In other words, the Conservatives gave tax relief with one hand and took most of
it back with the other.
And this:
Tories reject opposition demands for EI reform
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Sun. May. 17 2009 8:39 PM ET
The Conservatives have refused to give in to the opposition's demands to reform Employment
Insurance, despite threats from the Liberals that they may seek to topple the government
over the issue.
"We're not adverse to further improvements, but we will not be pressured, and we don't
think it's responsible that the opposition constantly threatens an election at a time when
the country is facing economic peril," Conservative House Leader Jay Hill told CTV's
Question Period Sunday.
The Harper Conservatives are hypocrites, liars, and have replaced the Liberals in using EI
premiums for general revenue - like bailing out corporations. You have NOTHING to say
about the Liberals on this issue, considering they accumulated EI surpluses but managed to
maintain general surpluses - not deficits, like the Cons - for the country.
durablepsyche
> E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
>> I'll remind you that the fed liberals used the dreaded GST they had
>> sworn to cancel, raided the E.I. fund, and cut hundreds of millions
>> from the provinces in order to perform their economic slight of hand.
>> And you're bragging?
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WX_Om.32426$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
> Liberals have short memories. They deny the facts of Liberal rule in the past. You are
> right, Liberals promised to remove GST but found they loved taking money from the
> taxpayers they kept it. Probably to fund ad-scan like deals.
And why did the Harper Conservatives decide to keep it? Did you perhaps notice that they
are now extending the GST to the HST in two of the countries largest provinces? C'mon,
give us your take on what the Harper Cons plan to do with the GST.
durablepsyche
>
>> Do you have anything relevant? Those comments of Manley's were made years ago, before
>> any 'bailouts'. Taliban Jack wants to be Robin Hood and take everything from the rich
>> so that anyone that wants to can go on EI for as long as they want. I see why you
>> idolize him. Nice try though.
>
> Real problem with NDiaPers is "rich" is defined as anyone who is productive and fiscally
> prudent. Because they have something a debt ridden loser wants, money. Our money.
No, the NDPers define hard-working unionized persons as productive. The define "the rich"
as those who make their money on the backs of the hard-working unionized types, screw up
through incompetency, and then ask their corporate-loving government pals to bail them out
with the tax dollars from the workers of Canada.
Workers lose their jobs, corporations get bailouts for bonuses for their CEOs. THAT's how
"NDPers" define rich.
durablepsyche
"Nobody" <n...@home.anymore> wrote in message
>
> True. Taliban Jack is always talking about working families. He loves
> them as that is who he would tax the life out of while the lazy get the
> gravy.
Is it "Taliban Jack" or "Con Stephen Harper" that is fighting for EI reforms to help
families during this recession?
Canuck57
Yet NDP want to give GM, Chrysler and otehrs so much free money,
attaching the debt to all Canadians making a whole lot less and working
a whole lot harder than a union bastard.
NDP represent a facist view. And a apth to sure fire bankruptcy.
Canuck57
I am now a Wildrose Alliance supporter. Ed is too liberal for me.
BC Liberals are only more conservative at the moment as they can't
borrow more money. Bond offerings go unfilled. Basically, turned down
to borrow more. If they want more, they will have to pay a larger rte
to reflect their poor credit status and higher risk profile.
Canuck57
Hear me, BC government is BROKE. They can re-open their bond-debt
offerings, but people are not lending them money. This FORCES the
Liberals to be conservative. Or tell the people they are broke.
BC-Liberals and Ontario-Liberals, and the liberal media don't want the
public to know they can't borrow money any more at reasonable rates.
Canuck57
In BCs case, the sale of BC Rail lining pockets.
These old parties are corrupt to the core, be they provincial or
federal. Not to be heard, but to be herd is their attitude. We are tax
sheep.
Probably lots of friends, just they don't come in the front door. Money
and inside information gets him lots. Got the Liberals to pay him $2.1
million didn't he. Corrupt POS.
Canuck57
How does that differ from the Liberals? They lied about lots, even
stole a lot.
Ottawa is corrupt. Canada elections might as well read:
"Who do you want to be screwed by next!"
gordo
wrote:
The BC liberals (neo-conservatives) cut essential govt services the
moment they got in office.They privatized 1/2 of BC Hydro
immediatly.They privatized as much as they could as soon as they were
in office.They passed legislation that prevented BC Hydro from
working on Run of the river projects and let GE and other
multi-nationals have ownership of our rivers.BC rail was sold as soon
as they got in office.They hate the poor and that is the hallmark of
the conservatives.They proved this as soon as they took power.I am
truly sorry that the people of Alberta are ruled by the oil
companies.Before moving to BC 20 years ago my work took me to every
town from Lacombe to east of the Sask border,west to Sparwood and into
Montana.I took my holidays in northern Alberta and stayed at Gregor
Lake and visited the tar sands.I know first hand why Albertans are
considered red necks.GM is not screwing Canadians,the conservatives
are.
Sharx35
"durablepsyche" <durabl...@home.ca> wrote in message
news:8ugQm.52779$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
All Taliban Jack and Mrs. Jack care about is being re-elected. Period.
Canuck57
Harpo is indeed leaving it up to cash strapped Ontario and BC to screw
their own. It is the way it should be. If Ontario or BC want big fat
expensive in your face government, let them pay for it.
The alternative is for Harpo to tax the shit out of us all to pay for
loser provincial premiers a whining for more. As I said a year ago,
Ontario is cash strapped and borrowing doesn't work any more. Might as
well let the Liberals do the dirty work for the debt mess they have made.
As for GST, it should be scrapped. But to do that means an unpopular
move to wean the government off of the revenue it generates. And
Taliban Jack and Crazy Ivan Iggy are not going to watch the fat civil
service downsize. Besides, I suspect Iggy, Laytoon and Harpo are all
statists anyway. And statism needs to tax people more. That is, people
working for the government and not governmetn working for the people.