I guess you're not alone in your contempt for this chap.
Printable View
I guess you're not alone in your contempt for this chap.
The Harper government is being taken to court by the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page for refusing to disclose the billions of dollars in cuts from the last budget.
Kevin Page has warned the Tories for weeks that if they do not comply with Budget requests (and they haven't- they only provided 23% of the cuts) he will sue them.
And he just filed court action against the Conservatives.
This is BEAUTIFUL NEWS, because the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was CREATED for just this very thing, by the Conservatives themselves!
Must be a hard pill to swallow that their man is taking them to court.
Guess what Finance Minister Jim "The Fleecer" Flaherty said about it?
"Frankly, this is not part of Mr. Page's mandate".
Oh Yes it is Jim.
You fuckers are TOAST.
You don't want to be transparent and accountable?
We'll fuckin' SUE YOU ASSHOLE.
Get the fuck out of our Parliament you criminal shithead!!!!!!!
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is one of the few 100% HONEST people in Parliament.
If he demands accountability with taxpayers money on 5.2 BILLION worth of cuts,
THEN YOU FUCKING GIVE IT TO HIM.
These Tories have fucked everything up to the point of no return.
HANG THEM ALL.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4626742/
Read it and weep.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says he's ready for a 2014 warm-up By-Election, and SO AM I BABY!
3 by-elections have been called by Stephen Harper for November, and he will lose all three seats.
TRUST ME.
He will never win another election in his life.
These Conservatives are a thousand times more incompetent and corrupt than the Liberals were.
Holy Dogshit will I celebrate their obliteration.
(and I'm sure readers are ready for this thread to end on a positive high....)
Keep faith!
It will!
The Fleecer Jim Flaherty and Treasury President Tony Clement keep repeating that Kevin Page's job as Parliamentary Budget Officer is limited only to EXPENDITURES, not money that hasn't been spent.
These two fucktards need to read the actual description of the job, which includes the IMPLICATIONS and IMPACTS of budget cuts.
Without that knowledge, the PBO cannot accurately assess Canada's budget and debts. He needs the government to be 100% forthcoming with it's numbers or we're all flying blind.
The Conservatives have witheld vital information before- remember when the Harper government fell on a non-confidence vote over not disclosing information to the Official Opposition?
I FUCKING DO.
And I also remember that Canadians didn't care and handed Harper a Majority.
Now Harper is ignoring the PBO- not just opposition parties.
Tories can't use partisan politics anymore to defend their Fuckery.
THEIR OWN MAN IS TAKING THEM TO COURT- OVER 60 FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN SERVED LEGAL NOTICE!!!!
Anyone who thought I was off my rocker for writing this thread: YOU'RE WELCOME.
I did all the heavy lifting for you.
And wasn't paid a penny.
That makes me a true Conservative Canadian.
LOL
The Harper government has refused requests for Military veteran funerals to be covered if the veteran is homeless.
Homeless shelters in Canada actually provide better burial coverage for the poor than the government does for veterans.
Is there anything more sick? or more callous?
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT?
He wouldn't even give his personal opinion on how veterans are being treated! POLITICAL ALL THE FUCKING WAY!
Hang him out to fucking DRY.
Here's the article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/St...842/story.html
I guess their model is down here.
It's better to get killed in a war. That's what you're meant to do anyway, isn't it? Than to survive and come home.
Yeah. Right. Ha Ha
As a famous Navy Seal said once: Getting a Purple Heart is like being awarded for not doing your job.
Blasphemy!
How dare these soldiers ask for a proper burial! They didn't die with Honor in the combat zone!
Only tools in the game.
Finance Minister Jim "THE FLEECER" Flaherty has just announced that the deficit in Canada will not go down until 2017 and that $5 Billion has just been added to our National Deficit, making it now $26 BILLION.
The Tories were handed a surplus of $16 Billion in 2006.
Now we have a deficit of $26 Billion.
What an awesome job they are doing.
An aweome scam job.
Simply incredible.
Who or what will they blame for the ass-pounding they will recieve in the next election?
Every last Conservative MP is FIRED.
You don't earn your pay if our debt goes up $5 Billion in only one year.
How many whoppers will they continue to lay on Canadians until people wake the fuck up????
Extreme correction to Canada's national deficit:
At 11:59 PM tonight, the national debt will hit 600 BILLION DOLLARS.
NOT 26 Billion as I had posted before.
I learned today that the Harper government stopped caring about the National debt in 2008.
(When Obama won the Presidency?)
So........
What do you think of THAT,
CANADA?!?!?!?!?!
I'm glad you've brought us up to date on the actual figures and one can see that a $26 billion national debt for a rich First World economy would be chicken feed. The US national debt is $9 trillion, by the way. In the American system a trillion is a thousand times a billion. I think you have to ask yourself whether, if we're upset over a debt that was really 25 times less than the actual one, we really have any idea what we're getting upset about.
I think the problem is not so much that there is a debt or that it's a lot of money but how it was created and what creating it was used for -- which takes us back to the fact that we don't like who's in charge and what they're up to. And I think that while this situation reflects a great deal of careless and exploitative spending, it is at this point simply a bugaboo that is being used to exploit you, because it isn't the aspect of the economy that you ought to be concerned about right now.
I just want to remind you that this period of global "Great Recession" is the last time to be instituting austerity measures for the illusory goal of curbing "debt. Using debt now, as an excuse for austerity is how neoliberal governments and transnational corporations squeeze the poor and middle class and increase the wealth of global powers and concurrently, the 1%. This is the message I sent you from Paul Krugman, the simple but practical Keynsian principle that during times when the national economy is weak the government needs to stimulate it with spending, not pay off debt. That, paying off of debt, must be done during boom times. Remember? You agreed and thanked me. So why now are you panicking or roaring about the national debt?
Look up natiuoinal debuts by country here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt. Would you like to move to Uzbekistan or Algeria, whose national debts are 6-7% of their GNP? No? Then what about the fact that Germany, which is pretty solid, has a national debt that's 82% of the GNP? Now I'll grant you that Qatar and Kuwait also have national debts that are 6-7% of their GNP, but they achieve this lovely situation through very undemocratic situations and by being tiny countries swimming in oil.
Maybe you should be worrying more about the United States: 105%. Canada's is only 83.5% of GNP, not far from Germany. Where we don't want to go is where Greece is, with a national debt that's 165 % of GNP. Zimbabwe, a rogue state in the hands of the receivers, is well over 200%. But when you look at Spain and see its debt is only 69% of GNP, it begins to appear that these figures really don't tell us much by themselves.
Anyone who has a mortgage (as I do) has at least one a big debt. The real question is whether it was incurred for something worthwhile (I have a nice house) and what the prospects of are being able to service it (so far, so good). It was a valuable tradeoff to incur this debt. Of course it is not growing; it is slowly diminishing. More or less. But paying it off is not my goal. To try to do so would take money that is better used elsewhere. But it's really not valid to compare individual and family economics with government economics, because the rules and scale are quite different.
The figure for Canada's current national debt, $600 billion, means nothing in itself. Do you even know what is billion dollars is, in any practical terms? You have to see this all in a global context and within an understanding of government economies. Above all you have to see it in terms of what national economies need right now, which is stimulation via spending, not focusing on halting the rise of "debt"
A kindres spirit?
Here are some thoughts about Canada's $600 billion (Canadian) 'national debt.' I culled it through an online search, and you'll find it and more here.
You may like this guy, a Canadian of about 62 whose name is Dave Patterson. In fact I think you and he have a lot in common and you ought to find him very simpatico. He is as angry about the debt as you are. And reading his partial bio, he has been pursuing the issue for a long time, at least from the Eighties. He's sort of a hippie era ex would be rock star whose "professional" training is in ecology, and who's published writing is a series of children's books. He also worked for CUSO in Thailand, working with NGO's. His website's mission statement and white papers make him sound crazily utopian. But to be that at 62 is quite admirable. This is not to say that I agree with his, and your, concern with debt or his fascination with getting off a debt-based monetary system, though in idealistic terms, the liberation from this system that the Glasgow-based group Patterson cites sounds great:Quote:
Scam of the Century - the Canadian National "Debt" [Excerpt]
. . .The doctrine of odious debts: "...If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State.... This debt is not an obligation for the nation; it is a regime's debt, a personal debt of the power that has incurred it, consequently it falls with the fall of this power."
- from MY perspective, this applies pretty well to the Canadian so-called "national debt" - it was NOT a necessary debt, when the Bank of Canada had been historically used to provide most of the necessary money when the government faced a shortfall - and, with the possible exception of the one hundred or so billion, the great bulk of the money that has been collected to "service" the debt has, rather obviously, NOT been used for the service of the Canadian people. The debt was incurred, and whether or not one can prove it was done intentionally, it has been used as a weapon against the people of Canada, used as an excuse to roll back generations of advancement in terms of providing safe and secure lives for Canadians, on the excuse of turning literally hundreds of billions of dollars over to those "investors" holding the debt ....
"Prosperity," this group hopefully calls itself.Quote:
Money Reformers advocate that the virtual Monopoly of Money Creation must be removed from the corporate banking system and we work to establish a publicly-created supply of debt-free money, created on behalf of the people, by a public body.
This money should be spent, not lent, into society on the basis of proven need. This will gradually reduce the overall burden of debt in society, break reliance upon the private banking system for the supply of money, open potential for change, and empower people democratically.
The Money Reformers’ proposal is not a left-wing, or right-wing idea. It’s just good sense!
But as I said, I don't think all that is what we need to be focused on right now because it's the economy that needs spending, not draw down of debt. And I think Dave Patterson is aware of that.
Not the lead editorial in today's (Nov. 23, 2012) NY Times, "Britain's Place in Europe":
Quote:
. . .over the past year, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has been destructively pushing her partners to enact laws that would prolong the recession by setting rigid deficit ceilings, denying countries the fiscal flexibility sometimes needed to revive growth.
I roar about the debt because a country as rich as Canada shouldn't have one.
And neither should the United States.
No excuse under the sun can convince me that it is needed or was necessary.
It's bad management, through and through.
How can creditors get upset over minscule household debt if the government doesn't give 2 shits about monstrous debt?
I'll never understand that.
I'll never cull "logic" from numbers like that, global perspective or not.
Kick the Can is our mantra and it always will be.
In the grand scheme I don't really care. I can't affect jack or shit. I just squawk about it. I just bark about it.
My house is still Awesome.
Music still plays.
I'm just attempting to figure out the precise parameters of the Class War.
Every country has a debt Jason. Learn to life with it.
Or roar. Whatever you like.