November 25, 2008

Endorsements You Do Not Want

Stephen Harper got some political cover for his reckless management of the government's expenses. He got an endorsement from someone whose skills at managing a budget are...well...um...yeah...

BOB RAE!

Is it the opinion of Bob Rae that governments have no real control of their revenues?

Does he believe that there is nothing a prudent government can do to ward off a deficit?

Here is an interview Bob did with John Oakley, where unlike an independent Parliament official, Bob Rae ABSOLVES Stephen Harper for his reckless spending and tax cuts, saying there is nothing Harper or Flaherty could have done to prevent this.

Rae:

"I did not bring in a deficit. The fact of the matter is, the recession caused the deficit, we did not have a tax and spend agenda, that's just nonsense. We had a situation where revenues where dropping like a stone as a result of the recession, that's what happened."

"Okay, so if we have a deficit now, at the federal level or the provincial level, is that going to be the personal fault of Mr. Harper or Mr. McGuinty? I don't think so, these are things that happen"


Oakley:

"If Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty take us into deficit because of the situation or circumstances, you'd be willing to cut them a lot of slack?"

Rae:

"With great respect John, they're not taking us into deficit...

Oakley:

"Mr. Rae, if the country runs a deficit, do you give them the benefit of the doubt?"

Rae:

"It's not a matter of giving them the benefit of the doubt, the fact is there is a very serious recession on John, maybe you haven't noticed. A lot of people are going to be losing their jobs, a lot of people aren't going to be paying taxes, a lot of companies are not going to be in a position to pay taxes. That is going to have a major impact on the revenues of the country. Would I agree with everything they have done so far, in terms of how they've spent things? No, but do I hold them personally responsible for the fact that we're going to have a deficit here, and in Ontario, of course not and no reasonable person should do that"

Yes, Bob, Harper did not cause a global recession.

However, he did spend away a surplus like a drunken sailor who just got to port after 13 years at sea.

How long has it been since Bob Rae got thrown out of office in Ontario?

13 years already…

h/t Steve V

Labels:

8 Commentaires:

Blogger Francesco a dit...

I have to agree with Steve and Antonio on this...if this was poker game bob would have been knocked off the table at the first or second round. Bob's record as premier of Ontario is at best lousy and realistically absymal. He inherited a tough situation, and unfortunately his policies only made matters worse - to his credit he understood that but it was to late. We cannot go into an election agaist the conservatives...where the key question is "competence" and "accountability" on the economy with Mr Rae at the helm. I do find Mr Rae intelligent, sincere, driven but it will difficult to win against harper when you put your ace away and don't use it.

11/25/2008 8:40 a.m.  
Blogger janfromthebruce a dit...

So tell me, what would the Liberals have done differently in today's "economic depression"?
Just curious, cause it sounds to me that the very conservative liberal party would would let main street Canadians do the "sink or swim" thing.
I don't mind bursting your bubble, but why aren't good liberals ranting at Dalton McGuinty for running a deficit? And when BC economy goes into the tanker, hopefully you will all rant at what a flake Campbell is.
Of course, I remember when Chretin/Martin years where they campaigned on the left and than took a hard right turn, making the recession in Ontario worse and not better. I do remember that where Ontario elected a whole house of MPs who did nothing except act liked trained seals.
Yes, I remember the good old days, when Martin said that we all had to help fight the deficit/debt war except how he did it personally was fly his ships under a foreign flag so he didn't have to pay Canadian worker wages/benefits, or employee those masses of unemployed - while the libs cut the crap out of unemployment insurance and than siphoned off the surpluses of the working peoples' forced contributions to pay off the debt. That was workers' money and not the slush fund of the liberals.
I'm not defending Bob, but I sure am defending the NDP. The one that came to power with a 3 billion debt left to them by - guess who - Peterson Liberals (as par they didn't say that existed).
You guys sure have selected history and myth of libs as the great savors of everything.

The fact is that the libs as opposition allowed Harper to make those budget commitments, either by not showing up to vote or wholeheartedly supporting Harper. You bare the responsibility for Not Standing up. Ditto to 50 billion in promised corporate taxcuts.

Personally, I hope that Bob's loses, gets burned by his new party, and leaves. And libs can go on be irrelevant.

11/25/2008 11:36 a.m.  
Blogger Steve V a dit...

" I hope that Bob's loses, gets burned by his new party, and leaves."

You know what is hilarious Jan, you have no concept of Rae's views. Maybe you should look up Rae's opinion of the NDP these days, it's quite an eye opener and it will burst your bubble. Rae LEFT the NDP for a reason, 19th century socialism is neither credible or progressive.

Speaking of "irrelevance", watch how NOTHING happens when the NDP votes against the throne speech. Nothing. Yes, irrelevance...

11/25/2008 1:20 p.m.  
Blogger Emerys a dit...

Watch how the Liberals and the Conservatives both support free trade with Colombia, the world leader in murdering unionized workers. The US Congress has blocked their free trade agreeement due to concerns over this VERY high body count and other human rights violations. The Liberal party of Canada is well to the right of the Democrats of this one, they are sitting with the extreme right of the Republican party. Obviously Ignatieff is going to be their next leader, it suits them.

11/25/2008 6:09 p.m.  
Blogger KC a dit...

Like it or not Bob is right. Governments have only limited control over revenues they bring in. Those are largely determined by the economy. Scoring political points against Harper cant come at the expense of the truth. The Liberals would have spent most of the surplus if they had been in office anyway. There wouldnt have been a 13 billion dollar cushion by this time.

Besides Antonio, a lot of that 'spending like a drunk sailor' that Harper embarked on was dealing with your make believe "fiscal imabalance". But hey if you're having second thoughts about that...

11/26/2008 12:32 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

the fiscal imbalance settlement was less than 1 of Harper's GST cuts.

Nice try though Kyle, making excuses for Harper now? You must realy be worried Ignatieff is gonna win

11/26/2008 1:31 p.m.  
Blogger KC a dit...

Im not making excuses for anyone. I've always believed that governments have limited options in situations such as these.

If fixing the fiscal imbalance was cheaper than one percent on the GST then what was all the belly aching from your side about to begin with? Certainly the provinces that wanted more money could have came up with that revenue on their own.

But since you mention it, yes I am afraid Ignatieff might win. I've never made a secret of that.

11/26/2008 7:55 p.m.  
Blogger Emerys a dit...

Thats like being afraid of finding out Santa Claus isn't real. The Liberal party's progressive credentials have been forged for a while now and with each new election more Canadians are waking up to this reality, Iggy as leader will be the final, indisputable proof. There is nothing wrong with that, Canada can have a small, right wing, business Liberal party like Germany has, which will continue to be influential by forging coalitions with other parties. Its clearly what the party's leadership prefers at this point.

11/27/2008 6:43 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home