Next Liberal Manifesto

[The Green Barbarian]

As I said - I will reserve final judgement until I see platforms - but in this case - if you replace the housekeeper that is stealing from you with one that burns your house down [or sells it out from under you], are you really that far ahead? I get the whole argument you are making, but the "cure" could be worse than the disease in this case. If too many people think like you, and vote out of spite and anger about the past, ....

Ah the irony, and not even into a new paragraph yet.

you lost me here completely - only a complete idiot would try and claim that the Liberals are worse than the scumbag 1990's version of the NDP. So I am assuming that isn't what you are implying...so enlighten me?

[The Green Barbarian]

The platform for the Liberals mean nothing, not even worth the computer space it takes up. Remember the no HST, not even on the radar stuff??????

fair enough - you judge your way, I'll judge mine.

[flamingfingers]

..you lost me here completely - only a complete idiot would try and claim that the Liberals are worse than the scumbag 1990's version of the NDP. So I am assuming that isn't what you are implying...so enlighten me?

Keith Baldrey and many others do not agree with you, barbie:

This kind of jiggery-pokery makes some of the financial hijinks that occurred during the NDP's time in power pale in comparison. The New Democrats were routinely accused of offloading spending costs into areas not captured by the provincial budget, but the money involved there doesn't come anywhere near the $5 billion this particular scheme will eventually cost. In fact, if the NDP had tried something like this while in government, the B.C. Liberals would have been apoplectic with rage.

While in Opposition, the B.C. Liberals constantly tried to portray New Democrats as economic incompetents and wrapped themselves in claims of tremendous superiority on any economic issue.

But the longer the B.C. Liberals have been in power, the more the lie is put to those claims. The B.C. Liberals' track record is actually quite spotty on this front.

For example, there have been numerous and huge budget deficits posted by the B.C. Liberals, while the government's incompetence destroyed a tax policy shift - the HST - it insisted was vitally needed by the province.

And the province's total debt is approaching $60 billion, almost double the amount when the B.C. Liberals first came to power. Throw in the Boss Power fiasco, which saw $30 million paid to a company for not developing a uranium mine, and it all adds up to quite the opposite of a thrifty and transparent government

See previous page for the link, as obviously you did not bother to even read that post.

[NAB]

....and on top of that, lest we forget, this government has had the benefit of loose purse strings in Ottawa plus a new millenium boom that they pi$$ed away, plus much much more, ....unlike what the BC NDP, and ALL of us across the land, had to deal with trying to adjust under the federal Chretien/Martin years of the 90's. Noteworthy too, as much as "business" whines about the 90's, effectively what happened they did to themselves, then patted themselves on the back for it.... anyone comparing this government to provincial governments of the 90's on the financial management front is, IMO, like trying to compare apples to tomatos.

.....during his tenure as finance minister, Martin coordinated a series of meetings between the finance ministers of all provinces to discuss how to address the pending crisis in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). Consequently, Martin oversaw the creation of a general public consultation process in February 1996 that eventually led to major structural reform of the CPP. The results of this public consultation process were collected and analyzed by the Finance ministry. Eventually, it led to a proposal for overhauling the CPP, which was presented to Parliament and was approved soon after, thereby averting a pension crisis if left unaddressed.[7][8]

While Martin's record as finance minister was lauded in business and financial circles, there were undeniable costs. Some of these costs took the form of reduced government services, affecting the operations and achievement of the mandate of federal and provincial departments. This was probably most noticeable in health care, as major reductions in federal funding to the provinces meant significant cuts in service delivery. Martin's tactics, including those of using surplus funds from pension plans and Employment Insurance, created further controversy.

Edit to add... and that's just concerning the financial/budgetary front, for there have been many issues over the past ten years on the policy/ideological/approach to politics front that need taking issue with. Let me ask those who continually try to make comparisons with a party of the 90's under different times and different circumstances... lets pretend for a moment we only have one party in BC (actually a coalition rather than an identifyable party), operating like a dictatorship or monarchy (benevolent or otherwise), and they were following the path of this government ...all powerful, unopposed, non-transparent, and unregulated... would you just sit back and take it? But apathy or passing the buck, or saying something like it is worse in Rome or in Greece, is more comfortable isn't it... regardless of the major problems it will place on our children and grandchildren.

[The Green Barbarian]

..you lost me here completely - only a complete idiot would try and claim that the Liberals are worse than the scumbag 1990's version of the NDP. So I am assuming that isn't what you are implying...so enlighten me?

Keith Baldrey and many others do not agree with you, barbie:

.

I don't know who "Keith Baldrey" is and I really don't care. I'm not going around this idiotic merry-go-round again with the obessive compulsive Liberal haters on this board who pile on anyone and everyone who doesn't parrot the core "beliefs", one of them being that somehow the NDP of the 1990's wasn't as bad as everyone knows/remembers them to be. It really doesn't matter what the "truth" is, you guys will just go through the same pattern:
Poster 1: The Liberals suck! We should vote them out! The NDP weren't really that bad!!!
Poster 2: What?? I really hope you are joking. There is no comparison between the Liberals and the NDP of the 1990's. That was sheer hell under those guys - high taxes, mining industry left in tatters, everyone leaving...it was just plain brutal, and that's why they were tossed out on their fat union butts!
Poster 3: Ho - ho - a Liberal lap-dog!
Poster 2: Er...what?
Poster 4: Yeah - you are just making excuses for the Liberals! Here's an article by someone you've never heard of who says a bunch of crazy things that back up my point of view!
Poster 2: Ok...well...I guess I could read it, but anyone can spin anything to their point of view. I was actually here in BC at the time, and it was just plain awful. I gave out some raises and no one noticed, thanks to the high income tax rates...
Poster 1: You just love the Liberals no matter what! You lap-dog!!
Poster 2: All I am saying is that maybe we should read each party's platform...if the NDP aren't as scary as they used to be, maybe they are a good alternative, but I want more information before I vote, and judge each party on their future promises, not on past grudges.
Poster 3: LAPDOG!!! LAPDOG!!!
Poster 5: What a "Castabully"!!! Telling me to think about my choice instead of just using anger as my deciding factor for how I vote!!! How dare you!!
Poster 2: This is just crazy! Do any of your people work outside a union of government environment? If so, can you honestly say you want to vote without even understanding what either party stands for, or read anything they are saying they want to achieve after the next election?
Poster 3: Sounds like something a lap-dog would say.
Poster 5: Why bother - look at the HST!
Poster 2: Yeah - and didn't the guy responsible for that resign? Aren't you the one who posts constantly that we are supposed to "forget" about the HST because it is a dead issue?
Poster 5: Uh...yeah...well now Campbell's in England!
Poster 2: So?
Poster 5: Er...well...um...that's not fair!! I hate him!!
Poster 2: I see.
Poster 3: Lap dog!! Lap dog!!! Lap dog!!! Now where's that skipping sheep emoticon?

And so on and so on - round the merry-go-round we go. I'll wait and see what the party platforms are, and Keith Baldrey can say whatever he wants. We all have confirmation bias, in that we'll believe whatever we read that conforms to our already pre-formed opinions of the truth.

[NAB]

Well, as is often said, whether individual, business, or government we have to play the hand we are dealt. In the 90's we had a government who dealt themselves 4 deuces, while since we have had a government who constantly deals themselves 5 aces.

Nab

[flamingfingers]

Green Barbie wrote:

I don't know who "Keith Baldrey" is and I really don't care.

..snip...

And so on and so on - round the merry-go-round we go. I'll wait and see what the party platforms are, and Keith Baldrey can say whatever he wants. We all have confirmation bias, in that we'll believe whatever we read that conforms to our already pre-formed opinions of the truth.

So if you do not know who “Keith Baldrey” is, these are probably also people with whom you are not familiar:

Vaughn Palmer
Michael Smyth
Gary Mason
Justine Hunter
Bob Mackin
Rafe Mair
Alex Tsakumis
Bill Thielman
Paul Willcocks
Laila Yuile
Les Leyne
Iain Hunter
Grant G (Straight Goods)
Norm Farrell
Glen P. Robbins

.. and ‘really don’t care’…

So I am curious: Where do you get YOUR “already pre-formed opinion of the truth”.

[Logitack]

morre Liberal mean spirited, underhanded, dirty politics examples. is the real reason why so many mainstream media reporters have been doing the bidding of the liberal scumbags...because they are afraid of what the liberal government will do to them and their careers?

Nothing moves Christy Clark like burying the BC Rail/’Basi-Virk’ scandal as far away from her as possible. She’d do it in a heartbeat if she could. Parenthetically, you should know that her political operatives have painted a target on my back (because as is their forever modus operandi, they’re too cowardly to face me) and are “developing a file” to discredit me. I’ve heard this now several times from reliable sources, even a couple of people close to Ms. Clark that have assured me they will bolt her bailiwick if she attempts this (you see, the Premier and I know many of the same people and apparently only two have scruples). As one put it late last night, “she’s had it with you, you’re killing her, I’m telling you watch your back man…everything is on the table for her, she’ll get anything on you and send it off to her pals in the media or anyone else that will take it a run with it…your business, your family, nothing is off limits, I heard her say it myself…if she does it, I’ll tell you everything and then I’m done with her, you have my word…) Let’s see…
http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/11/04/exc ... ackground/

and this wasnt the main feature of the article! it was the absolute corrupt methods liberals use to have their way. to manipulate, with impunity, the legal system to silence and hide the truth. it is unbelievable!

In a now infamous Cabinet meeting, right before Mr. Penner’s resigned as Attorney General, Premier Clark upbraided him for not appealing the court ruling giving Auditor General John Doyle the documents to the six million dollar settlement with Dave Basi and Bob Virk.
It was PART of the reason Mr. Penner felt he could no longer work with this Premier. He’s admitted that to a few mutual friends, and I commend him for that.
But a significant part of Mr. Penner’s departure was also rooted in a very inappropriate phone call made by former Attorney General Wally Oppal, to Mr. Penner, with respect to the missing women’s inquiry. Judge Oppal, who should clearly have known better, must have had an exceedingly weak moment and missed the ironclad protocol which dictates that, in his position, you don’t call the sitting Attorney General is such a pedestrian, casual manner and expect anything but what Mr. Penner told the Premier was appropriate: Inclusive of past indiscretions and public comments, Judge Oppal should be removed as head of the commission he was and remains overseeing.
The Premier wouldn’t budge. Apparently, Ms. Clark saw nothing wrong with Judge Oppal’s conduct and it was there Mr. Penner felt his word, as BC’s top legal beagle, was worthless to the woman who isn’t qualified to scrape dried gum from under the legislature’s desks, nevermind lead a province.
It was a VERY strange position for Ms. Clark to take, considering she was advised by others in Cabinet, that Mr. Penner’s position would be untenable and she needed to act. But as is her way, identically to how it was with her predecessor–His Excellency the High Commissioner, she thumbed her nose at the advice.
I wondered aloud to friends on both government and opposition benches, why she would do this–a galling, ignorant act, even for her.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip

Guess who was negotiating with Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino to close the six million settlement with Messers Basi and Virk?
Wally Oppal.
I have it on excellent authority that his was the pivotal role in getting the deal done. In fact, I have someone who was directly connected to the process.
So, now you no longer need wonder how Judge Oppal thought he could just pick up the phone and call Mr. Penner on a whim.

[steven lloyd]

- only a complete idiot would try and claim that the Liberals are worse than the scumbag 1990's version of the NDP.

Actually, that (the Liberals are worse than the scumbag 1990's version of the NDP) is what the facts seem to suggest, and while you seem desperately bent on using confirmation bias to hold onto your preconceived views, some of us form opinion from objectively and critically considering the information as presented to us. For example, while the NDP left this government with a budget surplus when they took power (as confirmed by the Liberal’s own auditors), through their recklessness the Liberals immediately turned that into a deficit and in only the last ten years have almost doubled our total debt (to almost $60 billion). Add to that the fire-sale sell-off of public assets and billions more in promised debt (to add to the $60 billion) conveniently masked as “deferred” to cover for their mismanagement, and we have a government that has sold the house out from under us before burning it down. As Keith Baldry (I know – you don’t like to watch or read news) and other news commentators have astutely pointed out (these threads are full of posted articles and links) – anything wrong done by the NDP of the nineties simply pales to the scams, scandals and incompetence of this government. If you really want to have some intelligent discussion on the issues facing us now, you might want to quit trying to tell those of us who now know better how great it is now compared to then. There is likely no government in our province’s history that has screwed us over more.

[Logitack]

There is likely no government in our province’s history that has screwed us over more.

wrong, steven! if the liberals get voted back in, they will eclipse the screw ups, dirty tricks, corruption, and misdeeds they have accumulated since 2001.

[NAB]

A friend reminded me of this this morning, and it is worth a repeat here... recognizing of course that since this was first circulated things have changed immeasurably... We are already past what this suggests, (#10 has bugged out or has succeeded in making the other 9 pay much of his way), and the problem now is how government can extract more money from those left, particularly #'s 5,6,7, 8, and 9 without killing the only goose left who can lay eggs..... which it seems to me exactly the path we are now committed to for years to come.

Subject:Drinking and Taxes

Ten men go out for drinks every day and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily drinks by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and drank without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Urbane]

I've seen that before, Nab, but not for many years. Thanks for posting it. It illustrates why the "soak it to the rich" mentality doesn't work so when one is deciding how to vote in the next election the various parties' philosophies and platforms should be key. We need to raise the rhetoric from name-calling (e.g."Liebtards" which I find particularly offensive) to a discussion of the issues. Your "Drinking and Taxes" post helps to do that.

[NAB]

I've seen that before, Nab, but not for many years. Thanks for posting it. It illustrates why the "soak it to the rich" mentality doesn't work so when one is deciding how to vote in the next election the various parties' philosophies and platforms should be key. We need to raise the rhetoric from name-calling (e.g."Liebtards" which I find particularly offensive) to a discussion of the issues. Your "Drinking and Taxes" post helps to do that.

Yes, todays issues, and those facing us in the future, ....not unproductive or juvenile comparisons between the government and circumstances of the last ten years to the government and circumstances of the previous ten years, even to the extent of criticising people on their facial appearance. With the proviso of course that where we are is where the Liberal Govenment of the past ten years has put us, so it is crucial that we be able to look closely at (and criticise) what it is about them that put us here and keeps us here. That is if we wish to determine what has to change to get us put of it.

As for that little story, as I said - I remind that we are already past #10 not contributing much to the current booze bill any more (business tax reductions at both federal and provincial levels, HST, and so on), (although they still drink at the bar), and we are still under pressure from a variety or quarters to reduce their tax contribution to zero for any that are still paying some, mostly the bigger businesses and corporations. And that's the current problem as I see it, since otner than the lowest income sectors who contribute little or no taxes at all (both individuals and small businesses, we continue to rack up huge public sector bills and debt that #.s 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 tax and fees paying sectors cannot even come close to covering any more on a sustainable basis, at least without borrowing themselves further into debt. And this in an economy where getting rid of as much debt as possible, and being able to save for the future on top of that, is becoming increasingly the main objective for more and more people every year. And when this government had surpluses, they spent it, although now it appears that even those "surpluses" were pretty much smoke and mirrors and "creative book-keeping.

Nab

[maple leaf]

How can anyone just decide on how to vote for a party only by the platform presented before an election.Here is the platform put forth by the Liberals in the 2001 election.
************************************************
This 2001 BC Liberal platform document, A New Era for British Columbia is no longer easily found. BC Liberals prefer it to be forgotten. I found one copy in the legislative library that had been condensed from 36 pages to 12. However, the full document, which I found at the University of Laval in Quebec, makes interesting reading, particularly parts that promise:

The most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada.
Better services for children, families & First Nations.
Stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring that has drained resources from children and family services.
Restore open tendering on government contracts . . .
. . . eliminating wasteful spending on government mismanagement, propaganda . . .
Not sell or privatize BC Rail.
Restore consumers’ right to Hydro rates that are independently set by the B.C. Utilities Commission, and not artificially inflated by government interference.
. . . outlaw provincial government “offloading” of costs onto municipal governments
Hold the line on court fees and probate fees, to ensure that no British Columbian is denied their right of access to our justice system because of onerous costs.
Protect and preserve Burns Bog.
etc.

http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/20 ... mises.html


They can promise the world,but as we can see,they don't have to deliver.

[NAB]

And when they don't deliver, it is way beyond adult reason for those who criticise them for it to be constantly called whining uggo socialists and Marxists and union slugs and NDP slackers. It's not about the NDP, it is strictly about this government and their performance. As well, I keep reminding, we are NOT in an election, so figuring out who to vote for is NOT an issue. As GB and others often point out, when we get to an election and are presented with the issues and platforms of each party contesting it, we will have something upon which to make informed choices. Unfortunately, in the last two elections in BC, we have not been presented with anything even close to that.

Nab