When will the CONS quit lying?

[The Green Barbarian]

love it - that's just awesome! That in a nutshell, covers what happens when those who come out of our liberal indoctrination centers, aka schools, get out in the real world, and see that what they've told by their teachers about "social justice" has all been a giant steaming pile of liberal dog poop. Unfortunately, not everyone wakes up from that nightmare, and so you still have indoctrinees accusing others of "hate", just because they don't agree with giving away the store and taxing the populace into complete oblivion.

[D suzuki]

And when you look at the stooges and lackies of the NDP and/or the radical leftists, you'll find "empathy" in their minds comprises the following:

Develop an unworkable solution to an imaginary problem, then devise a method of taxation involving how the "rich" and everyone else but you paying more tax would solve this imaginary problem, then cry and whine uncontrollably when everyone else shows how "greedy" and "sub-human" they are, because they won't just willingly go along with your completely unrealistic and downright silly "ideas". Then use words like "hate" and "bullying" to try and earn sympathy and spread guilt among mush-heads who have no ability to see just how imaginary the problem, nor how economically damaging and impossible it is to implement your "solution". Then take these mush-head followers and form a party of like-minded individuals (or if you are even remotely ambitious, form a "not for profit" and pay yourself a giant six-figure salary, but since you assign yourself the moral highground, this isn't "greed" - you deserve this salary unlike all the greedy immoral people out there with regular jobs), where you can all meet and talk about how hate-filled and evil everyone who doesn't think like you and agree with everything you say must be, and who "just can't see how simple it all is to solve all of these "problems", if the rich and greedy just paid more tax". Yeah - that's just awesome. Keep up with the "hate" stuff though, it really is winning you converts.

so according to you, there is no problems in canada? no one is starving ect. ect. ?

[The Green Barbarian]

so according to you, there is no problems in canada?

of course there are problems in Canada. Would they all be solved by throwing even more money at them then is being thrown now? Of course not. But that's the only "solution" from the radical left. Should we be penalizing people who already pay exorbinant tax rates by raising them even more to find the money to continue throwing at "problems" that can't just be solved by spending more money? Of course not. That's just plain stupid. But that's the only "solution" from the radical left. It's never actually about solving any problems, its about sucking money from those who have more, to satisfy feelings of bitterness and envy. And that's just wrong.

no one is starving ect. ect. ?

No one in Canada is starving, removed - Jennylives There are people actually starving all over the world. Let's help those people stop actually starving, before we continue to throw money down our socialist black holes, achieving nothing but more whining and crying.

[Woodenhead]

removed - Jennylives

[D suzuki]

removed - Jennylives

[The Green Barbarian]

removed - Jennylives

[Urbane]

It sounds like a wonderful conspiracy theory: Banks get secret bailout worth $114 billion during the 2008 recession!

Bailout discovered by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In fact, this is all hooey. There was no bailout of our banks. The government did, in 2008, set aside $200 billion to help all Canadian businesses and households hit by the global credit crunch and banks were the tool the government used to help us all out.

Taxpayer money was never at risk of being lost and, in fact, taxpayers are making a tidy profit with the credit crunch assistance program.

And secret? Well, it was announced in the glare of the 2008 federal election campaign and Parliament has since voted on these deals in at least two federal budgets — all of which was widely reported in our largest-circulation newspapers.

So why float this conspiracy theory now? On that question, it is very hard to ignore the links between the CCPA, the political left in Canada and the May Day Occupy protests which were to get going Tuesday.

A secret conspiracy to give bankers billions, you say?

Perfect propaganda for the Occupy crowd but lousy research from a think tank which has, in the past, done very credible work analyzing, for example, Canadian and provincial budgets from a progressive perspective.

As Laval University economist Stephen Gordon noted on Twitter, the CCPA “took a low-grade Internet conspiracy, worked it up to a 25-page ‘study’ and managed to get the media to report it as news.”

In fact, what happened in 2008 was, businesses large and small across Canada could not get the cash from their banks they needed to carry on everyday activities. The banks were literally cash-stripped as their own lines of credit froze up.

The federal government’s response to this problem was to find ways to get cash into the hands of banks so banks could do what they are supposed to do and lend it to businesses and households.

One way this happened was in exchange for Ottawa’s cash, the banks would sign over a pile of mortgages held by those banks.

The mortgages, virtually all of which were already insured by the federal taxpayer through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., would go on the government’s books and act as collateral for the billions lent to the banks.

On top of these virtually risk-free loans, the government charged the banks “commercial rates” for the privilege.

The banks paid up, got the cash and lent it to businesses to meet their payrolls and carry on doing the work they were doing.

This is not, by any definition of the word, a bailout. A bailout implies Canada’s banks, like banks in Europe, the U.S., or like GM and Chrysler, were about to go under without federal cash. Not true.

None of Canada’s banks were ever, at any time, at risk of going under.

Banks in the U.S. and in Europe needed governments there to bail them out by actually buying risky ownership stakes in those banks with public funds.

But our banks would have survived without the federal government’s actions in 2008.

What might not have survived, on the other hand, is hundreds or even thousands of Canadian businesses which were literally running out of money they needed to carry on.

Perhaps that’s something for the Occupy crowd to consider this week — how small businesses depend on a healthy, functioning banking system.
http://m.torontosun.com/2012/05/01/bank ... propaganda

[Urbane]

There was no "bailout" as far as I'm concerned but even those who choose to call it a bailout should also acknowledge that there was no secret about it. Unfortunately for those wanting to simply discredit the government Canada came out of the 2008 global financial crisis in reasonably good shape so now it's time to try and dig up something that's not there in order to find fault. This "story" is about on par with discussing Christy Clark's wardrobe.

[The Green Barbarian]

There was no "bailout" as far as I'm concerned but even those who choose to call it a bailout should also acknowledge that there was no secret about it. Unfortunately for those wanting to simply discredit the government Canada came out of the 2008 global financial crisis in reasonably good shape so now it's time to try and dig up something that's not there in order to find fault. This "story" is about on par with discussing Christy Clark's wardrobe.

Good points Urbane. This is why I detest the CCPA. They are more like a septic tank than a think tank, filling with crap that they can then unload of the populace, all in support of their political masters, the NDP. This was shoddy, biased and slanted "research" at its best.

[NAB]

How census figures cement Harper’s grip on power

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Published Tuesday, May. 29, 2012 9:08AM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, May. 29, 2012 5:35PM EDT

657 comments

The 2011 census confirms what the ballot box has already told us: Aspiring Canada votes Conservative.

If the NDP or Liberals are ever to win government, they must break the bond between these aspirational voters and Stephen Harper.

The latest tranche of data released Tuesday morning by Statistics Canada paints a picture of a country that is about to get old. The population of seniors is growing; for the first time, those who are getting ready to leave the labour force (age 55 to 64) exceed those getting ready to enter it (aged 15 to 24).

Census analysis: John Ibbitson on Canada's senior moment

“I have two degrees and strong work experience, but I spent a year underemployed in Toronto and over a year unemployed in Vancouver trying to get into the non-profit sector. … I have since moved to Calgary, where opportunity is everywhere and the non-profit sector is viable – jobs exist, pay is reasonable.” —Brendan Baines, 28. Originally from Vancouver, now living in Calgary

But the country is not aging uniformly. Younger, working-age Canadians are moving West, to where the jobs are. And within the big cities, the downtowns are aging differently than the suburbs.

The Conservatives are the party of the West and the party of suburbs. That is why Stephen Harper is Prime Minister.

Once again, the census paints a picture of three Canadas. The proportion of the population over 65 is higher than the national average in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. Ontario is about average. The West, except for the retirement Mecca of British Columbia, is younger than average.

Generally, an older society is a poorer society, because seniors consume more from government than they contribute through taxes, and because the economy is unable to provide the jobs needed to keep young people from leaving town in search of work.

These consuming provinces east of the Ottawa River predominantly vote NDP or Liberal. The contributing provinces of Western Canada, where a booming resource centre acts as a job magnet, vote Conservative.

But it’s much more than a story of East versus West. Even more, it’s a story of downtowns versus suburbs. As the census observes: “Differences in age structure between central and peripheral areas are particularly striking” in Canada’s largest cities.

In the suburban communities surrounding Toronto, the percentage of families with young children is well above the national average. The percentage of older Canadians is below average. These edge cities – Brampton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham, Ajax and Pickering, Oshawa –are largely middle-class. They have large populations of working parents. They pay more in federal taxes than they consume in federal services. Many of them are immigrants who have done well. In the last federal election, almost every riding in this suburban belt went Conservative.

In Toronto itself, the number of both seniors and families with children is both below the national average. The city has a large population of singles and DINKs, (double-income-no-kids). Many of these voters are well-educated professionals who work the financial, educational and cultural industries. And the ridings of downtown Toronto are Liberal or NDP.

Both the demographics and the political results are mirrored in Vancouver, (though the population of retirees is higher there, thanks to the weather).

Local cultures, of course, influence results. In Montreal, the Liberals did well in English enclaves; in Calgary the Conservatives prevailed in every postal code; parts of rural English Canada, though older and poorer than the national average, voted Conservative for cultural reasons.

But where it counts, in the populous communities outside the downtowns of cities in English Canada, suburban middle-class voters who seek a better life both for themselves and for their children vote for the party that they believe will look after the economy, protect their jobs and keep their taxes low.

In the next election, these suburban cities will receive the lion’s share of the 30 new seats being added to the House of Commons. Those seats will go Conservative, too, unless the Liberals or the NDP can think of a way to make aspirational Canadians change their minds.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2446248/

[The Green Barbarian]

Thanks for posting this Nab. This paragraph stuck out to me:

But where it counts, in the populous communities outside the downtowns of cities in English Canada, suburban middle-class voters who seek a better life both for themselves and for their children vote for the party that they believe will look after the economy, protect their jobs and keep their taxes low.

The NDP and the Liberals are seen as the "can't do it" parties. Their message, be it federally or in BC, is "let's not do anything". Their message is always negative, never positive about the future. You see their message appealing to people on these forums, all the ones who forsee "darkness" and "a grim future". Most people don't want to hear this nonsense. Not just because it's negative, but mostly because it has no basis in reality. The future isn't "grim", and there is a lot to be hopeful about. The Liberals, who aren't locked into foolish far-left unworkable philosophy like the NDP are, have to get back to the "the future is bright" message that the Liberals once had. Enough complaining, whining etc. Get more positive, talk about what you are going to do rather than all the things you aren't going to do, and be bright. That's what most voters want. Action. Postive action. Not whining which is all Euro-Trash Mulcair seems good at doing.

[jennylives]

Off topic posts and personal attack have been removed.

[steven lloyd]

This is why I detest the CCPA.

Actually, the reason you detest the CCPA (as well as the Tyee) is because they both present well-researched and well thought-out arguments that challenge and conflict with your pre-conceived notions.The Fraser Institute is no more nor no less credible (unless you believe so). I regularly read essays and studies from them as well. There is much to learn from people and sources that conflict with your own preconceived notions. The trick is developing the ability to seperate the writer's bias (reading posts by homes, for example) from your own preconceived notions. That can be really tough.

[The Green Barbarian]

Actually, the reason you detest the CCPA (as well as the Tyee) is because they both present well-researched and well thought-out arguments .

No they don't S.L. This latest bit of effluent from the CCPA trying to spin the lie that Canadian banks received a bail-out is a perfect example of why their crap is neither well-researched, nor well-thought out, and is merely grist for the mill, and propaganda for their NDP masters. There is a reason that Ed Broadbent, one of the biggest turds in politics in the 1980's-90's, is one of the principals behind the CCPA - it's sole purpose is to create and perpetuate lies that support the NDP's foolish politics.

[GrooveTunes]

Very, very very profitable companies were given my money so they could use it to make money off me when I need to borrow to keep my struggling business alive or to buy a house. Only a right wing bozo would call it something other then a bailout.