best of blogs - 8 lies republicans want you to believe

[David Jamieson]

these are gathered from best of the blogs.

here are the 8 lies that the republican party wants you to believe and that they have touted informally in the newsmedia, their own blogs, websites and of course through shills like 1bad. lol




1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.[

[MasterKiller]

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, my fren!

[David Jamieson]

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America, my fren!

dude, you wouldn't believe what our little neo-con cluster hump is doing up here.

We have a totally out of touch and politically failed group of neo con loonies running around in Ottawa.

I for one can't wait for a election to get rid of these idiots.

[BJJ-Blue]

dude, you wouldn't believe what our little neo-con cluster hump is doing up here.

We have a totally out of touch and politically failed group of neo con loonies running around in Ottawa.

I for one can't wait for a election to get rid of these idiots.

Let me guess, despite the fact your country is being ran by a "totally out of touch and politically failed group of neo con loonies running around in Ottawa", your unemplyment is lower than ours, correct? Maybe thats because we've been being ran by a totally out of touch and politically failed group of liberal loonies running around in Washington DC.

Feel free to post those unemployment numbers though. :D

I'll get around to disproving the original post later. It's ridiculous, but unlike you I source my asserions, so it will take more time than I want to waste here at work.

[David Jamieson]

Let me guess, despite the fact your country is being ran by a "totally out of touch and politically failed group of neo con loonies running around in Ottawa", your unemplyment is lower than ours, correct? Maybe thats because we've been being ran by a totally out of touch and politically failed group of liberal loonies running around in Washington DC.

Feel free to post those unemployment numbers though. :D

I'll get around to disproving the original post later. It's ridiculous, but unlike you I source my asserions, so it will take more time than I want to waste here at work.

It's because of banking laws put in place by former liberal governments in succession that our Ottawa fools brigade from the neo-con party are running around the world glad handing as if they had something to do for it.

Abject scum is what they are behaving like taking credit for policies they neither wrote nor implemented and when those policies actually showed the force they possessed in good measure, them fools try to take the credit and even have the audacity to scold other nations for their financial recklessness knowing full well that the only reason Canada didn't utterly fail in the great Wall street fraud of 2008 is because we were not as a nation able to buy into those fraudulent sales that were being pushed out of wall street that caused the global financial collapse in the first place.

Not to mention the financial policies installed by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin as Prime Ministers, who were both Liberals. :p

so, the more you know right.

as for the first post, be my guest in your attempt to disprove it. all those "realities" yeah, those are facts. go ahead, dispute them! Try to stay on target with the facts. :)

[BJJ-Blue]

Just post the unemployment numbers and we will see who is right. :D

I'll post the unemployment rate in the US when Bush left, and what they are now after 2 years of liberal ploicies. You post the unemployment rates when the liberals were running the Candian Gov't, and what they are now after 'neo con' policies. You're not avoiding posting data are you?

[David Jamieson]

Just post the unemployment numbers and we will see who is right. :D

I'll post the unemployment rate in the US when Bush left, and what they are now after 2 years of liberal ploicies. You post the unemployment rates when the liberals were running the Candian Gov't, and what they are now after 'neo con' policies. You're not avoiding posting data are you?

well, speaking of avoidance, I believe you said you were going to prove these 8 lies wrong. are you avoiding that? where is your proof that these 8 lies that you would like us to believe are wrong?

unemployment is up in the last 2-3 years under the Harper government which is neo con.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=CAD

there you go. see for yourself. This neo-con idiot has taken good fortune and turned it into grubs in the lawn. He's useless and most of us with a brain want to see him gone at the earliest opportunity and I can't see us voting in another conservative government all too soon. Every time we put one in, they screw us.

We didn't learn with Mulroney and we have failed again with Harper.
I guarantee you he and his party will NOT survive the next election. They are a minority government now and soon, they will not even be the opposition.

[BJJ-Blue]

#1) The assertion was essentially correct.

As for the impact that Obama's first budget would have on the national debt, the CBO estimated the national debt would indeed triple by the year 2019 under the president's budget, from $5.8 trillion to $17.1 trillion. The
president's budget office, the Office of Management and Budget, projected that the national debt would increase to $16.0 trillion by 2019.

When the CBO issued its projections for Obama's budget in June 2009, it projected that the national debt would double to $11.7 trillion by 2019 if its pre-Obama baseline economic assumptions were held steady for 10 years. A more recent CBO baseline projection from this month puts the national debt at $14.3 trillion in 2019 and $15.0 trillion in 2020.

Source:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/30/cnn-fact-check-is-the-annual-deficit-under-obama-12-times-the-deficit-under-republicans/

#2) The assertion was false.

However, he wants to raise taxes on 'the rich' and if he fails to act before January ALL income taxpayers will see their taxes go up. And the lowest tax bracket will see a 50% income tax increase.

#3) The assertion was true.

Obama voted for the bailout of the banks as a US Senator.

#4) The assertion is true.

Despite Administration promises the unemployment rate would not exceed 8% if the stimulus was passed, unemployment under Obama has exceeded 8% 27 out of the 28 months he has been President.

Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

#5) That assertion cannot be proven at this time.

Time will tell. But we need to actully see tax cuts (income and/or corporate) to prove or disprove the assertion.

#6) That assertion is true.

"The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion."

Source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

#7) Those assertions are all true.

Social Security does fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is going broke according to the CBO and the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. Life expectance among Americans is higher than it was when SS was implemented. And there are fewer workers per retiree than there were when Social Security was implemented.

Sources on SS going broke:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/57883-social-security-is-broke
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/29/board-of-trustees-personal-finance-retirement-saving-social-security.html

#8) That assertion is partially true.

Depending on what Government spends the money on, it can be taken out of the US economy or it can be put into the US economy.

And you yourself admitted some Gov't spending does take money out of the US economy. So why you said an assertion was false when you yourself admit it's at least partially true is beyond me.

[Reality_Check]

#7) Those assertions are all true.

Social Security does fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Social Security is going broke according to the CBO and the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. Life expectance among Americans is higher than it was when SS was implemented. And there are fewer workers per retiree than there were when Social Security was implemented.

Sources on SS going broke:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/57883-social-security-is-broke
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/29/board-of-trustees-personal-finance-retirement-saving-social-security.html


Social Security is hardly going broke. It has an enormous surplus (approx. $2.5 trillion). The 2010 Social Security Trustees report projects that the surplus will be exhausted by 2037. After that, tax revenue will allow it to cover 75% of benefits. Michelle Bachmann is correct the costs will exceed tax income in 2010 (by about $41 billion). However, she conveniently omits the fact that interest income on the bonds held in the trust will be approximately $118 billion.

Source (the actual Trustees report): http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

It is only going "broke" if the US Government defaults on the bonds held in the trust.

[BJJ-Blue]

Social Security is hardly going broke.

So the CBO, Forbes, and the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees are all just wrong. :rolleyes:

From my link:

"The CBO now projects that Social Security’s costs will exceed tax income in 2010 (next year!) and 2011, with cash surpluses returning over the 2012-2015 period and becoming negative again beginning in 2016 and later.

Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under long term projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.

"If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance."


It is only going "broke" if the US Government defaults on the bonds held in the trust.

At the rate we are spending and printing money, that's actually a terrifying possibility.

I'm in my late 30s, and I don't expect to see a dime of the money they forcefully stole from me and told me I would get back. Do you honestly expect to see SS money yourself?

[David Jamieson]

the whole social security argument is moot. It is fabulously stable and is good for a couple of decades.

non issue. You'll get your ss check 1bad, no worries.
I think the reform that was aimed at it was to redistribute the surplus into failed or flagging ventures. I think there was a desire to steal that surplus and put it elsewhere and not turn in a deficit.

when the changes were defeated, again and again, there was some change elsewhere.

when there is money of that volume involved, I think there will be corruptions that rise out of it. It's not that big of a stretch, we are talking about more money than most countries and even block combinations of countries have.

just sitting there. lol

[BJJ-Blue]

the whole social security argument is moot.

So why did you bring it up?


non issue. You'll get your ss check 1bad, no worries.

I doubt it. And 60% of current American workers agree with me.

Source:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-poll-60-percent-current-workers-believe-they-ll-never-see-dime-social-

[David Jamieson]

So why did you bring it up?



I doubt it. And 60% of current American workers agree with me.

Source:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-poll-60-percent-current-workers-believe-they-ll-never-see-dime-social-

a) you brought it up.

b) with almost a 3 trillion dollar surplus. Yes SURPLUS, I don't think your social security cheque is threatened. But doubt if you want I guess. It's a free country...well sort of. lol

[Lucas]

im 31 ill be ****ed if all this money i've shelled out for ss doesnt come back to me when im old.

[Syn7]

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

while i agree that business will not hire if they have tax cuts... everyone with half a brain and a bit of sense knows that business hire to meet demand created by consumers, nothing more, nothing less... that being said, i think its beyond rediculous to think any business does not want tax cuts... on a personal level, everyone wants less taxes... politically we may understand we need to pay these taxes for the services we feel is our right and fully expect(even if thats not true)... but to suggest that any business wouldnt jump at the opportunity for a tax cut is rediculous...

[Syn7]

dude, you wouldn't believe what our little neo-con cluster hump is doing up here.

We have a totally out of touch and politically failed group of neo con loonies running around in Ottawa.

I for one can't wait for a election to get rid of these idiots.

i dislike harper too... but really, whos gonna beat him??? iggy? maybe, but prolly not... westerners dont vote for frogs... unless they have a stupid look on their face like jean had... who else? jack layton??? we both know that will NEVER happen... ever... he will never even be an official oposition leader... NEVER... who else... greens? with all their federal seats lol... have even sat in ottawa before??? maybe the bloch can ran canada... that would be real fun... so i guess your running with iggy even tho you seem like ur heart is with layton??? just a guess, based on what youve say about american politics...

steven harper is a bonafied genius with a mensa card and IQ to prove it... he's also ran the country for awhile now and managed to keep his head outta water when the collapse threatened everyone... yeah he's a conservative douchebag, he'll never represent me or mine... but really, who else??? iggy is what??? what has iggy done??? his PR sucks and most people have barely even heard him speak...

im not voting for harper, thats for sure... i may not vote at all, atleast not if i wanna vote based on who will represent me... i could say who will represent me the best, but the realities of that are, well, disapointing to say the least....


provincially, i'd like to see a minority ndp gov, surely the stink of glen clarke has worn off enough... federally, i really dont know... layton is a waste of time... iggy's a dumb frog and harpers the devil... what does that leave me with???

[David Jamieson]

i dislike harper too... but really, whos gonna beat him??? iggy? maybe, but prolly not... westerners dont vote for frogs... unless they have a stupid look on their face like jean had... who else? jack layton??? we both know that will NEVER happen... ever... he will never even be an official oposition leader... NEVER... who else... greens? with all their federal seats lol... have even sat in ottawa before??? maybe the bloch can ran canada... that would be real fun... so i guess your running with iggy even tho you seem like ur heart is with layton??? just a guess, based on what youve say about american politics...

steven harper is a bonafied genius with a mensa card and IQ to prove it... he's also ran the country for awhile now and managed to keep his head outta water when the collapse threatened everyone... yeah he's a conservative douchebag, he'll never represent me or mine... but really, who else??? iggy is what??? what has iggy done??? his PR sucks and most people have barely even heard him speak...

im not voting for harper, thats for sure... i may not vote at all, atleast not if i wanna vote based on who will represent me... i could say who will represent me the best, but the realities of that are, well, disapointing to say the least....


provincially, i'd like to see a minority ndp gov, surely the stink of glen clarke has worn off enough... federally, i really don't know... layton is a waste of time... iggy's a dumb frog and harper's the devil... what does that leave me with???

I'd be satisfied with a coalition at this point as opposed to giving power in a minority or majority to any one party. I want them to work for Canada and not against each other.

All my life it's been one party undoing the work of the other for their first 2 years in office. So much self interest being served and any benefit to the people is almost in the realm of accidental side effect.,

Harper's IQ has nothing to with his ability or lack of it to run a country.

For what it's worth, Hitler was a genius too. :(

[Syn7]

I'd be satisfied with a coalition at this point as opposed to giving power in a minority or majority to any one party. I want them to work for Canada and not against each other.

All my life it's been one party undoing the work of the other for their first 2 years in office. So much self interest being served and any benefit to the people is almost in the realm of accidental side effect.,

Harper's IQ has nothing to with his ability or lack of it to run a country.

For what it's worth, Hitler was a genius too. :(

welcome to party politics... right... :rolleyes:


yeah and hitler did some great things for his people, well, the ones e felt he represented anyways... he just a had a massive ideological difference that most of us find abominable... but in his own mind i have no doubt that he believed what he was doing was right... even if he was a douchebag...

so were you one of those guys running around with signs for the coalition awhile back??? the ndp liberal bloch express???? do ou really think that ever has a chance of working??? i dont...

if we are gonna play party politics, well, we have to play party politics... why not just scrap everything and start fresh, that to me is a much better idea... it'll never happen... but then neither will a coalition of the willing...

if you wanna fight for real change, fight to remove lobbyist from the hill, or anywhere else they lurk in the shadows... find somebody that will do what obama said he was gonna do at washington(and failed so miserably its pathetic, no backbone in the man)... aslong as these people can throw money around and get things to happen in their favour, that way, things are gonna get progresssively worse, untill we change or die...

personally, i think a monetary based system was the woorst mistake mankind has made... the worst, yes i realise what im saying, THE WORST... segregation of the classes , environmental damage, war torn countries... its all for profit... as long as that carrot is dangling, and encouraged, we're fukced... we need to make that carrot into eves apple, then move on from there, viciously punishing anyone who doesnt play ball... :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

welcome to party politics... right... :rolleyes:


yeah and hitler did some great things for his people, well, the ones e felt he represented anyways... he just a had a massive ideological difference that most of us find abominable... but in his own mind i have no doubt that he believed what he was doing was right... even if he was a douchebag...

so were you one of those guys running around with signs for the coalition awhile back??? the ndp liberal bloch express???? do ou really think that ever has a chance of working??? i dont...

if we are gonna play party politics, well, we have to play party politics... why not just scrap everything and start fresh, that to me is a much better idea... it'll never happen... but then neither will a coalition of the willing...

if you wanna fight for real change, fight to remove lobbyist from the hill, or anywhere else they lurk in the shadows... find somebody that will do what obama said he was gonna do at washington(and failed so miserably its pathetic, no backbone in the man)... aslong as these people can throw money around and get things to happen in their favour, that way, things are gonna get progresssively worse, untill we change or die...

personally, i think a monetary based system was the woorst mistake mankind has made... the worst, yes i realise what im saying, THE WORST... segregation of the classes , environmental damage, war torn countries... its all for profit... as long as that carrot is dangling, and encouraged, we're fukced... we need to make that carrot into eves apple, then move on from there, viciously punishing anyone who doesnt play ball... :rolleyes:

We can think and muse all we like, but what we as the people on the ground can do is write our MP's our MPP's and give them our concerns.

waving signs is retarded as is shouting or egging politicians.

It has to be dealt with using the system mechanisms that are available and those are all about developing a relationship with the elected official in your riding.

That's how I do it and I would suggest that if you want to affect change on even a small level then you should do same if you are concerned.

words mean nothing when not combined with action. Fwiw, there is no grope fest going on in Canuck airports and we are not into the whole maniacal security and fear that is currently seeming to infest the USA.

The US people's political culture is much more polarized than Canadians at this point in my opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't have that many issues with Harper, he's a conservative and does what conservatives do.
Granted that outside of the GST reduction I don't recall anything else he has done, but hey, at least he did that after promising to do that, which is far more than the Liberals did when they kept saying they would.
I would enjoy having a liberal worth voting for.

[David Jamieson]

I don't have that many issues with Harper, he's a conservative and does what conservatives do.
Granted that outside of the GST reduction I don't recall anything else he has done, but hey, at least he did that after promising to do that, which is far more than the Liberals did when they kept saying they would.
I would enjoy having a liberal worth voting for.

I don't regard Harper as a conservative. He's not. He's a reformist or a neo-con at best. He is not fiscally responsible and has a finance minister who just sold us a 50 biullion dollar deficit. That's hardly what I would deem "conservative".

Harper's strength is in policy implementation of law and order.

this is why he gives a billion dollars to police forces so that he can hold a meeting downtown in a major city that never votes for him and he did that in spite for spite and to spite that city in which he was born and in which he cannot get an elected seat in. He's a petty man in that sense.

His reduction of the GST has been offset by his push to re-implement the more costly hst in provinces that are willing to jump that train. Ontario (the most populated) and BC (the most populated western province.

His record on the afghan war is fairly dismal and he doesn't seem to have vision or direction there and is content to let NATO and generals run the show and just report to him as opposed to understanding that Canadians do not like participating in such vague and seemingly meaningless military adventures halfway round the world with little justification remaining to actually even be there anymore.

he has a minority gov in parliament and the only reason for that is that he is the devil we know. That's what it comes down to. People don't trust Iggy because despite his intelligence and ability, he is regarded as an outsider and in reality, he really is. He was the worst idea the liberals could have forwarded yet! Had he actually been elected party leader, instead of appointed, that would have way more clout with voters and particularly Liberals themselves.

Then there is the BLOC which exists only in Quebec and was created by ex liberal party members actually (who are now once again liberals) in an effort to maintain Canada as a federation by giving Quebec special recognition and powers over it's own governance so they would stop trying to separate all the time. That's why the BLOC is there.

Then we have the NDP, hey 1bad, you wanna see real socialists in a western liberal democracy, these are your guys, specifically Jack Layton. When we have Layton up here and we are familiar with him, we all collectively think that people who call Obama a socialist are dumb or something or don't know wtf they are talking about because Obama ain't no socialist by any measure if you want to compare what a socialist agenda looks like under the NDP vs Obama's white house admin and their policies.

Obama is practically a fascist capitalist by comparison. seriously, stop making yourselves look silly on this point.

anyway...</rant> :p

social and political activism is needed for a healthy society in my opinion and we don't have enough of it. We have too much complacency and fat assedness going on. That's the real problem. We just let them.

[Reality_Check]

So the CBO, Forbes, and the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees are all just wrong. :rolleyes:

From my link:

"The CBO now projects that Social Security’s costs will exceed tax income in 2010 (next year!) and 2011, with cash surpluses returning over the 2012-2015 period and becoming negative again beginning in 2016 and later.

I addressed that in my post, in which I linked to the most recent SSA Trustees report.


Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under long term projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.

"If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance."

You'll note my post only addressed Social Security. Meanwhile your post lumps Social Security in with Medicare and Medicaid. The later two problems do have large financial issues. Social Security has amassed a huge surplus in anticipation of the Baby Boomers' retirement...which was the general idea when Ronald Reagan jacked up the payroll tax. Here's an idea; look through the report to which I linked and find either the word "broke" or "insolvent." Better yet, read through it instead of having other peopld tell you what it says.

[Syn7]

We can think and muse all we like, but what we as the people on the ground can do is write our MP's our MPP's and give them our concerns.

waving signs is retarded as is shouting or egging politicians.

It has to be dealt with using the system mechanisms that are available and those are all about developing a relationship with the elected official in your riding.

That's how I do it and I would suggest that if you want to affect change on even a small level then you should do same if you are concerned.

words mean nothing when not combined with action. Fwiw, there is no grope fest going on in Canuck airports and we are not into the whole maniacal security and fear that is currently seeming to infest the USA.

The US people's political culture is much more polarized than Canadians at this point in my opinion.

mos def, the US is more polarized... no doubt about that... i wouldnt call it an opinion, its pretty obvious, seem more like a fact to me...

what makes you think i dont know my reps and get involved personally???

i think a big diff between me and you is that i dont believe in our system, i dont believe it does work, and i dont believe it will ever work... i have no faith in candian politics whatsoever... but that does not in any way mean that i dont get involved... its what we have, im stuck with it as are you, so we work with what we have... doesnt mean i have to like it tho...

[Syn7]

His reduction of the GST has been offset by his push to re-implement the more costly hst in provinces that are willing to jump that train. Ontario (the most populated) and BC (the most populated western province.


hst is done in BC... you just wait and see... vanderzalm has already started the process of recalling liberals... politics in BC is deep right now...

cambell anounced a 15% tax cut while he had an approval rating of less than 15% then when it was clear he was done for, he stepped down and took back his promiss for the tax break... why is he so unpopular? because during the race he said he wouldnt bring hst to bc then two months after election he announced that they were gonna bring in the hst...

so BC went nutts... very angry... petitions were signed like crazy, recalls have started, a referendum has been called(for next year if you please:rolleyes:) and the people will recall the hst...

personally, i didnt want hst, but we spent so much money making it happen, we took a federal grant which we have to give back if we reverse this... so we are out twice on the cost of hst implementation(and de-implementation if thats a word) and then the cost to put pst and gst back... seems like a waste to me... the damage is done maybe we should just keep the **** thing... im still thinking bout that one...

but make no mistake, hst killed the libs in BC...

[Syn7]

Then there is the BLOC which exists only in Quebec and was created by ex liberal party members actually (who are now once again liberals) in an effort to maintain Canada as a federation by giving Quebec special recognition and powers over it's own governance so they would stop trying to separate all the time. That's why the BLOC is there.


they should seperate... if they feel they are that special and deserve so much distinction... fine, be a frog, not a canadian... i love that idea... better yet... im a western seperatist to the core... drop everything east of sask... lance the festering boil of the east and end the leaching.... my life would be alot better if we did... same with everyone else this side of the country... taking on sask would be like charity... but they grow stuff and would be useful... yall can keep the name canada, its been spoiled anyways...