IntenseDebate - Andrew_not

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Why good just won't cu... · 1 reply · -3 points

That is the alternative narrative, but that doesn't make it valid. If Iggy had agreed to shut out the other parties, the Tories would have been the first group to pounce on them for being undemocratic and exclusionary.

The unbiased perspective is that Harper (probably mistakenly) offered a one-on-one debate, and backed down. To avoid being seen to have backed down, he suggested an untenable solution: the one-on-one debate would have to replace the traditional all-party debate. There's no rule against having a supplementary one-on-one debate, after all.

Why carry water for your team when they're being ridiculous?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The trouble with tax c... · 0 replies · +5 points

CPC also promised an eco-energy retrofit program that requires an audit. As Dennis would say, next!

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The trouble with tax c... · 1 reply · +1 points

But not refundable tax credits.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The trouble with tax c... · 0 replies · +8 points

It's a stupid gimmick that will only benefit the well-to-do, who tend to be healthier anyway. What public policy goal does this achieve other than buying votes? Argh!

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The trouble with tax c... · 0 replies · +5 points

woot! Divorce tax!

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - That seventies platform · 0 replies · +10 points

You might want to ask Harper about that cap and trade scheme, because it's the system he supports and has committed himself to.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Another concept Stephe... · 2 replies · +19 points

I didn't know Wherry was charged with defeating the government.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Options that don't app... · 3 replies · +10 points

Dennis, don't get me wrong, I'm happy that corporate taxes were reduced. Unlike some others, I don't think it's credible to believe that 1.5 ppt of difference in rate will be the dividing line between utopia and armageddon. Corporate tax cuts ought to attract investment, but it's not quite true to claim it will create x jobs. It's almost irrelevant. We need more productive workers, not necessarily 70 years olds working at WalMart.

As far as funding their spending initiatives, we all know how this government funded their program: they borrowed 150 billion dollars. I'm not too happy with our borrow and spend 'conservative' government in this regard. I have a hard time believing you're happy with them. Some conservative you must be.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Options that don't app... · 5 replies · +6 points

Harper's job isn't chief headhunter. It's absolutely bizarre that professed free-market types nonetheless believe that the PM is pulling the strings on all the job-creation in the country. It's absurd. Largely, the economy does what it does regardless of who's warming the chair in the PMO, unless they implement particularly deleterious policies.

Job creation as a public policy goal is a bit suspect anyway. I'd rather the government set out policies to make the country wealthier. Job creation as a rubric sees it as a failure when people retire early, for instance.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Mercer challenge · 0 replies · +9 points

Independent? Suuuuuure...

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Andrew_not_PorC

People I'm following

Andrew_not_PorC