en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/702439 Comments by Andrew_not_PorC http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/07/why-good-just-wont-cut-it/#IDComment140992501 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? Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:07:18 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/07/why-good-just-wont-cut-it/#IDComment140992501 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007804 CPC also promised an eco-energy retrofit program that requires an audit. As Dennis would say, next! Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:20:25 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007804 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007638 But not refundable tax credits. Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:19:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007638 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007470 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! Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:18:45 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140007470 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140006930 woot! Divorce tax! Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:16:13 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/04/the-trouble-with-tax-credits/#IDComment140006930 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/03/that-seventies-platform/#IDComment139806327 You might want to ask Harper about that cap and trade scheme, because it's the system he supports and has committed himself to. Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:36:33 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/03/that-seventies-platform/#IDComment139806327 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/another-concept-stephen-harper-used-to-believe-in/#IDComment139408573 I didn't know Wherry was charged with defeating the government. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:22:08 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/another-concept-stephen-harper-used-to-believe-in/#IDComment139408573 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/options-that-dont-appear-on-the-ballot#IDComment139396978 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. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:11:31 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/options-that-dont-appear-on-the-ballot#IDComment139396978 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/options-that-dont-appear-on-the-ballot#IDComment139392614 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. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:42:40 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/options-that-dont-appear-on-the-ballot#IDComment139392614 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/the-mercer-challenge#IDComment139391044 Independent? Suuuuuure... Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:33:15 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/the-mercer-challenge#IDComment139391044 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/the-mercer-challenge#IDComment139390802 Well, Harper is the one who is refusing the debate, so... Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:31:43 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/02/the-mercer-challenge#IDComment139390802 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/01/if-i-were-running-the-harper-war-room/#IDComment139388453 When you change the rules of our electoral/political system, you should do it with more than a plurality of support. These kinds of changes should be done by more of a consensus. Harper is stacking the deck in his favour, especially when the more egregious uses of public money are the campaign expense rebates and tax credits for donors. I'm annoyed that my tax dollars are subsidizing donation to the CPC, and it needs to stop (wink wink). This change is pretty strictly designed to entrench the governing party. In most countries that's not viewed as a positive step, or particularly democratic. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:17:16 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/01/if-i-were-running-the-harper-war-room/#IDComment139388453 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/01/if-i-were-running-the-harper-war-room/#IDComment139387593 There was consultation with the other parties at the time. The change also helped the other parties at the expense of the Liberals, so I think it was more of a sincere desire to change the political finance system for the better. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:11:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/01/if-i-were-running-the-harper-war-room/#IDComment139387593 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53580955 As I said, I was all in favour of surpluses. I want the boomers to pay, no their kids. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:18:58 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53580955 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/20/too-ugly-to-ignore/#IDComment53521287 A better question is why would anyone suggest the mass slaughter of millions of people. If it's a joke, I'm not laughing. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:28:20 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/20/too-ugly-to-ignore/#IDComment53521287 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53511104 None of those countries are ones I would want to emulate in terms of fiscal policy. I agree that our debt:GDP ratio shouldn't be driven to zero, necessarily, but the thing is that Canada is and was in a place demographically and economically that large surpluses make sense. We are on the cusp of the retirement of the boomers, which meant taxes were peaking, and spending was just about to ramp up. In the interests of not overburdening my generation with paying for the bloodsucking narcissists we affectionately call the boomers, I think it's fair to have them somewhat prepare the federal balance sheet in anticipation of their ransacking of government finances in the 2010s, 2020s and 2030s. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:27:51 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53511104 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/brought-to-you-by-the-federal-government/#IDComment53509019 Credit where it's due: Flanagan, while part of the cult of political games and tactics in Ottawa, seems to have been making a concerted effort lately of distancing himself from all that. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:03:32 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/brought-to-you-by-the-federal-government/#IDComment53509019 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/brought-to-you-by-the-federal-government/#IDComment53508760 If you don't what to contribute to a political party in this fashion, surely you're not interested in voting for them anyway. Why would you not just vote for an independent? Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:00:59 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/brought-to-you-by-the-federal-government/#IDComment53508760 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53507261 Um, not quite. Assume a very conservative growth rate of 3% from 08/09 levels, plus $6 billion in new interest charges from the deficit spending over that time period, and bingo: $121.7 billion in 13/14. Add to that that that 3% growth over 5 years from 08/09 is probably not realistic, and... Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:47:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53507261 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53498209 Easy one. Back in 07/08, we had much higher than average tax revenues due to the peaking economic cycle. This is exactly when we should be running large surpluses. Just like how much of the deficit now is a cyclical deficit due to the recession, much of that surplus was a cyclical surplus, due to strong corporate profits and consumer spending. And to have a balanced structural budget, you need those cyclical surpluses in order to compensate for the cyclical deficits we are now facing. Don't forget that we're going to lard on $165 billion in new debt in the next few years. I think it would have been a good thing we ran that extra $15 billion surplus back in 07/08. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:26:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment53498209