- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat

- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/18/kelly-mcparland-ignatieff-is-blowing-smoke-on-tax-threat.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage

Hi Kelly

Michael Ignatieff’s statements are a question of context. I like your links to the articles you are referring but making links to one’s references regarding another’s statements doesn’t excuse one from accusing that person of saying a lemon’s and orange when he refers to both as fruit or even citrius fruit.

There is a huge difference between “broad based tax cuts” which reduce tax and infinitum as opposed to one to tax relieve explicitly designed to boost spending during economic hard times. One need only compare the Harper and Conservative reduction of the GST by 2% with England’s policy to reduce VAT (same as our GST) for one year to boost spending. These are very different types of tax reductions. The latter is obviously designed, by putting a one year limit on the reduction, precisely so that it doesn’t hobble future goverments and future generations. It should be pointed out that Harper and the Conservatives were very quick to equate their structural reduction in GST with the Englsih temporary reduction by completing ignoring this very important difference.

When Micheal Ignatieff says, "I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast",

You can hardly say that he is referring to the same thing as general “broad based tax cuts” that Harper and the Conservatives are referring to, that have no time limit, will diminish the Federal Government’s capacity, build in a structural deficit, lead to on going structural Federal deficits of the kind we saw with Mulroney and the PC in the early ‘90’s and force the next Liberal government to implement serious program spending cuts of the kind that Jean Chrétien was required to do and even general tax increases to have any hope of saving our children and preserving our nation. Harper's aim here appears to be implementing his right wing agenda, as opposed to truly helping Canadians through a very difficult time and this proposal is not much better than his economic update of November. It is no surprise that the Liberals are reacting this way. Not only is it not contradictory but it is very consistent.

I think all media reporters in Canada should take head of James Travers’ article in the Toronto Star of 10 Jan.’09 vis: “…in October, with the country facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, the smallest number of voters in memory went to the polls without knowing very much about the situation or how the next prime minister would respond. …”

In these times of economic severity it is vital that all reporters and newspapers make their best efforts to clarify the message of all politicians and political parties so as ensure that the general public is properly informed and not simply inundated with stories bias to promote one Party over another.

- Layton, Show Your Sincerity and Tear up the Coalition Agreement and Pledge to Support to Liberals

Reply to: G&M: NDP 'unlikely' to support budget, favours coalition
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wxopposition14/CommentStory/politics/home



When Jack Layton says that Harper and the Con’s can’t be trusted I believe he is quite sincere, and right of course.

………………………………………………

But if his motives were truly to rid Canada of this scourge, as opposed to simply grabbing power, then perhaps he could come out and say that for the sake of this great nation of ours he is willing to tear up the agreement, and his 6 cabinet posts, but pledge to the Liberals his and the NDP’s support if they were to form government, similar to what the Block has done.
………………………………………………

Michael Ignatieff is right in his position that the Block MP’s are not traitors to Canada but duly elected representatives of a very large and significant segment of Canadians who are being deliberately alienated and marginalized to the extend of being disenfranchised for the sake of the self-serving political expediency of Harper and the Con’s. This scare mongering is being achieved by the greatest propaganda machine Democratic countries have seen in recent history. This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .

………………………………………………

Lloyd MacIlquham

- Media Social Responsibility to ‘Keep the Government Honest’

Comment on
'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws
Jan 10, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers

I think there is not doubt that the position taken by Harper and the Conservative Party regarding the economy during the last election, and since, has been unconscionable, both in hiding and obscuring the realities and in their exploiting their position of power and the economic crises for self-serving political advantage and to the exclusion of any significant help for Canadians.


It may very well be that had the media, during the election, set aside political partisanship and focusing on informing the public in an objective fashion that the Canadian people could have made a more “informed” decision. For example, one may ask what purpose did it serve for the Globe and Mail to come out near the end of the campaign to support Harper and the Conservatives.


This role of the media is vital especially when one considers that Harper and the Conservatives have set up one of the biggest propaganda machines that any Democratic country has experienced in recent times.


It does not suffice for the media to say that they are private concerns and so may do as they please. The media plays a very special role in any modern Democracy in “keeping the government honest”. In return, they hold a very special and exceptional position both in law and socially. One need only read the media replies to criticisms and restrictions on freedom to information to hear this argument and from the mouths of the media, when it suites them, of course. Biased reporting for partisan purposes is in reality a violation of this “social trust”.


What is the likelihood of the media changing? You tell me.


Lloyd MacIlquham