My new favourite columnist. Remember this guy? The one who said that we need to take back the corporate tax cuts because corporations weren't spending the money like Mr. Stanford wanted them to. Let's see what. What were the results of the tax cuts? Oh yeah, I remember, the Province of Ontario is spending money like crazy because they are having a hard time showing a deficit (don't you just love how ridiculous that statement is). Why are they flush with cash? Increased tax revenues from corporations. Just like the Mike Harris days, a decrease in the tax rate increased tax revenues (funny how that works eh?).
Anyhoo. Now Mr. Stanford is speaking for women.
That's where Canadian women must step up to the podium, with their passion and activism. They can press Mr. Harper hard, but also the opposition parties, by quickly mobilizing a grassroots campaign to save the child-care program. The Conservatives must be challenged to continue the funding. The opposition parties, for their part, must be pushed to be ready to defeat the Harper government, if it refuses.
Or more correctly, Mr. Stanford thinks that women think as a single entity on the issue. Right?
Comments (6)
Jim Stanford is you in the evil mirror universe. ;)
Posted by Greg | March 13, 2006 2:42 PM
Posted on March 13, 2006 14:42
The one who said that we need to take back the corporate tax cuts because corporations weren’t spending the money like Mr. Stanford wanted them to.
I don’t remember that Jim Stanford at all. I do remember the Jim Stanford who said that corporate tax cuts were sold as necessary to enable corporations to reinvest in Canada but since these corporations aren’t doing that the tax cuts should be repealed so the government can do what the corporations were supposed to do.
Next strawman.
Oh, and that Choice for Childcare ditz is a bad example to point to. I’m convinced she’s wants nothing more than the government to pay her so she can be a welfare mom.
Posted by Robert McClelland | March 13, 2006 4:34 PM
Posted on March 13, 2006 16:34
My point Robert was that the government has more money than before by not listening to the Stanford types.
Posted by Greg Staples | March 13, 2006 4:40 PM
Posted on March 13, 2006 16:40
You aren’t seriously peddling that grow the pie nonsense are you? Fact: Revenues from corporate income taxes declined after the tax cuts were initiated and didn’t recover to pre tax cut levels until 4 years later. That is not growing the pie.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2005/frt05_1e.html#Table3 Federal Corporate Income Tax 2000/01: $28 billion 2001/02: $24 billion 2002/03: $22 billion 2003/04: $27 billion 2004/05: $29 billion
Posted by Robert McClelland | March 13, 2006 7:50 PM
Posted on March 13, 2006 19:50
Excellent. Tax cuts = less government revenues = less bureaucracy = less regulation = less welfare = more employment = more money in working people’s pockets = less crime = less drug addiction. Win-win. Er, except for government bureaucrats, welfare bums and drug addicts. But if they straighten out they can get jobs too.
Posted by Justzumgai | March 13, 2006 10:23 PM
Posted on March 13, 2006 22:23
And what do you anticipate will happen for the next 4 years - stagnation?
Posted by lrC | March 14, 2006 2:06 PM
Posted on March 14, 2006 14:06