Can Jack get the Cons to agree to eliminate Senior poverty (and more) or do we go to the polls?

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
duncan cameron

Which blog post by Murray are you referring to LTU ?

http://rabble.ca/blog/1775

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I read Jack's statement released Friday and there's no mention whatsoever of scrapping further corporate tax cuts:

Statement by Jack Layton after Meeting with the Prime Minister

 

Fri 18 Feb 2011

 

excerpt:

 

I put forward to the Prime Minister a set of reasonable, affordable proposals - all focused on taking the pressure off the Canadian family budget. These were the same practical solutions that I've been sharing with Canadians over the last few months.

  • Taking the federal sales tax off skyrocketing home heating bills and restoring the EcoEnergy Retrofit program.
  • Helping our most vulnerable seniors with an affordable increase to their Guaranteed Income Supplement.
  • Ensuring that Canadians can count on their pension when they need it - by strengthening the Canada Pension Plan.
  • And taking immediate action to ensure that 5 million Canadians no longer have to go without a family doctor.

These are all concrete, reasonable solutions that I'm confident all party leaders can support. It's time to roll up our sleeves and get them done.

Looks like the G&M had it right the first time.

Life, the unive...

So factless stories are bad when the MSM does them, but okay if done by rabble.  At least we have the rules clear.  The fact is Dobbin's piece was based on misinformation he seemed to have taken no time to confirm.  Anyway you cut it that is bad journalism.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Jack's own press release Friday makes no mention of scrapping further corporate tax breaks.

Unionist

duncan cameron wrote:

Which blog post by Murray are you referring to LTU ?

http://rabble.ca/blog/1775

He means [url=http://murraydobbin.ca/2011/02/19/layton-caves-on-corporate-tax-cuts/]this one[/url], duncan - LTU was just mistaken in thinking it was published by rabble.

 

Life, the unive...

duncan cameron wrote:

Which blog post by Murray are you referring to LTU ?

http://rabble.ca/blog/1775

The one linked to above.  It is isn't on rabbe I apoligize and withdraw my rabbe concern.  If Dobbin just posted it on his own blog, it is still bad journalism, but rabble isn't involved and that is a relief, especially as I donate monthly to keep this place going.

Unionist

Is it not perfectly f***-ing obvious to everyone in the entire world that Jack's conditions for supporting Harper's budget do not include scrapping the corporate tax cuts? Why are we even discussing this??

What troubles me is not that part (because it's bizarre to think that Harper would cancel corporate tax cuts to please Layton and save his budget). Rather, it's the utter lack of specificity of what Jack needs for a deal. If not the CLC plan for the CPP/QPP, then what? How much of an increase to GIS? What is this family doctor thing about?? Why should there be secret negotiations on issues of this importance?

Life, the unive...

Boom Boom wrote:

Jack's own press release Friday makes no mention of scrapping further corporate tax breaks.

No it talks about what the NDP is focused on as spending priorities.  Totally different thing. 

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

Is it not perfectly f***-ing obvious to everyone in the entire world that Jack's conditions for supporting Harper's budget do not include scrapping the corporate tax cuts? Why are we even discussing this??

What troubles me is not that part (because it's bizarre to think that Harper would cancel corporate tax cuts to please Layton and save his budget). Rather, it's the utter lack of specificity of what Jack needs for a deal. If not the CLC plan for the CPP/QPP, then what? How much of an increase to GIS? What is this family doctor thing about?? Why should there be secret negotiations on issues of this importance?

please see Angus' comments in post 79

Fidel

Conditional concessions are how it's supposed to work in modern democracies. Give and take is like marriage or partnership. What we don't need are old line party dictates with nothing in return, like Liberal Party yes-men have achieved since 2006. Jack is simply trying to introduce Canadians to the idea that one party in government does not have to have it all their way - and that it is possible for an effective opposition party to win concessions from a minority governnment which 78% of voting age Canadians did not vote for.

 And it's the old line parties jobs to maintain the facade of dictatorial government even when they don't have their phony majority. Canaidans must be made to feel frustrated by any NDP attempts to win any concessions from our Bay Street government in Ottawa. What's leftover is Canadians' will to elect a phony majority government next election whenever it is. And I don't believe that public will exists. Cold war era economic planning is broken, and the neoliberal ideology is undemocratic as we know from dozens of examples around the world. Neoliberal Balkanization of Canada continues, and at some point a critical mass of opposition will pose a threat to the stoogeaucracy. And they know it.

ottawaobserver

I bet it wasn't made up, but the person might have been a bit out of the loop, and/or it was in the paper's interest to juice up the meaning of what they got, and boosted the person's credentials a bit to help sell the story. It's a competitive environment out there.

The Liberals are very very good at framing a spin. They've built up the corporate tax cuts issue, and the press gallery tends to follow them around like puppies, especially when it's a compelling narrative. (So do our people, it seems).

But, many of our people most excised about this now, are the EXACT SAME GULLIBLE PEOPLE who got sucked in by Liberal promises to abrogate the Free Trade Deal in 1993, and roll back the GST. For the love of mike, you'd think they would have learned their lesson by now.

For once and for all: the NDP opposed those corporate tax cuts, they've said so all along, they've actually put their votes where their mouths were on the issue (unlike the Liberals), they succeeded in getting a Liberal government to roll them back before, and had every expectation of being able to do so again to pay for the coalition's programme.

There will be no further corporate tax cuts included in this budget. Layton introduced an amendment to the last budget to reverse the extension of them but the Liberals voted against his amendment in favour of the tax cuts. Now they want the government to reverse them, and are criticizing the NDP for not demanding (again) that they be reversed?

The Liberals are too afraid to take on the Conservatives directly, and are trying one last gasp at their "vote for us or the deluge" strategy to win over NDP votes. Brian Topp calls it the "vote for us to stop the platform we support" strategy. It's totally weak.

Why then are our people so quick to fall prey to it? Grow a spine, people!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Jack's own press release Friday makes no mention of scrapping further corporate tax breaks.

No it talks about what the NDP is focused on as spending priorities.  Totally different thing. 

Wouldn't you agree that scrapping further corporate tax cuts is a major priority?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

I bet it wasn't made up, but the person might have been a bit out of the loop, and/or it was in the paper's interest to juice up the meaning of what they got, and boosted the person's credentials a bit to help sell the story. It's a competitive environment out there.

Jack's own press release Friday made no mention whatsoever of scrapping further corporate tax cuts.

duncan cameron

My unpulished letter to the Globe/Post would go something like this:

The Libs draw a line in the sand refusing corporate tax cuts as a condition for supporting the budget. The planned reduction in corporate income tax rate is small this year. Jack Layton is calling for CPP improvements which means increases in business taxes. So Layton want to increase business taxes, the Libs want them to stay the same. 

Because Layton does not make the Liberal policy part of his four points, the mischief makers at the Globe, and the Post, accuse him of being soft on corporate taxes, of selling out. Why should Layton adopt the Liberal position?

Journalist know very well the business tax fairness agenda is about capital taxes being restored, tax loopholes like the R&D credit being transformed or eliminated so that corporations pay the posted income tax rate, and going after tax haven money -- the big one -- where tax cheats hide billions. Corporate income tax rates are much less important than how much tax they pay overall. Layton wants business to pay its fair share, the Liberals are happy with the status quo. 

If Layton had made increasing the corporate income tax rate part of his four points would he have been any better treated by the Globe/Post? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It looks like the editorial policy of the Globe/Post on the NDP has moved to the newsroom. I find this a sad day for those of us who rely on reporters for the truth.

Life, the unive...

Boom Boom wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Jack's own press release Friday makes no mention of scrapping further corporate tax breaks.

No it talks about what the NDP is focused on as spending priorities.  Totally different thing. 

Wouldn't you agree that scrapping further corporate tax cuts is a major priority?

No- becuase you are using the word major to describe something from a press release that was about spending priorities which is something totally different.  That is not what rolling back the already passed corporate tax cuts would be. 

If you mean outside of the press release is it a major priority than yes, and it is clear the NDP beleives so too as it has consitently opposed the Liberal-Conservative rounds of corporate tax cuts.  It would also be the only way to pay for many NDP priorities in a politically realistic way.

So again, what is your point- that a press release didn't contain the entire magna carta

Life, the unive...

Well said Duncan and I hope you saw my post apologizing for my confusion.  I'll send an extra rabble donation from my tax refund in contrition.Foot in mouth

Fidel

The Liberals pledged to support those corporate tax cuts for a lot longer than the NDP has attempted to win these most recent concessions from the Harpers. That's what the record says. They won't be planting the idea in my mind soon that the LPC doesn't like corporate tax cuts for bankers and profitable corporations shovelling money out of the country.

duncan cameron

His blog does appear here, and he may well post it to the site LTU, but can we have the money anyway?

Papal Bull

End poverty among senior citizens.

 

MAKE THEM SENATORS.

 

BOOM. NEXT PROBLEM, PLZ.

Unionist

duncan cameron wrote:

His blog does appear here, and he may well post it to the site LTU, but can we have the money anyway?

Only if you find me a family doctor.

 

Fidel

Papal Bull wrote:

End poverty among senior citizens.

 

MAKE THEM SENATORS.

 

BOOM. NEXT PROBLEM, PLZ.

Laughing

 

Pages

Topic locked