Thomas Mulcair and the NDP have a love for things all blacked out, making them a total roadblock to democracy. Imagine if Kevin Page, like the NDP, was simply willing to accept the things that the Harper government said based on merely being “ confident that government estimates of future tax leakage are solid”, as the letter from NDP MP Denise Savoie in a letter to a concerned constituent reads below?
In my conversation with Mulcair today he demonstrated that he knows nothing about finance, but professed to know a great deal about the law. If so perhaps he could describe for us the legal concept of “False reliance", and whether this excuse for representing the concerns of a constituent is anything other than a case of false reliance. False reliance by the constituent on the NDP MP Denise Savoie and false reliance by Denise Savoie on Judy W-L, and false reliance by Judy W-L on Jim Flaherty:
The NDP are an exercise in False reliance from one end of the chain to the other. This constituent may as well as have been talking to Flaherty about tax leakage. The NDP’s value added is zero. They contribute nothing to the process, except the false expectation on the part of this constituent that they actually did something apart from taking Flaherty’s word, which means their value added is actually negative because the constituent will have imbued the NDP’s answer with assumed value added that just isn’t there.
What a farce of a process. What a farce of a party. Imagine if Kevin Page, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer were just a poodle for the Harper Cons the way the NDP have proven themselves to be? He'd be completely useless and redundant, just like Thomas Mulcair has decided to do for himself and his nonsense party, the easily fooled NDP.
NDP MP Denise Savoie in a letter to a concerned constituent:
“I have asked Judy Wasylycia-Leis to investigate a number of concerns. I am confident in supporting her position on this matter: “I am confident that government estimates of future tax leakage are solid”"
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mulcair would NEVER cut it as a Kevin Page
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Brent:
It is really futile with the NDP would you not agree? That is the only thing that you can say about their position and that is it has been consistent! Does no help though!
Will E.
Since Thomas Mulcair & the rest of the NDP caucus must have seen Flaherty`s proof of lost gov`t tax revenues because of income trusts , then maybe they can share it with the rest of us.
Oooops , forgot , these documents have been declared a national security risk & therefore nobody but the cabinet has seen them.
Oooops again , so how did the NDP know that tax loss actually did exist??
Ooops again , so why did they vote for this tax change if they did not know for sure??
Two thumbs down for the NDP as they seem to have operated in the dark & the patient died.
Dr Mike Popovich
Will E.
Consistent indeed. Consistently wrong. This guy was unable to defend any of his “arguments.” I concluded that he and his party are a TOTAL WRITE-OFF on this issue.
The logic he applied to his position (which he is fully entitled to have) was an insult to democratic due process (which he has no right to employ). His logic was so flawed and insulting to reasoning itself that I have written this party off for good, after holding out hope, against all reason.
One down, two to go.
Brent
All we need is for the Cons to make the Marshall Plan work & then we need the Liberals to look after the trust investor as they said they would by voting for it , & then we can say pffffttttttt to the NDP.
Dr Mike
Looks like it's time to rename the NDP as the False Reliance Party (FRP).
The NDP is no longer what it once was - one big ego Leader & the other big ego is Mulcair. Twerps.
Penian:
Excellent suggestion and just in time, as the NDP were talking about renaming themselves, by dropping the "new" from the NDP and simply become the Democratic Party.
What with the revelations derived from my phone call with Mulcair it would be more appropriate if they were simply to drop "democratic" from their name and become the New Party.
New Party would be a better exercise in false advertising than Democratic Party, and would serve to denote that the same old, same old rules the day at Canada's version of communism alive and well at the NDP where BS baffles brains and dogma triumphs over common sense and hard facts on the ground.
PS I neglected to mention in my account of the conversation that I had with Mulcair, the NDP Finance Critic, that he had NO KNOWLEDGE about the near meltdown of Manulife Financial and therefore NO KNOWLEDGE of what caused it, namely Manulife not hedging the very products that it was selling that only were remotely competitive in a market place and government induced regime where income trusts were killed.
And this guy is the NDP's Finance Critic and responsible for tax policy views on behalf of the NDP? Gawd, I almost thought I was talking to Judy Wasylycia-Lies?
What do you want to bet that he could tell you all about the meltdown of AIG and yet has ZERO awareness of Manulife's near meltdown here in Canada and what caused it?
Flaherty is an ambulance chasing lawyer. whereas Mulcair is a headline chasing lawyer. Two peas in a pod.
I don't agree however with one of your points, as "twerps" is far too kind of a term to describe these [insert more appropriate word here from this drop down menu.]
:-)
Brent Fullard
How sadly incompetent. What are we paying these guys for?
Railhound
It seems like lawyers never got the lesson so here you go Tom.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2083458_use-calculator.html
I give private tutoring lessons too!
Railhound
Post a Comment