Sent in reply to the ongoing questioning based on the "National Security" nonsense being used to justify more government involvement in communications by RIM.
This was read on-air today: even the political part : -)
........
Why would anyone want government intervention into one of the areas of technology that was held back for so many years by counter-productive government mandates?
Leaving the Nortel/RIM politicking alone is one of the very few things the Harper Conservatives have done right in 4 years, let's not encourage them to 'help'.
Nortel Employee - 1980-1984
July 24, 2009
July 22, 2009
Another Free Market Organization Goes to the Dark Side
This is a letter I sent to Kenin Guadet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Supposedly the Taxpayers federation is trying to help us fight waste in government, but the reality seems to be they are a front for hiding the waste of the Conservative Party.
As with the NCC earlier they have exposed themselves as just another Conservative Party Apoligist organization. The will ignore the number one problem we have in Canada today, and that is the Federal Conservative Party and Harper, simply for partisan support of the Conservative Party.
.....
Dear Mr. Guadet:
From your article this morning in the National Post it is clear that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is now a Conservative Party apologist, as opposed to free market support group helping to find waste and protecting taxpayers. Most appalling was the comment "Harper has a strong history as a fiscal conservative".
Before he was even elected as Prime Minister, running against Martin, he promised $92 billion in new spending to buy the election. This was double the promises of his competition, Martin who was a noted spender himself, and the promises were I am told a record as the highest ever election spending promises made in Canada. Since then he has has increased spending far beyond the capacity of the economy to pay for his waste, destroying the surplus built up by Jean Chrétien. We are headed to the largest deficit in Canadian history: strictly on waste. At every opportunity he has attacked the free market with his now trademark "unfettered capitalism" comments. He made the largest ever peacetime intervention in the economy with his bailout of the fat cats at the United Autoworkers pension fund. He is trashing the most effective tax in the country, the GST, for populist reasons.
Judged on his actions he has a zero record as a fiscal conservative. He is perhaps the worst fiscal manager this country has ever seen (and I lived through Trudeau and I am including him). Given his background at that other orgy of spending excess in Alberta (Alberta with the second worst program spending in the nation, despite low unemployment, last time I checked) I understand the term fiscal Conservative means something different than the lower case version, but the average person reading would think fiscal conservative means being careful with other people's money. Can you not see that your double standard with Harper will not change the fact that his policies have lead us back to the road of economic ruin? That by confusing people who do not have the time to investigate properly you may contribute to them not understand that he is the number one enemy of people who want accountable government in Canada. You are actively contributing to making the tax situation worse, and I can only assume this is for partisan political purposes.
No-one but a partisan Conservative would make such a mistake, to confuse his talk with the reality of his actions. The facts are just too clear. If you cannot see who the enemy is then how are you going to help fix the problem? Your letter has zero credibility due to this partisan nature, and it reflects very badly on your organization.
As with the NCC earlier they have exposed themselves as just another Conservative Party Apoligist organization. The will ignore the number one problem we have in Canada today, and that is the Federal Conservative Party and Harper, simply for partisan support of the Conservative Party.
.....
Dear Mr. Guadet:
From your article this morning in the National Post it is clear that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is now a Conservative Party apologist, as opposed to free market support group helping to find waste and protecting taxpayers. Most appalling was the comment "Harper has a strong history as a fiscal conservative".
Before he was even elected as Prime Minister, running against Martin, he promised $92 billion in new spending to buy the election. This was double the promises of his competition, Martin who was a noted spender himself, and the promises were I am told a record as the highest ever election spending promises made in Canada. Since then he has has increased spending far beyond the capacity of the economy to pay for his waste, destroying the surplus built up by Jean Chrétien. We are headed to the largest deficit in Canadian history: strictly on waste. At every opportunity he has attacked the free market with his now trademark "unfettered capitalism" comments. He made the largest ever peacetime intervention in the economy with his bailout of the fat cats at the United Autoworkers pension fund. He is trashing the most effective tax in the country, the GST, for populist reasons.
Judged on his actions he has a zero record as a fiscal conservative. He is perhaps the worst fiscal manager this country has ever seen (and I lived through Trudeau and I am including him). Given his background at that other orgy of spending excess in Alberta (Alberta with the second worst program spending in the nation, despite low unemployment, last time I checked) I understand the term fiscal Conservative means something different than the lower case version, but the average person reading would think fiscal conservative means being careful with other people's money. Can you not see that your double standard with Harper will not change the fact that his policies have lead us back to the road of economic ruin? That by confusing people who do not have the time to investigate properly you may contribute to them not understand that he is the number one enemy of people who want accountable government in Canada. You are actively contributing to making the tax situation worse, and I can only assume this is for partisan political purposes.
No-one but a partisan Conservative would make such a mistake, to confuse his talk with the reality of his actions. The facts are just too clear. If you cannot see who the enemy is then how are you going to help fix the problem? Your letter has zero credibility due to this partisan nature, and it reflects very badly on your organization.
July 4, 2009
Letters to your MP - waste of time
In the last 13 years here I have sent 3 letters to an MP. None has ever really been replied to.
The most recent was trying to see if the local (Conservative/Lois Brown) MP was in support of Harper's big government policies after they sent around a silly partisan booklet saying how pro freemarket they are:
Nothing back after 3 months, so I sent this reminder today. I expect no reply.
As an update. To her credit my MP (Lois Brown) called to discuss this, seems her admin chased her. She had no real replies other than to complain about how Jean Chretien's made his spending cuts. Admitting she had no proper answers she said she would contact me later to have a cup of coffee to disccus. That was a fair while ago now, I don't expect another call.
............
Hi:
Given there was no reply I can only take it that you agree with the big spending/anti-business policies of your leader Mr. Harper: or are afraid to speak out against it. To me the non-reply is the same in either case.
The Conservative Party has gotten even worse since I asked this question. Hard to imagine they could and of course you had to set an all time record for industry intervention to bail out fat cat union jobs at the car companies to do it and have now projected an all time record deficit as well (eclipsing the last Canadian deficit record, held by fellow Conservative Brian Mulroney).
I, as many people, do not like these highly socialist policies. Expect laughter if I hear any more from you or your party about how you are helping the economy. The excess is so bad in my mind, and the big government philosophy so unopposed in your party, that I can only assume it is your party's philosophy and so would never trust your party with managing the government even after the leadership change.
John
-----Original Message-----
Hi:
Thanks for the booklet bragging about tax savings - but it seems to have left a few of the most important things out.
Any economist knows you cannot really lower taxes without lowering spending, all you are doing is passing the taxes on to the next generation. The Federal Conservatives have been increasing spending at truly unfortunate rates since their original election, and now with this recession the level of spending is exploding. I suggest you review the history of more fiscally prudent governments, such as Jean Chrétien's, for a lesson on how to keep spending under control and act on it. Of course those Liberals were hardly careful with other people's money either, but at least they significantly slowed down the rate of increase and are not setting new spending records like the Harper Conservatives are.
You seem to have left out the tax increases, like the income trust taxation.
There was a specific promise by the Conservatives to not tax these, and taxing it is double taxation at it's worst. That promise was broken by the federal conservatives, but it is not forgotten. Perhaps this is in the fine print somewhere?
I'm also left with a really bad taste in my mouth by Prime Minister Harper's constant demonization of the "unfettered capitalist system" as the root problem of the current downturn. Clearly the overwhelming majority of the problem was government actions; regulations such as the CRA and the abnormally low interest rate policy after 9/11 in the U.S. along with others. That some greedy people made mistakes after being setup to fail by government does not make the system the problem and of course people like Madoff were under very heavy government regulation. That the regulators were laughably negligent in enforcing those regulations does not indicate they were unfettered. To call it "unfettered capitalism" - well this along with the high spending ways indicates to me that he is just one more socialist and I would have more more expected this from a Jack Layton than from someone who trained as an economist and worked at the NCC.
Ciao
The most recent was trying to see if the local (Conservative/Lois Brown) MP was in support of Harper's big government policies after they sent around a silly partisan booklet saying how pro freemarket they are:
Nothing back after 3 months, so I sent this reminder today. I expect no reply.
As an update. To her credit my MP (Lois Brown) called to discuss this, seems her admin chased her. She had no real replies other than to complain about how Jean Chretien's made his spending cuts. Admitting she had no proper answers she said she would contact me later to have a cup of coffee to disccus. That was a fair while ago now, I don't expect another call.
............
Hi:
Given there was no reply I can only take it that you agree with the big spending/anti-business policies of your leader Mr. Harper: or are afraid to speak out against it. To me the non-reply is the same in either case.
The Conservative Party has gotten even worse since I asked this question. Hard to imagine they could and of course you had to set an all time record for industry intervention to bail out fat cat union jobs at the car companies to do it and have now projected an all time record deficit as well (eclipsing the last Canadian deficit record, held by fellow Conservative Brian Mulroney).
I, as many people, do not like these highly socialist policies. Expect laughter if I hear any more from you or your party about how you are helping the economy. The excess is so bad in my mind, and the big government philosophy so unopposed in your party, that I can only assume it is your party's philosophy and so would never trust your party with managing the government even after the leadership change.
John
-----Original Message-----
Hi:
Thanks for the booklet bragging about tax savings - but it seems to have left a few of the most important things out.
Any economist knows you cannot really lower taxes without lowering spending, all you are doing is passing the taxes on to the next generation. The Federal Conservatives have been increasing spending at truly unfortunate rates since their original election, and now with this recession the level of spending is exploding. I suggest you review the history of more fiscally prudent governments, such as Jean Chrétien's, for a lesson on how to keep spending under control and act on it. Of course those Liberals were hardly careful with other people's money either, but at least they significantly slowed down the rate of increase and are not setting new spending records like the Harper Conservatives are.
You seem to have left out the tax increases, like the income trust taxation.
There was a specific promise by the Conservatives to not tax these, and taxing it is double taxation at it's worst. That promise was broken by the federal conservatives, but it is not forgotten. Perhaps this is in the fine print somewhere?
I'm also left with a really bad taste in my mouth by Prime Minister Harper's constant demonization of the "unfettered capitalist system" as the root problem of the current downturn. Clearly the overwhelming majority of the problem was government actions; regulations such as the CRA and the abnormally low interest rate policy after 9/11 in the U.S. along with others. That some greedy people made mistakes after being setup to fail by government does not make the system the problem and of course people like Madoff were under very heavy government regulation. That the regulators were laughably negligent in enforcing those regulations does not indicate they were unfettered. To call it "unfettered capitalism" - well this along with the high spending ways indicates to me that he is just one more socialist and I would have more more expected this from a Jack Layton than from someone who trained as an economist and worked at the NCC.
Ciao
The National Post today has a downright dangerous editorial today advocating the worse sort of international bully tactics, implicitly endorsing mass murder. North Korea is a problem and a rogue nation lead by a mad mad; no doubt about that. It may eventually require external military intervention, but to advocate mass murder is wrong on so many levels. Even the most basic level, effectivty, fails the test. This is a country lead by a crazy person, threats make no difference to someone who considers himself immortal. I was serious in the implication that this would be a gift to the bad people too: as it was to Castro and so many others having an external enemy that can be painted as aggressive will bring out nationalistic tendencies and keep even the most ineffective dictator in power long after natural forces would have left them looking for a job.
I had to be sarcastic in my reply, if I was serious it would have been "assured destruction" on them ; -)
Hi:
I want to thank you for your advocacy for "assured destruction" by the U.S. of the workers paradise of North Korea in your editorial. Perhaps with such support we can convince those running dog Americans to adapt such a policy. By having the threat of mass murder by an immeasurably more powerful foe I can silence any fools who question "Juche" as morally too aggressive. I would regain the control that had been slipping.
As you may know it has been increasingly tough lately trying to maintain my god on earth status. With starvation common and my last friend (China) less supportive it was looking like a revolution here could dethrone me or my son with any mild push internally, or with a surgical military strike from the South. To expose the U.S. as simply wannabe mass murders who have learned nothing from the last century would be a great gift.
Again a heartfelt "Komapsumnida".
Kim Jong-il
I had to be sarcastic in my reply, if I was serious it would have been "assured destruction" on them ; -)
Hi:
I want to thank you for your advocacy for "assured destruction" by the U.S. of the workers paradise of North Korea in your editorial. Perhaps with such support we can convince those running dog Americans to adapt such a policy. By having the threat of mass murder by an immeasurably more powerful foe I can silence any fools who question "Juche" as morally too aggressive. I would regain the control that had been slipping.
As you may know it has been increasingly tough lately trying to maintain my god on earth status. With starvation common and my last friend (China) less supportive it was looking like a revolution here could dethrone me or my son with any mild push internally, or with a surgical military strike from the South. To expose the U.S. as simply wannabe mass murders who have learned nothing from the last century would be a great gift.
Again a heartfelt "Komapsumnida".
Kim Jong-il
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)