September 09, 2007
Garth Turner's 100-to-1 advertising campaign
Garth Turner keeps insisting that local funds out of existing budgets are covering the mass mail campaign preceding his Lost Tory Tour. But the more I read about the issue of MP-originated mail, the more I discover that this is a significant controversy with a big impact on costs, costs that are paid for by the taxpayer. Now I've learned that it is the difference between spending $1 to send a bunch of flyers, and spending $100 to send the same flyers.
It looks like Garth Turner and his friends chose the $100 option.
Fiscal responsibility would require, at the very least, being up front about the difference in cost.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:19 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1305 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Tooo ironic isn't it. Garth is roaming the countryside using taxpayer provided resources instead of Liberal party funds blasting the Conservative Government on FINANCIAL matters!!!
Question: Would YOU take financial advice from this man? Should Dion?
Garth Turner is the guy who advised people to take out mortgages, etc. to invest in BRE-X!!!!!
And he was investigated by the Securities Commission for giving financial advice without a licence.
I will admit - Garth Turner's degrees in English Literature have given him the gift of a wicked way with words and an equally wicked poison pen. Most con artists ARE glib and convincing with words.
And some get cult like followers like David Orchard's. Even Tooker Gomberg here in Edmonton got himself elected as an alderman. That was before he ran for Mayor of Toronto.
There are just those amongst us who has visions of their own personal grandeur and , like Garth, truly believe THEY must lead us all out of our ignorance and darkness. Hench Garth justifies WHATEVER is may cost for HIM in person to meet with his adoring fans.
My MP in Edmonton is quite busy with his own 120,000 or so contituents. National adulation does not seem to be needed to feed his ego.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 09, 2007 12:33 PM (rp6r3)
2
What is done is done, but what needs to be uncovered is which 15 Liberal MPs donated to Garths western tour. That is all that is at issue now.
Posted by: Observer at September 09, 2007 12:59 PM (fXsgr)
3
Steve--thanks for all the work you are doing on this file. I find it so obvious that Liberals, including Turner, think that the money they use and abuse is somehow just there--it is found money--they do not seem to connect the money to us overtaxed, over regulated citizens. Remember Volpe's $200. pizzas? Same thing--they think their spin can justify their spending--they are entitled to their entitlements. And we are entitled to keep paying.
This is sickening to say the least. But as accountability is not in the picture I guess it is not surprising?
I hope that people in Western Canada get the chance to question Turner on his 'money tree' tour.
Posted by: George at September 09, 2007 05:16 PM (yjdlc)
4
Garth has never done anything on the cheap at all. Everything he seems to do during his term as MP and even before that is spend money. As long as its not his money...he'll spend it. And god forbid HE have to encure any expenses without having it immediately reimbursed.
Garth lives what he thinks is the gold plated life. So much for his being the hero of the middle class. Garth hasnt released where he stayed on his tour. Methinks it wasnt the "no tell motel" He wouldnt lower himself to sleeping where its affordable.
Reading his blog, he seems to be enjoying his time out west. A message from some Halton residents would be ... "Please...stay there!"
Posted by: Cheap? at September 10, 2007 08:03 AM (W5P+x)
5
Harper's Adscam
17 sitting MPs participated in Tory ad scheme
Commons committee to discuss possible inquiry into dispute - Ottawa Citizen
Government Whip Jay Hill sits on a Commons committee that is to begin hearings on the disputed Tory election ad expenses.
Elections Canada has listed 17 sitting MPs among Conservative candidates who participated in a contentious scheme to channel $1.2 million through riding campaigns to pay for blanket regional television and radio advertising during the 2006 election, court documents show.
One of the Conservative MPs, cabinet minister and Government Whip Jay Hill, sits on a committee the opposition has forced to meet today to begin probing a series of "in and out" transactions the Liberals claim may have been used by the Conservative party to skirt campaign spending limits.
Internal Elections Canada records the agency filed in a Federal Court action list a total of 67 Conservative candidates who took part in the transfer scheme.
The party transferred tens of thousands of dollars each to the candidate campaigns, which simply turned the money around by using bank transfers to pay the party for the ads. The candidates later claimed election expense rebates for 60 per cent of the ad expenses, but Elections Canada rejected the claims.
Other than the 17 who won their seats, including 10 Quebec MPs who were long shots at the outset of the campaign, the vast majority of the candidates who received the money lost their election bids and had little or no chance from the start. In most cases, their donation levels were low and for some, the party ad payment took up most of their expenses.
The Commons procedure and House affairs committee is scheduled to meet today to discuss an inquiry into "allegations made against the Conservative Party of Canada's systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada, as well as the Canadian taxpayer, in relation to the 2006 federal election."
The confrontational wording of the agenda was set by a letter from Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs that forced the meeting under House of Commons rules. The NDP has also said it wants an inquiry.
But Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc says Mr. Hill should consider recusing himself from the hearing because his own election campaign return might be scrutinized.
"Mr. Hill should ask himself whether it doesn't taint the committee proceedings to have somebody who may have participated directly in this scheme asking questions of Elections Canada witnesses, for example," Mr. LeBlanc said.
"I think it gives rise to the perception of impropriety."
The Elections Canada list shows Mr. Hill receiving a transfer of $14,999.97 from the Conservative party and recording a payment in the same amount for radio and TV advertising.
Copies of eight of the television ads obtained by the Citizen from Elections Canada show they are replicas of national TV ads the party unveiled during the campaign, including a separate national series for Quebec. Elections Canada has ruled advertising by candidates must oppose or support individual candidates to be eligible as a candidate expense. The electoral agency also argues in letters filed at Federal Court that the candidates have been unable to provide contracts with a media placement company to prove they incurred the advertising costs.
The committee meeting today promises to be explosive, but the government could head off further hearings if Prime Minister Stephen Harper asks Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean to end the current session of Parliament before the end of the week.
The prime minister has said he intends to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament before its scheduled resumption next Monday. An official with Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said last week that wouldn't likely occur until shortly before the House was scheduled to return, in case an emergency forces the recall of Parliament before Monday.
The Liberal party says the Conservatives may have used the transfers to spend more on their national campaign than the $18.3-million ceiling set by election law. The Conservatives reported an expenditure of $9.1 million on national advertising.
The Tories contend the advertising expenses were legal because the ads carried small-print taglines listing candidates or ridings whose official agents the ads said authorized and paid for them. The Conservatives last week also argued that the ads are an issue of free speech.
The Liberals have likened the transfers to a money-laundering scheme.
In April, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand referred the transfers to Elections Commissioner William Corbett for an investigation. The following month, official agents for 34 Conservative candidates took Mr. Mayrand to Federal Court over his refusal to reimburse the campaigns.
According to the court documents filed by Elections Canada, the list of other MPs who participated in what the party called a "regional media buy" include Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Heritage Minister Josée Verner and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
The other MPs are: Quebec MPs Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourde, Luc Harvey, and Christian Paradis; B.C. MPs Ron Cannan, Dick Harris, Jim Abbott and Colin Mayes; Ontario MP Patricia Davidson; and Saskatchewan MP David Anderson.
Mr. LeBlanc says he expects the committee will want to probe who orchestrated the transfers and advertising buys, including senior party officials and leadership.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
Posted by: not Garth Turner at September 10, 2007 12:27 PM (ry7L0)
6
For that wonderful piece of information. What you are claiming is simply allegations made, no proof and no ones gone to jail.
Liberal Sponsorship scandal...oh YA...PEOPLE WENT TO JAIL over that.
Garth is quite possibly breaking HOC rules, if not legally than the spirit of the law is definately out the window.
They better come up with something better than THAT!
Posted by: Thanks Esther at September 10, 2007 12:33 PM (W5P+x)
7
"not Garth Turner" sure sounds like him to me. Even if it's not Garth posting it, I'd bet Garth wrote it and had one of his cronies post it (he's done that before).
Posted by: paul m at September 10, 2007 12:56 PM (0g/96)
8
I am smelling something rotten in Denmark and it is not Alfonso.I questioned Garth about the other costs of his "no-cost" tour. He replied that transportation,venues,etc. were all donated. Now,I may be wrong,but are MP's allowed to travel across the country accepting free gifts? He is appearing in Calgary at the Epcor centre,which I think(not sure) is a City of Calgary facility. Does this mean that our mayor ,Bronconnier,a former liberal candidate,will be recieving a reciept for our largesse? Is this not a political donation to the Liberal Party,which is the only party to oppose the change to income trusts? Is Garth claiming any of his freebies as political donations? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 10, 2007 01:18 PM (Dc0qH)
9
" "not Garth Turner" sure sounds like him to me."
Maybe it should sound like the Ottawa Citizen since that's where it comes from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c448b040-6b35-4df7-8ded-847bf80b13ab&p=2
Funny Mr Janke, how Harper's adscam makes the national media but Garth's supposed postal two step doesn't get out of your blog.
Posted by: not Garth Turner at September 10, 2007 01:34 PM (ry7L0)
10
Thats definately something she would say. Covers blown. LMAO
Funny way to serve the needs of Haltons residents by residing on someones blog defending your boss....
HAHAHAHA
Posted by: Its gotta be Esther at September 10, 2007 01:46 PM (W5P+x)
11
I stand by my comments!
Posted by: paul m (REALLY not Garth Turner) at September 10, 2007 02:27 PM (0g/96)
12
I used to post over at Turner's blog, but I have since been apparently censored.
The blog entry that never made it had to do with the propriety of using his unused MP travel budget for uses that it was not intended.
As he was in Vancouver at the time, I suggested that he check with some locals concernig a similar situation that had occured in the Vancouver City Council meetings back in the 90's. This was when Gordon Campbell (currently BC Premier) was mayor and current NDP MP Libby Davies was an alderperson.
As I recall, Alderman Gordon Price was scheduled to attend an approved meeting in eastern Canada (Toronto or Montreal I believe). He found out what the cost of the trip would be by regular airfare, and then used this number as a "budget" to book a series of economy flights hopskipping across the US, visiting associates, and seeing how other cities conduct urban planning, according to him. Like Turner, he argued it was not costing the taxpayer any more money, so in his mind, this was ok. He could travel as he damn well pleased.
It seems to me that Ms. Davies was quite critical of Mr. Price's revised itinerary and personal travel plans, suggesting it was not approved, and therefore an improper use of taxpayer money.
Mr. Price didn't get it. Neither apparently does Mr. Turner.
And I guess, since my blog comment never got posted on Turner's blogsite, no one was able to ask him about the parallels at his townhall meetings or BBQs or whatever while he was still in Vancouver.
Posted by: Old Enough To Remember at September 10, 2007 02:29 PM (xiI00)
13
Why not ignore the insignificant Prig? He and the Liberals deserve each other. The Libs know every trick in the book but they eventually get caught. With such a shortage of cash and people just not donating to them, they'll be getting very inventive.
Not much talk about Dion's summer trek across the country, guess we'll say it wasn't much to talk about.
Posted by: Libby at September 10, 2007 02:45 PM (tf2L3)
14
I went to Turner's public meeting yesterday in Abbotsford and it was very poorly attended (a lot of elderly Sikh men that probably didn't understand him and the executive. It's only a slide show of newspaper articles (quite a few American at that) and cartoons (very fitting as the tour is a joke). I guess he forms his policies according to what's in the newspapers. He was on CKNW's Bill Good show this morning, again spewing more lies. So I called in and asked him why he felt he could use taxpayers' money for his Liberal Propaganda Tour and about cetain lies he told in Abbotsford. Once I voiced my questions, my microphone was turned off so I couldn't rebutt his answer which was about how legal his mailing was and people like me have an agenda and he has his. I suspect insignificant Turner was invited on the show because another talk show host on this station is Christy Clark whose husband his Stéphane Dion's campaign manager for the "coming" election! Do you think it is just a coincidence? After all, they probably wouldn't even have Harper on if he was in Vancouver. After the commercials, when it was time to get back to the talk show, it was announced that Turner had to leave suddently and catch a flight (no doubt at taxpayers' money.
Posted by: Louise at September 10, 2007 03:50 PM (ID/Q7)
15
I didnt get the parallel but it really seems interesting that hes attending all these liberal fundraisers / events while coincidentally being in the area.
So therefore hes using his budget to go on partisan junkits to other ridings....and his town hall meetings which are being promoted by 15 liberal MP's that he doesnt know who they are...
WOW...the more you dig the dirtier it gets.
Posted by: Thats very interesting at September 10, 2007 03:50 PM (W5P+x)
16
Hmmm, Steve - while I salute your loyalty to the good ole Tory brand I'm sure you can recall many times over the past few years receiving wonderful pieces in the mail from Conservative/Reform or Alliance MP's under the Parliamentary Franking privelage about the wonderfulness of leaders like Manning/Day and Harper. Some of these were event the subject of Points of Privelage in the House - I'm sure a good researcher like yourself can find evidence of these products being sent out by the Canadian taxpayer to promote the Conservative cause.
Glass houses
Posted by: anon at September 10, 2007 03:53 PM (ODTq3)
17
Anon - I'm sure we have ALL received flyers from other parties using the 10 percenters. That is unadressed bulk mail delivered to every household in a certain targetted postal code.
If you read Janke's article you will see the costs of those.
However, Garth's were ADDRESSED mail which cost 100 times more than 10 percenters. I received one of these and I have no idea how Garth got MY mailing address.
I am a member of the conservative Party. Did he use an old Conservative mailing list?
Another point - as a member of the Conservative Party we do from time to time receive ADDRESSED mail from the Party. In ALL cases there is a STAMP on this mail. The PARTY pays the postage for this po.itical mail NOT THE TAXPAYER.
arth's mailing to me was addressed, in his House of Commons envelope and had no stamp. The taxpayer paid the mailing costs, ehte envelope costs AND the stuffing and colating costs. This for a POLITICAL event not in any way related to his own riding of Halton and I am not HIS constituent.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 10, 2007 04:03 PM (rp6r3)
18
Lorraine:
I have received 10% mailings from Conservative MPs with the Conservative logo on it. This was done using the frank.
I fully understand the situation and think my glass houses comment is accurate.
Posted by: anon at September 10, 2007 04:54 PM (ODTq3)
19
Anon - was your mailing from the Conservatives personally ADDRESSED TO YOU????
Unaddressed flyers with government program information and political messages within the approved parameters of the House (there are rules of content) are absolutely common. YOUR MP most likely sends them regularily in YOUR riding.
There are a certain number of these allowed per MP - in many cases they will target other ridings where they do not have a party MP. I get Jack Layton flyers quite often sponsored by any number of NDP MPs.
They cannot do this during an election - the party has to pay. Our contention is that Garth Turner used the expensive addressed mail to send a generic political flyer about a personal political event. Garth has admitted that Dion did not know what he was talking about and had to ask him.
So it was not party approved because nowhere is there a Liberal logo. However he laundered the significant costs through 15 other Liberal MPs. Maybe within the rules but unethical as heck. The whole escapade reeks to me.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 10, 2007 05:08 PM (rp6r3)
20
Funny how today's entry on Turner's blog is titled "Hogs for Democracy" - how fitting since he's pigging out at the trough! He is a bitter little man.
Posted by: at September 10, 2007 05:32 PM (aHT3w)
21
So that's what's under that shitty beard, a snout, oink, oink.
Posted by: Libby at September 10, 2007 05:54 PM (tKJQF)
22
I went to Turner's public meeting yesterday in Abbotsford and it was very poorly attended (a lot of elderly Sikh men that probably didn't understand him and the executive.
Louise, Turner must have read your entry here. I notice he updated his blog just recently (originally post was over 24 hrs ago) to include a picture and this comment at the bottom to be consistent with your observations:
The Town Hall Sunday afternoon in Abbotsford, BC. A large contingent of Indo-Canadians actively participated. Topics covered included the environment vs the oilsands, the SPP, the role of MPs, civil rights, the economy and the coming election.
What a guy. What a wanker.
Posted by: Old Enough To Remember at September 10, 2007 10:25 PM (xiI00)
23
Garth is providing Dion with a service in exchange for being accepted into the Liberal party, and by Dion himself according to Garth. However, Garth was desperate when he was an independent MP, and openly admitted that he stood little chance of getting reelected as an independent.
Being accepted by Dion into the Liberal party has breathed new life into Garth's political career no doubt, but it also saved his vaunted MPtv enterprise that he operates in the halls of Parliament. If Garth were to have lost his Halton MP position, that would have most likely ended MPtv as well.
Garth joined the Liberal party to not only extend his political career, but also save his MPtv business as well. The guy is a scumbag.
Posted by: Observer at September 10, 2007 10:29 PM (Zctxb)
24
Anon, If you're going to play at being a partisan hack, you should really get your information straight.
Posted by: Paul M at September 10, 2007 10:29 PM (J/bNH)
25
Whats under the beard is some turkey gobble gobble like chin and the receipt from Shoppers Drug Mart for all the Just for Men hair colour he uses to hide his grey.
For all the yapping he does about Maxime Bernier and his "image" hes sure one to talk. Garth, let the grey show....its good for the ego. It might knock you down to slightly less than your god complex.
Posted by: Whats Under the beard at September 10, 2007 10:42 PM (XdF/C)
26
LOUISE- I was listening to the show when you called in to ask him in person about this mailing debacle.It was too funny to hear him get all indignent and bluster about how you must have some kind of agenda and then run out of the studio before inquiring minds could follow up on your lead.What a sniveling little weasel.As far as Christy Clarke's involvment,who knows? One thing for sure though, her show is a snooze fest. Nothing but puffy feely crap that noone cares about.
Posted by: robert at September 10, 2007 11:16 PM (Hpefv)
27
btw Louise, you two do have your own agendas. Yours is to get at the truth and his is get out town.
Posted by: robert at September 10, 2007 11:22 PM (Hpefv)
28
Louise
I would love to hear the Garthacles response. What time were you on?
Syncro
Posted by: syncrodox at September 11, 2007 12:41 AM (/lERK)
29
So what else would you expect from a liberal?
Like all crooks, when money gets tight (and it IS tight for the libs) they resort to what they know best-stealing!!
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad at September 11, 2007 12:46 AM (tITNm)
30
Steve and Louise
First, well done Louise, articulate and to the point. Secondly, I noticed something that Garth said that is very telling. I loosely quote:
Garth:.....I asked a number of my colleagues to lend me some of their communications budget to mail out notices.....blah blah blah.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but did not Garth state he had no idea who the 15 MP's who were supporting his tour were?
Cronologically speaking it seems that Garth found 15 buddies then forgot who they were and finally states that he asked the fabled 15 to help him out from the onset.
I know that I'm a little hard of understanding but can somebody please help me out here?
Syncro
p.s. The Garth has left the building apology from CKNW journalist John Mc Comb brought tears of laughter to my eyes.
p.s.s. Cknw audio vault Monday Sept 10 starting at 11 am with Louise's contribution coming up around 11:27.
Posted by: syncrodox at September 11, 2007 03:47 AM (/lERK)
31
Garth has made it his standard MO for leaving a radio interview if challenged by callers. Hes done it on Roy Green show in Hamilon AM 900 CHML, hes done in on CFRB when Bill Carrol challenged him on floor crossing and I also believe hes hung up on Lesley Roberts, also from CFRB when challenged on a major issue.
Garth feels that the media should accept his view as the way it is and thats that. Hes a coward. When surrounded by a big team, hes a big big man. On his own and standing on his own merits, hes a lilly livered coward.
He will have to face Halton voters in the next election for his stunts, his floor crossing, this cross country tour and the questionable spending on the mailing. We can only hope that voters see through his veil of machismo and see the true Garth...total HOG at the trough....right where he belongs.
Because hes entitled to his entitlements.
Posted by: Garth is a creature of habit at September 11, 2007 07:05 AM (XdF/C)
32
Well, the arrogant little a**hole is not helping the Liberals, he's using them in this opportunistic Ego feeding tour to build his profile for a run at the leadership. It has all the appearances of a VIP tour, wife in tow, flying from venue to venue. The only thing missing is the VIP!
Puffin Iggy should soon twig on the fact he's not wanted and head back to Bean Town and academia, he can't be that stupid or desperate to stay in that snake pit.
Posted by: Libby at September 11, 2007 08:21 AM (PV77d)
33
I wonder who paid for the newspaper ads. Yesterday I was sitting the in the Fort St. John (north eastern BC for those not in the know) waiting for a flight back to Cowtown and I picked up an Edmonton Sun. Low and behold there was an ad for Garthapalooza '07. So it got me thinking:
1. Were ads taken out in all the dailies for every city/region Garth was visiting?
2. How much does an ad of this sort cost (I'm going to scan it and send the details like size, page # etc to Steve)?
3. Did Garth pay for the ads out of his pocket, out of his constituency budget, or did a 3rd party pay for them?
4. If they were paid for out of his constituency budget how do the people of Halton feel about Garth spending money for representing Halton in Edmonton and elsewhere?
5. If they were paid for by a 3rd party how exactly do those sorts of "donations in kind" get recorded and reported to ensure donation limits & rules aren't violated?
Posted by: Reid at September 11, 2007 09:17 AM (rXo+C)
34
Good questions Reid. Maybe this will lead to a 2nd adscam scandal! ?By the way, at the Abbotsford meeting, Turner informed us that as an independent he realized he wouldn't be able to do much so he approached Dion and asked him (Dion) to work with him (Turner) and apparently Dion was very happy to oblige. What an arrogant little man (he does have the little man syndrome).
Posted by: Louise at September 11, 2007 10:14 AM (ID/Q7)
35
Good questions Reid. Maybe this will lead to a 2nd adscam scandal!? By the way, at the Abbotsford meeting, Turner informed us that as an independent he realized he wouldn't be able to do much so he approached Dion and asked him (Dion) to work with him (Turner) and apparently Dion was very happy to oblige. What an arrogant little man (he does have the little man syndrome).
Posted by: Louise at September 11, 2007 10:16 AM (ID/Q7)
36
Correction: I need to make a correction on one of my previous comments about Garth's financial advisor past.
I found out it was NOT BRE-X he was advising people to mortgage their homes and borrow to buy. It was NORTEL.
My apologies to Garth for the inaccurate information.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 11, 2007 10:24 AM (rp6r3)
37
I asked Garth about his other expenses,on his blog on the 9th at 12:14 a.m. He responded that "All venue rentals are being paid for by local ORGANIZERS,CITIZENS OR RIDING ASSOCIATIONS".Now I know that we are not in an election but there has to be rules about roaming the country accepting gifts from people as a mp promoting your party.I think the ethics comissioner should be getting a few queries on this matter.The venue in Calgary goes for about $2,000 for an afternoon.Nice freebie.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 11, 2007 03:35 PM (Dc0qH)
38
In my opinion if thereis a full accounting and full disclosure of who Garth's "supporters" are you may find that he is actually acting as a front for CAITI and other disgruntled Income Trust stock brokers and their friends.
In other words, posing just as "citizens" they dontate and fund a large portion of Garth's excursion, we the taxpayers fund a bunch, and who else? The Liberal Party?
So what if I am right. Is Garth Turner, an elected official accepting freebies from a special interest lobby group?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 11, 2007 04:10 PM (rp6r3)
39
Certainly looks like rules are being ignored/broken. In Garth's ongoing push for fame, he's getting closer to infamy and oblivion.
Why should anyone be paying for a nondescript backbench floater to fly about the country flogging a dead horse unless it's the owners of the horse?
Posted by: Libby at September 12, 2007 06:16 AM (aB3dm)
40
Lorraine, check this out: "The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday it has filed civil charges against four more former financial executives at Nortel Networks Corp. for allegedly participating in an accounting fraud in 2002 and 2003." Do you think Garth was involved considering how hard he was flogging the stock.
Posted by: Louise at September 12, 2007 02:26 PM (ID/Q7)
41
Shop Authentic And Cheap NFL Jerseys! Enjoy Worldwide Express Delivery!
Posted by: Cheap Jets jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:45 AM (wmdzq)
Tracking Garth Turner's secret admirers
For the heck of it, let's create a central post for tracking, if we can, which Liberal MPs are charging Canadians first class postage rates to deliver thousands of anonymous flyers on behalf of Garth Turner. Garth Turner says he doesn't know who these MPs are, so we'll have to build up a list of Garth Turner's secret admirers on our own.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 929 words, total size 7 kb.
1
if i remember correctly...dunn and bradstreet in toronto is a mailing list supplier they will sell and compile lists according to the clients needs..did garth buy a list of 60 something people in the ridings in question
Posted by: paul hamer at September 09, 2007 09:11 AM (dmb8I)
2
Garth Turner doesn't even know who the fifteen MPs are. I doubt anyone told him where the mailing lists came from.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 09, 2007 09:13 AM (rHDev)
3
I received a flyer in my 55+ apartment building mailbox by mistake. It was addressed to the previous tenant, who is substantially older than me.
Posted by: Twolane at September 09, 2007 10:08 AM (myuVS)
4
It would be nice to hear from the people in his riding, they should be at his office demanding answers. Were all his constituency workers happy with his seat hopping?
This is certainly not something the hacks and hounds in the MSM would let go of if it were a Conservative member pulling such convoluted stunts.
Posted by: Libby at September 09, 2007 10:19 AM (g4iYy)
5
Let's see... Garth doesn't know who is sending these things out. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Hmmm... I've heard of this term before.
Oh, that's right! It's called Plausible Deniability!
That... or Garth does know all the details. Of course, why he'd want to know all the details before going across the country on some mouth tour is beyond me.
Posted by: Surecure at September 09, 2007 10:22 AM (Dn18P)
6
Dion to Liberal party: "I want you to help my man Garth to the max max max."
Liberal party to Garth: "We are going to help you with your Western tour."
Garth to Liberal party: "Go ahead but don't tell me what you are doing so I can deny it and tell people it will not cost any "additional" money to the taxpayer."
Liberal party to Garth: "Agreed ... you know nothing and you didn't ask !!!"
Garth Turner is a scumbag politician who is attempting to feather his nest within in the Liberal party while shoring up Dion's threatened leadership. (I know you are reading this Garth.)
Posted by: Observer at September 09, 2007 10:44 AM (TVj9l)
7
Janke, get your head out of Turner's arse, will ya? Is there nothing else you can talk about, or is Buckler squeezing your balls so tightly that you have no choice :-)
Posted by: at September 09, 2007 10:49 AM (m2i2k)
8
Garth: I'm Garth Turner, taking care of YOUR money!
Brian: Garth, what are you doing?
Garth: Mr..Mr..MR COSTELLO!!!???? But...but..but...
Brian: Garth, you know that's my line
Garth: Oh but golly gee Mr. Costello I wanna a financial hero just like you. I want all the people to like me and not make fun of my beard anymore.
Brian: Garth you remember what the nice man said?
Garth: Shucks i know - i should try and behave and leave politics to the grown-ups. But i really want people to put their trust in me and then maybe Barbie Stronach will notice me at recess.
Brian: Ha ha ha - well you know Garth I once got people to put their trust in me and look where that got me - maybe i should have joined the lieberal party too - they get away with everything!
Garth: See Brian? I can be a self-serving scumbag too!
Brian: Ho ho ho - very good Garth. Now stop playing with daddy's computer and go out and play in traffic.
Posted by: Bubba at September 09, 2007 11:01 AM (aKoc9)
9
Is there nothing else you can talk about, or is [Sandra] Buckler squeezing your balls so tightly that you have no choice?
As always, this series of posts is entirely my own. No one in the CPC is directing me on this or providing information. For all I know, they might prefer that I don't delve too deeply into the question of these sorts of mailings. All parties use them.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 09, 2007 11:09 AM (rHDev)
10
Either Garth is pulling a Sergeant Shultz - “I know nothing! Nothing!!” or he is “hiding his excrement” – a practice that Iggy espouses for his Puffin Party.
Posted by: aek at September 09, 2007 11:24 AM (Obt8n)
11
Garth Turner visits -- check out the addendum.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 09, 2007 12:50 PM (rHDev)
12
Addendum: I guess I don't need to wonder any longer. Garth Turner is checking out the list:
Garth Turner visits
Wow, four minutes! I guess I'm in for it now. Loser! Loser! Loser!
Nope ... Garth is tracking me when I previously posted:
Garth Turner is a scumbag politician who is attempting to feather his nest within in the Liberal party while shoring up Dion's threatened leadership. (I know you are reading this Garth.)
Posted by: Observer at September 9, 2007 10:44 AM
Garth is sweating profusely now because he will be dragging down 15 Liberal scumbag politicians along with himself ... too funny ... LOL
Posted by: Observer at September 09, 2007 01:06 PM (fXsgr)
13
Merry Christmas - cheap jerseys for all NFL fans
Posted by: Eagles jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:45 AM (wmdzq)
September 08, 2007
Trying to estimate the cost of Garth Turner's franked mail campaign
With some insight from a postal worker, I can start to put some potential costs to the taxpayer to advertise Garth Turner's Lost Tory Tour.
Update: Made some changes now that I have some more hard data on the way these mailings work.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:42 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 627 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Steve - another cost that you have not allocated for is the fact that these pieces of mail need to be stuffed by hand. I know that his local Milton office (and maybe the Parliament Hill office too) staff spend some of their time stuffing envelopes for franked mail. To be fair, from time to time he has received help from volunteers but the bulk of the work falls to his staff.
Stuffing 100,000 envelopes by hand takes a lot of time - and if they are being paid 10-20 bucks an hour to work in the MP's office - what might that envelope stuffing cost add up to?
Do constituents in the other 15 ridings mind that the time & effort of their MP's staff is being used not for local purposes but to advertise Turner's tour?
So how much is it really costing Halton (and other ridings) taxpayers to have this franked mail stuffed to be sent out west? And how does this benefit Halton in the short or long run?
Posted by: Been to his Office at September 08, 2007 12:23 PM (aHT3w)
2
Since Garth is such a forthright person, ahem, he will give all the true details of his expense account, ahem, ahem.
The biggest story we await is how many showed up to hear the Great Garthicle speaketh?
His Party must really be counting on him to get results, after all, money is in short supply, it's slim pickings in Liberal Land for leaps of faith or shots in the dark.
Posted by: Libby at September 08, 2007 12:37 PM (/UTRY)
3
I REALLY hope someone video taped the Garth Turner "sermons from the mount" and posts them on youtube!
Posted by: Paul M at September 08, 2007 04:07 PM (Mc+DJ)
4
That would be an expenditure of $60,000 to deliver these junk flyers via envelope ahead of Garth Turner's tour, and charged to you and me.
Chump change, in the scheme of things. There are much bigger ripoffs going on right under your nose, but they are either cloaked with such religious zeal or considered to be so obscure or mundane that no one is interested in even discussing them. [Translation: Conservative hacks are for more interested in tilting the rackets in their favor than they are in dismantling them]
Posted by: at September 08, 2007 04:26 PM (tgNL5)
5
Yeah, a bit of "chump change" here and there, it's only people's money, spoken like a true Liberal who has no respect for our money.
Conservatives haven't had time to dismantle the "rackets", too many for a minority government to even put a dent in over a period of a year and a half. At least its encouraging to have an admission there were rackets.
The next racket will be the adoption of a Puffin, we'll have to feed it too.
Posted by: Libby at September 08, 2007 06:35 PM (ksEv6)
6
Something just struck me as funny: Garth has elevated himself to "Canada's LEADER in DIGITAL Democracy" - all because he has a Blog like hundreds of thousands do but I digress.
So, Canada' LEADER in DIGITAL democracy then spends $100,000 or more of taxpayer's money to travel IN PERSON with a slide show!!!!!
Garth calls this taxpayer money their MP "allowances" - Liberals sure will find a way to spend taxpayer money using any loophole or justification.
Also, I'll just bet the Income Trust investor lobbyists are feeling pretty clever having the taxpayer pay for their very own lobbyist to come a visiting.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 08, 2007 07:16 PM (rp6r3)
7
Tell me who paid for the paper for these 100,000 flyers, 5000 sheets of paper costs at least $20. as well as the 100,000 envelopes, 500 envelopes is $10.00 so I guess 100,000 would be around $2000. There is also the cost of the printing even photo copies by the gov't are not free.
So I guess garth's free trip ain't quite so free after all.
Posted by: nemississs at September 08, 2007 08:20 PM (SMS37)
8
Garth on his forum continues to stonewall when asked to provide the names of the 15 MPs who assisted him. I doubt he will reveal which Liberal MPs are involved in his tour. Garth is flaunting everybody by refusing to name names, in his usual high-handed manner. The Liberal MSM will not make an issue of Garth's disengenuity, but if he was a Conservative MP they would be painting the newspapers and TV screens with and organized slagging campaign.
Keep up the good work, Steve, and perhaps the Liberal pus pimple will burst in all it's gory ...!!!!!
Posted by: Observer at September 08, 2007 09:35 PM (fzuFo)
9
This matter can be cleared up by one peron.Garth,we are waiting.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 09, 2007 12:41 AM (Dc0qH)
10
This matter can be cleared up by one person.Garth,we are waiting.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 09, 2007 12:41 AM (Dc0qH)
11
...ah, it pays to advertise.
Posted by: tomax7 at September 09, 2007 06:41 AM (jHhd0)
12
Garth is right up there with Al Gore who claims he invented the internet!!!!
Delusions gone amok.
Posted by: Libby at September 09, 2007 10:13 AM (g4iYy)
13
The irony is that - had the "Turner 15" simply sent these flyers out as 10-percenters - they could've spent $10,000 instead of $60,000, and reached twice as many households! (Note that your postie source said about 5% of households on his walk were receiving the letters.) Of course, none of this matters since it doesn't come out of Garth's pocket nor does it come out of his office budget; some nameless, faceless parliamentary office will pick up the tab...
I'm reminded of something Senator Fred Thompson (currently running for the Republican presidential nomination down south) said tongue-in-cheek upon first arriving in Washington D.C.: "Being a Senator takes some getting used to - the other day I accidentally spent some of my own money!"
Posted by: Tom at September 10, 2007 06:41 PM (JW99v)
14
It appears clear that (at least)15 (Liberal) MP's are using House of Commons funds to send invitations (to hear Garth) to specific people.
As one of the many "over 55" Canadians (who could be directly affected by changes to Income Trust legislation,) I want to know from where this list of invitees is generated, and whether my name and address is on said list.
Posted by: john at September 11, 2007 11:06 AM (DEM+S)
15
I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f
Posted by: new cr7 at December 02, 2012 11:12 AM (aFnwR)
16
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.messishoes.com
Posted by: mercurial 9 at December 03, 2012 01:16 PM (0IYa4)
17
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.women-ugg-boots.com
Posted by: 2012 mercurial vapor ix at December 03, 2012 04:36 PM (pXUim)
18
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.2013uggboots.net
Posted by: nike mercurial vapor sl at December 03, 2012 04:36 PM (h0aqD)
19
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.indoorsoccershoes2012.com
Posted by: new ctr360 maestri iii at December 03, 2012 04:36 PM (HF3my)
September 07, 2007
Not thinking about who sent franked mail for Garth Turner
Since I can't figure out who the 15 Liberal MPs who helped Garth Turner with his franked mail campaign, I'll have to think about something else. Something completely unrelated.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
06:23 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 615 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Steve - someone asked Garth on his blog to name the Liberal MPs who helped fund his mailers and Garth response was :
HE DID NOT KNOW!!!!
So Garth claims there are 15 Liberal MPs helping him with this tour but he does not know WHO they are????
Just anonymously helping out the poor Lost Tory promote himself across the country out of the goodness of their anonymous little hearts.
Until, I guess, the bills start coming in for the taxpayer to cover the costs.
Too funny.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 07, 2007 09:32 PM (rp6r3)
2
Thanks for being on this story, Angry. I'm from Regina and just today received one of the franked fliers, this one bearing the name of Brent St Denis, MP (Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing). Interesting, no? SO I get full-cost, franked from an MP two time zones away for another MP, from still farther away. To add insult to injury--or irony--the event happened two days ago.... Hope Garth had a good turn-out.
Incidentally, my local MP is a Tory. THis seems to me a story we should get someone in the MSM on to...
All the best.
Incidentally, my local MP is a Tory. THis seems to me a story we should get someone in the MSM on to...
All the best.Posted by: D M DeCoste at September 07, 2007 09:41 PM (hmvXS)
3
Who is sponsoring this tour?
MP Turner is traveling to communities in response to local invitations, from local Liberal MPs, candidates, or readers of his blog. There is no sponsoring or umbrella group.
Is the Liberal Party behind this?
No, but the office of the party president and the leader have assisted with some details, such as coordinating local meeting notices.I guess we can ask Stephane Dion just how much was spent sending franked mail stuff with cheap anonymous flyers, using taxpayer cash to promote a private trip.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 07, 2007 09:52 PM (rHDev)
4
Brent St Denis? Hey, he's on my list of MPs utterly unrelated to my consideration of who might be sending franked mail for Garth Turner.
What a coincidence.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 07, 2007 10:10 PM (rHDev)
5
You're a genius Steve!
Posted by: Paul M at September 07, 2007 10:20 PM (s97Y/)
6
Damn good job, Steve!
Thanks for that. I am gonna go to Ruby's office and ask her a question about it.
Posted by: zilla at September 07, 2007 10:40 PM (F628d)
7
If I understand correctly, when Garth Turner says that his "Troubled Turner Tour" won't "cost" taxpayers anything, he means that the associated expenses won't exceed the MP budget limits set for himself and his Liberal MP cohorts?
Even Turner should know that money allocated in a budget is not actually spent until it's spent.
Since John McCallum is a renowned economist, as one apparent sponsor of the Garth's westward pilgrimage, perhaps he could explain this simple fact to Garth, who has apparently forgotten from his previous career as a financial advisor that budgets and actual expenses are two different things.
Posted by: aek at September 07, 2007 10:54 PM (T4ckU)
8
Garth had also claimed that the Liberal Party was not in any way involved in this tour. It was his own initiative.
AND, that CAITI, the Income Trust investors groups were not involved except as interested members of the disgruntled public that he is seeking to save from the evil Conservatives.
However, members of this very vocal LOBBY group is working on the ground to make the arrangements for Garth's meeting halls, lodging etc. I don't think it is a stretch that Garth is a front for the IT lobby groups and taking "donations" of goods and services from them.
His claim that "local Liberal MPs" is also a stretch as he is going to NON LIBERAL ridings. If there was a Liberal in the riding why would they not hold their own open houses in their own ridings like my local Conservative MP does?
I get the feeling that Garth thinks just representing one little old riding (Halton) is sooo beneath him. He wants the whole country.
He ran for leadership of the old PC party and lost to Kim Campbell. He sees himself as a leader and that is why he is not a team player. However, it looks like the Liberal "team" is behind him on this one - at least their taxpayer allocated budgets are, whether they know it or not.
I wonder if those MPs whose name is on the franked mailings even know about this since these are paid for by the House of Commons,
Imagine, if a Conservative MP did any of this???? You would see front page headlines and have hysterical Liberals screeching about fraud and misuse of funds and the media giving them all the ink they wanted.
Good job Steve.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 07, 2007 11:17 PM (rp6r3)
9
What the hell is this Western flit all about? Is it about IT's ? Is it about trying to sell Dion to the West in intelligible English? Is it to slag the Harper government? OR is it all about Garth feeding his insatiable ego?
Whatever, it's a total waste of somebody's money.
Bottom line, why should we even give a toss? He's no asset to any party, he's a loose cannon.
Posted by: Libby at September 08, 2007 06:46 PM (ksEv6)
10
A reader in Winnipeg got a flyer delivered in an envelope from John McKay. Interesting that John McKay is on that list. Coincidences, eh?
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 08, 2007 10:58 PM (eGtvb)
11
Hey,Garth doesn't like me.Damn. Mr.Honest Straight Shooter wants to know if it would be better if he responded in crayon. I would prefer if he answered,crayon or sanskrit.I can get childish insults without the bother of hunting and pecking.Garth,you weasel,we know that you are reading this,,so,how much?You can run but you can't hide,FRANKly because of the thousands and thousands of OUR money that you spent to tell us where you will be.Cheers,see you on the 12th on the 7th.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 08, 2007 11:22 PM (Dc0qH)
12
That's right, this has all the earmarks of a private trip with wife along making it a nice swing through the West while still satisfying his ego with a few meetings. If I lived in Halton and had a regular backbencher in a Party I didn't elect him under swanning off to places he doesn't represent with unknown funding, I'd be demanding he resign.
So far, no word from Halton.
Posted by: Libby at September 09, 2007 10:33 AM (g4iYy)
13
Wholesale Nike NFL Jerseys, Free Shipping, Accept Paypal.
Posted by: Cheap Falcons jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:46 AM (wmdzq)
Junk Mail
This blog post shares the name with a Garth Turner blog post on the same subject. Garth Turner poses some very good questions that deserve some answers.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
09:20 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1739 words, total size 13 kb.
1
Because of his self professed "magnificence" he will probably feel that this type of scrutiny is beneath him...and his staff. Again, he cries foul when others do it, but its ok for him to do it.
This really isnt the same situation. The other items sent were 10%'ers. Bulk mail, non addressed. Garth has taken that excuse but hes incorrect since HIS stuff was personally addressed mail.
Now Garth has been accused of being many things over his years in politics, but STUPID isnt one of them. This is stupid.
Posted by: Garth will never answer these questions at September 07, 2007 10:02 AM (W5P+x)
2
Because of his self professed "magnificence" he will probably feel that this type of scrutiny is beneath him...and his staff. Again, he cries foul when others do it, but its ok for him to do it.
This really isnt the same situation. The other items sent were 10%'ers. Bulk mail, non addressed. Garth has taken that excuse but hes incorrect since HIS stuff was personally addressed mail.
Now Garth has been accused of being many things over his years in politics, but STUPID isnt one of them. This is stupid.
Posted by: at September 07, 2007 10:04 AM (W5P+x)
3
Garth bitched and whined about 10%'ers being used in HIS riding, but hes taken that a step further and using House of Commons staff and letters with "15 liberal MP's" who "helped" him promote his western tour.
Way back when Garth was a candidate in Halton for the CPC party he complained that Gary Carr, former Halton MP was using HOC budgets to send out "partisan" information to voters, and now hes done the same thing but on a higher scale and involved other MP's. When he was a candidate he chastised Gary Carr calling him a hypocritical floor crosser regarding his switch (he didnt switch parties while elected) saying it was wrong, and went ahead and did the same thing. Garth lives by the moto, dont do the wrong thing...let ME do it, and it will be alright then.
Garths claims of no additional cost to taxpayers is looking about as good as Bre-Ex stocks making a comeback finding gold near the escarpment in Halton.
Posted by: Even more at September 07, 2007 10:14 AM (W5P+x)
4
A little tidbit I've learned about Mr.Turner's constituency operations is that not only have they perfected the art of pushing his franking mail to the maximum they can (and beyond) but they even have a pile of returned by sender franked mail that they refer to as "Franks to be Spanked".
Posted by: Paul M at September 07, 2007 10:33 AM (0g/96)
5
NAMES ... I WANT MP NAMES ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Observer at September 07, 2007 10:49 AM (+5lU5)
6
I was just readiong on a Liberal Blog about Garth's me me me and I'm smarter than any "con" presentation in Victoria last night.
He claimed that he gets approximately 2 MILLION READERS PER MONTH on his blog!! Is this true?
He went on to say that his millions of fans from the Blog are the reason he did the tour. They pleaded for his exalted in person presence I guess.
Gosh - if all 308 MPs pilfered $100,000 or more from taxpayers in expences to cross Canada into OTHER PEOPLE'S RIDINGS just imagine how democratic that could be!!!
Posted by: Lorraine at September 07, 2007 10:56 AM (rp6r3)
7
Garth bitched and whined about 10%'ers being used in HIS riding, but hes taken that a step further and using House of Commons staff and letters with "15 liberal MP's" who "helped" him promote his western tour.
Sigh! Garth "Do as I say and not as I do" Turner strikes again.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at September 07, 2007 12:17 PM (g7gYB)
8
IÂ’ve speaking on these issues since May and I know there may be some income trust investors here and I want you to know there are no rules to this meeting, it is an open meeting. I want to hear about the issues that have brought you here, have a dialogue and listen to you.
As you know the Conservative government has suspended resumption of parliament and they are clearly not ready to face us yet. The upcoming Con throne speech will be followed by a confidence vote and if the government falls on the vote, we could be into an election by the end of November.
This tour actually started on the Internet. I am a blogger and I get about 2 million readers a month and many invites from across Canada to talk about issues. I want you to know I am a high tech guy thatÂ’s about to give a low- tech presentation (overheads and a mike).
Lots of issues are surfacing around the Globe right now. Afghanistan is blowing up and our soldiers are dying. The environment is a huge issue right now and the arctic is melting rapidly . Only just this week, 2 hurricanes hit land on the same day. Lots of people are worried about the Security Prosperity Partnership and deeper integration with the US. We live in a world where it is OK to give 12 million dollars to a dog.
Sure I ran as a Con and when the Con alliance merged with the PC I thought we had a great new mainstream party. Then Harper did something many people didnÂ’t like. He put Emerson into cabinet. Not a good idea. In the end, the Cons didnÂ’t like my blog much or my suggestions and the party whip lowered the boom and I was kicked out of caucus. The official story was I was kicked out because I breached confidentiality, which wasnÂ’t true at all. Now I was a guy without a caucus and an independent member of parliament. I tried the independent route, but it is difficult to participate as an independent, our government system is really a party system based on party politics.
The Green Party wanted me to be their first Green MP and I truly believe Elizabeth should be in parliament. I plan to go to Nova Scotia to campaign for her during the next election. However, in the end, the Green Party was not right for me or my constituents. I met with Stephane Dion and came to believe in his desire for social justice, and economic growth.
The main difference between the Libs and the Cons was the Libs wanted me. The Cons compare me with Emerson and if thatÂ’s how desperate they are they can go ahead and make it up. Now I am convinced I am in the right place.
Nove Scotia MP Bill Casey was also thrown out of the Conservative caucus when he would not agree to vote for the budget bill on the Atlantic Accord. He stood up for whatÂ’s right for his constituents and he got kicked out for it.
Harper doesnÂ’t even trust his MPÂ’s to be in the same room with reporters. The PM now has an image problem and he is seen as a politician of negativity. The Cons spent a multi-million dollar ad campaign on attacking Dion and then his dog Kyoto. I know that many people donÂ’t like it when you attack their dog. In the end, Kyoto has turned out to be a giant monster for Harper and Baird.
Have you ever noticed when comparing pictures of a smiling John Baird and attack dog John Baird they look remarkably the same? Then there is Flaherty. IÂ’ve been disappointed in Flaherty. He has used your money to buy votes. Moreover, he did something you would never expect from a Conservative, when he actually raised our income taxes. ItÂ’s true, we are all paying 3 billion more now in income taxes than before the Cons took office. Flaherty even tried to implement a new tax on corporate expansion but in the end he was forced to back down. The federal surplus is going down to 0% with no contingency at all and according to the Vancouver Board of Trade this earns the Cons a big fat D on spending.
Interest rates are rising, Bay Street economists are not happy and the dollar has gone up exponentially. The economy is at risk. We are starting to see erosion in real estate markets across the country. We are concerned about high dollar policy, export losses and a tide of takeovers, including the last remaining Canadian steal maker, Stelco. Income Tax betrayal has made me very disappointed with Flaherty. In the spring, Flaherty asked people to vote on his website on how they would benefit from his budget. When 90% responded by voting that it wouldnÂ’t benefit them, instead of changing the budget he just took the poll down.
For those who may have been Income Trust investors, there are 2 million seniors affected by the ConÂ’s deception. You donÂ’t want to hit seniors because when seniors are affected financially there is not as much time for catch-up. We have a serious problem with the demographics and the problem erased the savings of seniors who will soon retire.
32% or 9 million of the current Canadian population are my age 50+. We are living longer and we use more resources. According to Statistics Canada, in only a few years ½ of all Canadians will be over the age of 40. Our current savings rate is 0%. The average RRSP owner has about $40,0000 saved. If you’re 46 years old and only have $46,000 in an RRSP….well you’re in real trouble Real estate is where 83% of our assets are. We see the shiny freedom 65, but it’s more like freedom 95. Our new “never pay them off mortgages” can be as long as 50 years.
We all have been affected by the Cons inability to understand income trust tax. Markets took a dive. Initial public offerings have gone down 80% with negative consequences. Jim Flaherty used Bell and they were not able convert to an income trust. Instead Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) became private and taken over by pension plans. Guess how much tax pension plans pay? 0%. Today BCE will not pay 820 million in taxes to Canadians instead we now get zero dollars in tax revenue from BCE.
Fortunately the Liberals have announced through this news release, a plan that would help restore some of these losses. We believe about 2/3 of the lost value would be restored by this measure and this is a policy of Stephane Dion.
Our global markets are in turmoil. A big time credit crunch has appeared in the US. The US had a real estate market like ours, rising as much as 30% a year, and they lent out money like crazy to finance it all. Who cared if you didnÂ’t have the money to borrow? You borrowed money and still made money. Unfortunately, today itÂ’s all falling like a stone. Our banks are implicated too and the housing slump is not over. President Bush had to agree to provide 11.5 billion dollars in loans to help the market survive for one week. That puts US taxpayers on the hook. The real estate marked is taking a dive and foreclosures are going up and prices go down. Home depot, Walmart, etc are hit as the problem moves over into the consumer economy. Interest rates are up and home equity is down.
What about Canada? Will we be affected? Here in Victoria we seem insulated. We have some of the highest priced real estate in Canada. It really seems like we are not affected so we keep buying at a frenetic pace. But we need to consider that when we are looking at a much slower economy, it affects the job market. I think there will be a recession in the US. Last Friday the US president pleaded with 1.4 millions Americans not to give the keys back to their homes stating the US government will help you. When you see a US president pleading like that you know there is a big problem.
General Motors just laid off 1200 last Friday in Ontario. These are high paying manufacturing jobs that wonÂ’t come back again. We should all be aware of whatÂ’s going on, but its hard to understand when a major bridge, in a major US city falls into the water in the richest country in the world. How can a bridge fall down? Maybe the US has this problem because they are spending 200 billion a year on the Iraq war. They have serious problems. Should Canada be trying to get closer to this? No. We should not be putting all our economic eggs into one basket. We need to develop closer ties to China, Germany, etc. A cooling economy dampens demand and energy prices will drop. This is happening already.
What is the Harper doing about all of these problems? Nothing. He responds by shuffling cabinet ministers over here from over there. DonÂ’t expect changes in current policy, nothing is going to change. Shuffling cabinet ministers around is not going to change anything.
I am pleased to be part of Stephane DionÂ’s team because we plan to help retirees instead of stealing their retirement savings. We donÂ’t want young people to have to choose between buying a home and having a family. We need a government that speaks to us. That is why I am proud to be a Liberal.
Posted by: Transcript of Garths Opening In Victoria at September 07, 2007 01:11 PM (W5P+x)
9
We should not be putting all our economic eggs into one basket. We need to develop closer ties to China, Germany, etc. A cooling economy dampens demand and energy prices will drop. This is happening already. - Garth
Excuse me? Did he just SAY we should not be putting all our economic eggs into one basket??? Do you think all those people who lost "everything" in Income Trusts shouldve been thinking that before they DID put all their economic eggs into one basket?
We should get closer to China? Um, Garth, HUMAN RIGHTS???? LEAD IN PAINT???? WORST ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD OF ALL NATIONS??? and we should get CLOSER to them?
Oh ya, this is coming from the dude who said investors should hold onto Nortel stock then berated them when they did listen to his advice and lost millions by telling them they shouldve got investment advice.
Well they should have, but not from this english major or whatever degree he got...surely wasnt a finance oriented degree, which of course is no precursor to good investment advice (tounge in cheek)
Posted by: Want to know whats funny about that? at September 07, 2007 01:16 PM (W5P+x)
10
Garth's University degrees are in ENGLISH LITERATURE.
Surely that should qualify him to be the self professed investment guru.
Et tu Brutus?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 07, 2007 01:28 PM (rp6r3)
11
Well I certainly would not call my post on his presentation a transcript. I don't record it and then transcribe it exactly. I write notes as fast as I can when politicians speak but some is always lost and some is interpretation and perspective. What stands out for me might not stand out for someone else. I used the economic eggs reference because I lost his exact words on it. I did get "should be be trying to get closer to this? No" and then their was a reference to the other countries and diversification. Perhaps I should have used diversification instead of eggs in baskets. But please I am not an economist either I am just a blogger who likes politics who was up until 2 this morning trying to get it out in a reasonable time period. I will change it anyways. The 2 million readers he did say. I can't comment on the accuracy of it.
Posted by: Woman at Mile 0 at September 07, 2007 03:26 PM (uNoMw)
12
Now I'm convinced that Garthicle is more full of BS than his adopted political cabal. Not only Is Turner, NOT a financial "expert", ( I think he got a BA in English lit or something) but there is about as much chance of a confidence vote as there is of gold bullion dropping from Garths butt to pay back the Adscam cash stolen by the LPC.
A fall election would decimate the LPC and at the best put them back as opposition....and their spinners know it....besides they're broke.
Turner...looking forward to your "open form" in Calgary...while you whine to the ignorant about trust fund tax, maybe you can explain all the offshore investment taxes the LPC levied and why many of their commissars and patrons escape these taxes...or the incremental capital gains creep under LPC. The Liberals have a lot to hide when it comes to taxing private investment...anyone who has managed their own portfolio knows where the LPC skeletons are hidden.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 09, 2007 09:04 AM (INHn8)
13
I read the so called "information: in Garty-poos we rant and that which isn't manipulative hysteria and fear mongering are Librano talking points...same LPC fearmongering repackaged as "information"....the one item that is starkly Librano crime family (Powecor) policy is the urging to get closer trade/economic ties to China...this is the core directive of the Desmarais/Powercor/LPC racketeering cabal.
Garth: every penny sent to China kills a job here!...get bent you Liberal racketeering skank...what are they promising you to push the China agenda? Hope to get on the Powercor board?...you skank!
Posted by: Bill in Calgary at September 09, 2007 09:16 AM (INHn8)
14
Wholesale Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys and Snapback Hats,Custom Uniforms,NFL Elite,Game Jersey
Posted by: Cheap Chargers jerseys at November 29, 2012 10:46 AM (wmdzq)
15
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.lebrongalaxy9.com
Posted by: nike mercurial 9 at December 03, 2012 04:35 PM (urgCT)
September 06, 2007
Is Garth Turner making you pay for an expensive targeted mail campaign?
Another example of a generic Garth Turner tour flyer being delivered by individually addressed envelopes to people in the areas where he will be making an appearance. Another example from what might be an expensive advertising campaign being paid for by taxpayers, but more interesting is what the recipients have in common.
It could explain why we're being made to pay for this.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:44 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Keep digging on this Steve, you'll find every party does this and the worst culprit that I'm aware of is Jack Layton who regularly sends franked, enveloped 10 percenters into ridings the NDP does not hold. I live in a Conservative riding and I've had 5 of these delivered in 2007 alone. The Libs send them occasionally too and I'm fairly sure the Conservatives also send 10 percenters into ridings they don't hold. I'm not sure if they all use franked envelopes, if they do that may explain why nobody in Ottawa is bringing this up.
Posted by: Petri Striko at September 06, 2007 12:12 PM (XHf+s)
2
The use of 10 percenters to send flyers in ridings held by other parties is well documented. They all do it. They all have elaborate organizations to do it efficiently. And they are all equally guilty of corrupting the spirit of the 10 percenter, or of cleverly using the tool to get there message to where an incumbent controls much of the communication, depending on your point of view.
If a party were to use franked mail to do the same thing, though, the hue and cry goes up because of the massive expense (ten times the cost).
What I think is important here is that Garth Turner's Lost Tory Tour was supposed to be a no-cost-to-taxpayer thing, and instead we have these franked mailings from over a dozen Liberal MPs. I'm trying to square-the-circle and show that these mailings really didn't cost anything, but everything suggests otherwise.
Why then leads to the question: Why franked mail and not a dirt cheap ten-percenter?
And that's why you have this post.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 06, 2007 12:19 PM (eGtvb)
3
I have received flyers from Jack Layton in Edmonton but they were not personally addressed - therefore these would be I think the cheaper 10 percenters which are sent to targetted postal codes.
My big question is WHERE did Garth Turner get his mailing list???? My name was on it. And, if Garth purchased a mailing list there would be a cost. Who paid the cost?
It would look like the taxpayer's costs for this Liberal /Conservative bashing Turner ego tour could mount into over $100,000.
Consider this: the taxpayer is footing the bill for his air fare for himself and his wife if not others in his entourage; postage costs, printing/stuffing and collating costs, wages for his Halton constituency staff who he claims have been working their buns off on this escapade; wages for other constituency staffers from other ridings?
My quedtion: NONE OF THIS propaganda tour is FOR HALTON, Turner's own constituency. The very people he gets this funding , office, allowance and salary to serve.
In my opinion this is Liberal party business which has NO BUSINESS being conducted out of a constituency office.
If YOUR MP was doing this - using his riding office for partisan politics instead of as a service centre for residents would you be a little ticked off?
Political campaign offices are separate for a good reason. They are expences to be paid for by the political parties - NOT the taxpayer.
If the Liberal party was picking up the tab on this I would have no trouble with it. But, here is a blatant example of how the Liberals can rip off the taxpayer even when they are not in charge of the pursestrings.
Scary huh.
Oh - and Garth justifies it of course.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 06, 2007 12:25 PM (rp6r3)
4
" Every party does this." Yes, that's the point, party. But Garth has proclaimed this to be a no-cost tour; just a little trip of his own out west, nothing to do with the Liberal party, motivated by his fans asking him to come out and speak to them , volunteers offering up the halls and the rooms for him. He was using his expenses saved from driving to and from Ottawa. It was a frugal MP's trip with no cost to the taxpayer.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 06, 2007 12:27 PM (UDy9q)
5
...I want one! I want one!
Posted by: tomax7 at September 06, 2007 12:35 PM (jHhd0)
6
The onus is on MP Garth to prove that his western tour is a so-called "no additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer" ... by producing a list of all the expenses incurred and where the money came from.
For MP Garth to proclaim that there is no additional cost is not enough ... and he and the Liberal party must fess up will an accounting of all monies spent on this western jaunt.
Posted by: Observer at September 06, 2007 12:38 PM (W3R1p)
7
Maybe someone in Calgary can go to the meeting on the 12th and ask the question?
Posted by: Phil in Ottawa at September 06, 2007 01:07 PM (xUjnI)
8
Yes ... I've received mail from LIberal MP Offices in Regina, New Brunswick and Quebec.
I'm very popular it seems! I'd like to know where they got my address for their mailing list.
Posted by: OMMAG at September 06, 2007 02:00 PM (GL4I6)
9
Yeah, tomax7, but I want several to line the bird cage, imagine their sturdy and hold a lot of poop.
Posted by: Libby at September 06, 2007 02:06 PM (JObsp)
10
If you read this JOURNALIST's article it states Garth was a minister of revenue of the Mulroney government....
UM nope. Seems THAT journalist forgot to check the facts...
It was Campbells govt...for like 3 months....he was minister...and did nothing.
I wonder if hell go after THAT journalist as he goes after Steve on his credibility and checking facts? Probably not.
Posted by: Interview with Goof ball at September 06, 2007 02:11 PM (XdF/C)
11
The LIBS are trying as they might to get the CPC on the "ad funding" but it doesnt seem to stick very much. I think THIS might actually hurt Garth, courtesy of his big mouth.
Posted by: Lucy...you have some splainin to do at September 06, 2007 02:58 PM (XdF/C)
12
I was visiting my 65 year old Father in Calgary about three weeks ago and there was one of these letters on his desk. He threw it out promptly so I can't scan it for you, but it was identical to the others you have posted here. Garth is definitely targeting an older audience and thus using franked mail.
Great work Steve!
Posted by: James at September 06, 2007 03:17 PM (BOCj2)
13
Yeah, tomax7, but I want several to line the bird cage, imagine their sturdy and hold a lot of poop.
Libby, that wouldn't be a Puffin in that cage, would it?
Posted by: Joanne (TB) at September 06, 2007 03:33 PM (plbK4)
14
Just did a quick search around the internet and something struck me as interesting.
If you ask Garth or any of his followers...Garth is leading the nation, speaking out for the little guys...bla bla bla.
I went over to LIE-BLOGS... oops I meant LIBLOGS, the hosting site of many many liberal blogs and loh and behold...NO ONE on Garths side is talking about Garth....other than Garth and the CAITI groupies that follow him on his Lost Tory Tour.
If hes doing such a good job for the Liberal party, then why isnt anyone noticing on "their" side?
Could it be that the Halton MP is as irrelevant as one of McQuinty's election promises?
Posted by: Who else is talking about Garth at September 06, 2007 03:36 PM (XdF/C)
15
Why do I see a freedom of information request coming in the near future for sixteen mp concerning their office budgets. LMAO, H
Posted by: Ken at September 06, 2007 03:59 PM (dfmT8)
16
Why do I see a freedom of information request coming in the near future for sixteen mp concerning their office budgets. LMAO. What do the cost 25$ I think.
Posted by: at September 06, 2007 04:01 PM (dfmT8)
17
Why do I see a freedom of information request coming in the near future for sixteen mp concerning their office budgets. LMAO.
Posted by: at September 06, 2007 04:02 PM (dfmT8)
18
The lists come from the election canada list that each party is provided. Garth could have mailed them all himself as there is no limit on how many direct mail you can send. He used the other M.P.'s more to get the printing done through the House. As far as targeting goes until DOB is included on the list they still depend on stats canada to give postal code demographics.
Posted by: mike at September 06, 2007 04:20 PM (HNLSR)
19
also MP budgets are not ATIP accessible.
Posted by: mike at September 06, 2007 04:22 PM (HNLSR)
20
Steve...you gotta dump this in a western CPC MP's lap...preferably a cab-min and let them run with it. This Garthacle fecial deposting tour will be delivered still born ;-)
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 06, 2007 05:01 PM (INHn8)
21
Really Mike and why not. It seems everything else is, why should we be able to know what the PM communication director spent on a meeting but not know how our local MP is spending his money. Why can we know what a Cabinet Minister spend on dinner at Pizza Hut but not what these 16 MPs spent out of their office budgets to do this mailing.
Posted by: at September 06, 2007 05:14 PM (dfmT8)
22
Correct me if I'm wrong Steve,but is their not some law/rule, whereby if a politician receives something free exceeding $200 in value,it must be declared with the ethics commissioner.This is what screwed the Liberal's when it was discovered they were taking free flights and fishing trips from the Irvings.
Now I know that Alberta is booming,and there is a pretty good chance some of those hotel rooms are pretty costly.Would Turner not be obligated to declare all these costs?
Posted by: paulsstuff at September 06, 2007 05:47 PM (yoJ+K)
23
Joanne: "Libby, that wouldn't be a Puffin in that cage, would it?"
HA! Good one!
Posted by: tomax7 at September 06, 2007 06:11 PM (jHhd0)
24
Libby..."this Liberal's dead!"
Garth: "No it's not, its just sleeping".
Posted by: tomax7 at September 06, 2007 06:13 PM (jHhd0)
25
I don't know why Garth just didn't make arrangements to have his flyers mailed out with the old age pension cheques.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 06, 2007 06:22 PM (YiAov)
26
Turner's team have been busy ever since he got the MP's job. He has used up all but 1 householder that he's alloted for 2007. (I wonder what he's going to put in that one?) Blew them all when he was SO sure there was going to be a spring election.
His office also makes sure they send out as many 10%'ers as allowed and on top of that have a steady supply of Franked Mailers ready to send out every week. Gotta blanket the riding with Turnerism's ya know!
Turner was plenty miffed that he had to pay for all his own lit before he was elected whereas Gary Carr had lots of freebie tools at his disposal. Garth couldn't wait to get his mitts on the freebie mailers so that he could spread the "Gospel According to Garth".
Funny thing is, if Esther and her crew are busy answering calls, emails, snail mails about the Tour, how is this helping those of us back in Halton? Are we the "Forgotton Constituents"? I sure hope that they aren't giving those people outside the riding priority attention just because they've got nice stuff to say about Turner!
Posted by: A Haltonian (or is it Haltonite?) at September 06, 2007 07:42 PM (aHT3w)
27
I have to say that if MY Conservative MP was using his office budget; constituency staff; constituency mailing allowances, constituency office, constituency photocopiers, phones and fax machines for political PARTY purposes, self promotion and cross country political propaganda tours unrelated AT ALL to either his caucus role or our local constituency needs I would be placing a complaint immediately to the Conservative Party HQ, the Whip and even the Prime Minister.
Those budgets are for my MP to serve HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS!!! That is what he is paid for and why we elected him locally.
I see my MP everywhere in the riding. When not in the House he is meeting with aldermen and MLAs, at community events, holding open houses at senior's centres, cultural centres, He is there to welcome new immigrants and works closely with the social service sector and the poverty action community and helping people with the thousands and thousands of government related issues that impact their lives.
I know he is busy 7 days a week pretty well day and night representing and listening to US.
WHO is representing Halton residents? Garth is spending Halton resident budgets and using Halton resident resources for Liberal party and the Income Trust special interest groups propaganda.
How does this help Halton???? Good question.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 06, 2007 08:06 PM (7WrIl)
28
I smell a "Forgotten Constituents" protest at Turners constituency office...
Posted by: Paul M at September 06, 2007 08:35 PM (LKVvi)
29
Garth is Dion's beard, and as goes Dion so goes Garth.
If Dion is overthrown as Liberal leader, Garth will be purged out of the Liberal party, and he knows that too.
Garth is scrambling for his survival in the Liberal party, and Dion is using him to prop himself up too.
Posted by: Observer at September 06, 2007 09:26 PM (rw79N)
30
Lorraine: I realize you're making a broader point, but FYI ... Printing and mailing costs aren't charged to a member's office budget -- they don't pull funds away from constituency services. (These costs appear in annual summaries of per-MP expenditures, but they're actually covered by the House.)
Steve: If you dig further, do report back when you confirm that the Conservative Resource Group is far and away the largest user of so-called franked mail privileges -- piggybacking on CPC MP privileges for central spam targeting residents by address using sophisticated demographic modelling tools. (Caveat digor.)
Posted by: at September 06, 2007 09:40 PM (IMtHv)
31
Thats it, keep trying to justify Liberal abuse of tax dollars...
Posted by: Paul M at September 06, 2007 09:55 PM (LKVvi)
32
I was not only commenting on printing and mailing costs. Whether it is from the House or otherwise the taxpayers are paying for this.
It is that Garth is using his constituency resources, staff, office, phones, etc. for political purposes NOT related to Halton's needs which is what these resources were allocated for and paid for by the taxpayer.
His little "Lost Tory" tour is NOT related to any caucus role or portfolio; has nothing to do with Halton, and is heavily related to promoting himself, Liberal protagonist messages and the vitriolic messages of the CAITI Income Trust lobby group using Garth as a taxpayer paid for front for their lobby.
In Alberta absolutely NO provincial political party work can be done out of a riding office - not even selling a party membership. There are consequences for doing this.
If you want to defend this then I question the ethics. I have no problem with 10 percenters from politicians being delivered to my door. That's [part of the political process.
But I will tell you that when I receive a mailer from the Conservative PARTY there is a STAMP on it and I have authorized the use of my address by them by purchasing a membership.
I received a postage free addressed House of Commons envelope from Garth Turner. I not only did not authroize his use of my name and address but the flyer within had nothing to do with House of Commons issues - they were Garth Turner and Income Trust investor and Liberal vitriolic messages.
I believe this to be an opportunistic abuse of resources allocated to serve Halton constituents.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 06, 2007 10:19 PM (7WrIl)
33
People like to complain but no one will DO what is needed. What is needed in this situation is a formal investigation upon the completion of this Lost Tory Tour. Garths staff has to compile a list of the doners, what was donated and how much, which MP lent their mailers to the cause and how many were sent...all of this before the next federal election.
Problem is...will it happen?
Posted by: The only problem is at September 06, 2007 11:19 PM (XdF/C)
34
Bottom line, who is Garth Turner other than an ELECTED Conservative representing Halton. He then took it upon himself to gradually slide his ass into an independent seat because he didn't get the attention he craved and then into a Liberal seat, all representing the people of Halton. Now he's nothing more than a back bench turncoat out seeking attention under the Liberal banner.
That's fine for the Liberals, they'll take any attention they can get and Garth is such an attention seeker due to his insatiable Ego, he'll fill that bill well.
How about the people of Halton? Do they approve of him seat hopping? Do they feel he lost credibility when he said he would never hop to another party without running in a Bye?
IS HE FILLING THE HALLS TO HEAR HIS RANTS?
Posted by: Libby at September 07, 2007 07:55 AM (XeMw3)
35
Shortly after Garth Turner assumed his seat in the House of Commons his executive commented at one of the meetings that " Garth had figured out a way to get many more ten percenters out than was allowed by the house rules." It appears that Garth's less than honourable methods have gone with him to the Liberals. When Turner was a Conservative the constituency office was off limits to the Halton Conservative Association as again in Esther's words " the association can't have a meeting here as it is now a non- partisan office." Now that she works for a Liberal that is obviously not the case.
QAS
Posted by: QAS at September 07, 2007 08:53 AM (7ORov)
36
Steve: I see these revealing posts on the sleaze and deceit driving the lost tory tour are drawing Librano hacks and apologists out with the same sad dismissal tactics...you rolled the right stone over lad....the bugs are scurrying for cover.
Good work.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 07, 2007 09:04 AM (INHn8)
37
In case nobody has figured it out, Liberals are masters at defending the indefensible because they always create reasons to be on the defensive. They can admit no wrong, it's always someone else's fault, like the devil made me do it.
As in Adscam, the money came from the air, no known source, but a specific target, buy votes in Quebec from a fanthom voice.
That's their line. We happen to know it came from us, the long suffering taxpayers from across Canada.
Chretien and Martin the duelling dancers on political hegemony knew nothing but both were in charge of the public purse when this scandal of major proportions went down.
Why should we expect a seat hopping toad and insignificant lout like Turner to divulge what he does with his allotments?
The people of Halton have to be fed up with his nonsense.
Posted by: Libby at September 07, 2007 12:12 PM (gpndn)
38
Authentic 2012 cheap jerseys shop for sale NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL/NCAA jerseys
Posted by: Broncos jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:46 AM (wmdzq)
39
Hello first time to come to this forum, I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f
Posted by: mercurial superfly 8 at December 03, 2012 12:38 PM (0TN3y)
40
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.women-ugg-boots.com
Posted by: Mercurial 9 at December 03, 2012 04:06 PM (PYoRF)
41
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.cr72012.com
Posted by: 2012 Mercurial vapor VIII at December 03, 2012 04:06 PM (QS6o9)
September 05, 2007
Garth Turner's expensive mass mailing on your dime
I've been reviewing my thoughts on the material sent to people to encourage them to see Liberal MP Garth Turner speak as he tours western Canada. Now with photographic evidence, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. Special thanks to Garth Turner for helping me understand what is going on.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:35 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1696 words, total size 11 kb.
1
McCallum sent me a letter too. I was so annoyed to get it that I shredded it twice.
Posted by: Sheldon Kotyk at September 06, 2007 02:14 AM (Yp+G6)
2
And since you're 31, Sheldon, it's puts the kibosh on my theory that the mass mailing was aimed at seniors. Well, I wouldn't have thought it was aimed 100% at seniors, but a preponderance. Need much more data to come to a conclusion.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 06, 2007 05:27 AM (82+9s)
3
This is just another Lieberal adscam, supported by Quebec Lieberal MPs. So where is Harper and the tories on this? Asleep again, no wonder they are stalled in the polls.
Posted by: Pissedoff at September 06, 2007 11:05 AM (tGPrv)
4
Steve:
Can you provide us with the names of the "16 MPs" who so generously supported turncoat Garth's western tour?
I wouldn't be surprised if all these MPs are ardent Dion supporters, as is Garth who's future in the Liberal party is dependent of Dion's continued leadership.
Posted by: Observer at September 06, 2007 11:35 AM (W3R1p)
5
So far only John McCallum and Massimo Pacetti. If more people email me with info about what they go in the mail, I'll add to the list.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 06, 2007 11:46 AM (eGtvb)
6
Anybody in Abbotsford going to confront Mr. Garth Turner with this evidence this Sunday? Anybody know any journalists in Abbotsford?
Posted by: PlaidShirt at September 06, 2007 11:48 AM (F47cQ)
7
Steve:
Garth should be willing to provide the list of the 16 Liberal MPs who diverted funds to his western tour ... all in the name of transparency.
Will you ask MP Garth to provide that list of MPs and the amount spent for "no additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer"...???!!!!
Posted by: Observer at September 06, 2007 12:30 PM (W3R1p)
8
Whenever I pop up on Garth Turner's radar, he calls me an idiot or a loser or a ferret or whatever. I could ask but I'm not optimistic.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 06, 2007 12:40 PM (eGtvb)
9
MP Garth should be confronted to provide the list of MPs who assisted him in his western tour, and that would achieve a transparency to Garth's claim that it is not costing Canadian taxpayers any extra money.
However is is ostensably costing the taxpayers in the risings of the 16 odd MPs who are transferring funds to finance the preparation of Garth's trip out west.
MP Garth should only be too pleased to provide a full accounting of the cost of his tour, and he should post it on his weblog as well.
I want to know which Liberal MPs chipped in in any way to make Garth's tour such a 'success' ... as he and Dion will no doubt proclaim.
Posted by: Observer at September 06, 2007 01:49 PM (W3R1p)
10
Youll find a link to an interview done with the Great Garth-iny. In that report, its stated he was the Minister of National Revenue for the Mulroney government. PM Mulroney was smart enough not to stick this idiot in a cabinet position. He was minister of national revenue for a few months while the house was in recess and NOTHING ever came out of his office. He was too busy then being self important and egotistical.
Nice to see things dont change with age.
Posted by: Dont reporters check their facts? at September 06, 2007 01:50 PM (XdF/C)
11
MP Garth should be confronted to provide the list of MPs who assisted him in his western tour, and that would achieve a transparency to Garth's claim that it is not costing Canadian taxpayers any extra money.
However is is ostensably costing the taxpayers in the risings of the 16 odd MPs who are transferring funds to finance the preparation of Garth's trip out west.
MP Garth should only be too pleased to provide a full accounting of the cost of his tour, and he should post it on his weblog as well.
I want to know which Liberal MPs chipped in in any way to make Garth's tour such a 'success' ... as he and Dion will no doubt proclaim.
Posted by: Ob at September 06, 2007 01:50 PM (W3R1p)
12
Got one of these a while ago, and immediately trashed it when I saw who the speaker was. But Victoria is my riding and my MoP is Denise Savoie...NDP. Interesting.
Posted by: sbloo at September 06, 2007 04:16 PM (n367F)
13
There is the deep stench of Librano sleaze, misappropriation and deceit in this tour and the flyers promoting it.
I particularly note that Turner does not identify himself as the self serving narcissistic floor crosser MP from the Liberal party....but he promotes himself in the personna of his former life as a self styled "financial expert"....curiously no mention of the liberal party on these flayers or in the tour promotion at all.
From the get go this tour has a gross amount of misrepresentation and crass dishonesty about it....this will NOT go over well in Alberta and Rural BC. Albertans lynch liars and snake oil salesmen.
Take a clean set of cloths and some detergent Garth, you're gonna get tar and feathers on the ones you wear to your Alberta medicine shows.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 06, 2007 04:38 PM (INHn8)
14
"Federal MP and national financial commentator" reads Mr. Turner's flyer.
Do other MPs list their other occupations, vocations, avocations, designations, etc., other than their current one, i.e. MP for riding X?
Seems like Mr. Turner expects to be devoting himself full time to the latter rather than to the former designation.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at September 06, 2007 08:03 PM (E2GmW)
15
Cut the Bullshit Gabby; Turner sanitized the flyers of party affiliation you deceitful Liberal hack...he did it on purpose because Liberals are poison in western Canada....he's running partisan political messaging and he;s being deceitful about it....frick you liberal dog pumpers will lie about anything.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 07, 2007 08:56 AM (INHn8)
16
"Cut the Bullshit Gabby ..."
Mr. WL Mackenzie Redux, I guess subtlety is completely lost on you. If you had ever bothered to read my comments in the blogosphere, you would know that I am a conservative, and that I support Mr. Harper wholeheartedly.
I don't "do" insults - but in your case, I'll make an exception. You're an illiterate idiot.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at September 07, 2007 02:19 PM (E2GmW)
17
"Cut the __ Gabby ..."
Mr. WL Mackenzie Redux, I guess subtlety is completely lost on you. If you had ever bothered to read my comments in the blogosphere, you would know that I am a conservative, and that I support Mr. Harper wholeheartedly.
I don't "do" insults - but in your case, I'll make an exception. Please enrol in a remedial reading course.
Posted by: at September 07, 2007 02:23 PM (E2GmW)
18
Sorry for the double post, Steve. I got an "error" message twice, so I thought the language might have been considered objectionable.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at September 07, 2007 02:30 PM (E2GmW)
19
This was a mass mailing in the Calgary area. I would guess at LEAST 20,000 pieces in this city alone.The mailing list is an old one,further adding to the waste. On his blog under "strike 3", comments 98 to 102,Garth dodges the question of expenses,saying that he is guilty of nothing but communicating with the electorate.I think otherwise. Garth may believe that Dion's days are limited and is getting his face out there to challenge for the leadership next time around. He does have the ego and lack of morals for it.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 08, 2007 09:57 AM (Dc0qH)
20
Gruntled Postie, I assume you are a postal worker and so have the credibility to make that estimate?
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 08, 2007 10:43 AM (rHDev)
21
Correct. I have a little over 400 calls on my route,a mix of apts.and houses. I recieved 22 pieces of Garth's bumf,which is about 5% of the residences. I extrapolated those figures over the points of call in Calgary and then quite loosely estimated due to the age of the mailing list and erred on the side of caution to arrive at 20,000. Of course,Garth has the exact amounts but he seems to be a little reluctant to share his info.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 08, 2007 11:02 AM (Dc0qH)
22
I just checked with a co-worker. I deliver in a predominately low-income area.He delivers in one of calgary's most affluent neighbourhoods. This person is not politically conscious at all, but remembers those F***EN things,his words. Therefore , if Garth obtained his mailing list through a political connection,the likelihood of my 20,000 estimate being low is quite high.The reason for that is the higher the income,the greater likelihood that one follows politics.
Posted by: GruntledPostie at September 08, 2007 12:27 PM (Dc0qH)
23
HI Steve,
my Garth's envelope came from Massimo Paccetti (Saint Leonard - Saint Michel). I live in the Calgary West riding and am still far away from retirement. I will file a complaint with Mr. Pacetti's office and also with Elections Canada.
I have never ever been involved in politics EXCEPT one time volunteer stint for local Tories few years ago.
And for the sake of completeness, code on my envelope is A07CW3BI7EN - Steve I can email you scan of my envelope
if you wish so.
Best regards
Andy
Posted by: Andy at September 08, 2007 06:24 PM (VONqp)
Garth Turner's taxpayer-funded Liberal-organized Quebec-based advertising program?
I got an email from a Calgary-based reader, relating to me the strange snail mail letter he received advertising the Garth Turner Lost Tory Tour. I'll relate to you what he told me, and let you muse about what it all means.
Update #1: The mail was sent from 15 different Liberal MPs into western ridings where Garth Turner would be doing his presentation. I suspect these were "10-percenters", a tool provided by the House of Commons to faciliate communications between an MP and his constituents, but increasingly used to send aggressive partisan mailings to voters in ridings held by other parties without spending party funds. If so, just how is this not a Liberal Party operation and just how does this not cost the taxpayer money?
Update #2: Having received a photo of the material sent, I've changed my mind. I don't think these are 10-percenters at all. I think this is expensive franked mail containing the equivalent of a 10-percenter. That's a huge leap in expense. Imagine the local dry cleaner sending you their monthly flyer via first class mail. Imagine then that the post office bill for that dry cleaner was paid for by you, whether you used that dry cleaner or not.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
12:19 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2558 words, total size 18 kb.
1
Give me a break Steve, you are talking about the Lieberals and a Queerbec one at that. Any involvement with Turner has to be a scam of Canadian taxpayers.
Posted by: Pissedoff at September 05, 2007 12:37 PM (F/Ilr)
2
Well, I think the last comment on the post Garth The General was interesting. It was from a Conservative who received an inviation to Garth's town hall meeting in Abbotsford mailed from John McCallum's office.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 05, 2007 12:42 PM (n6846)
3
"Franking mail is not zero cost."
You really are scratching for something, anything. I guess that's what happens when you get sued and lose.
Posted by: not Garth Turner at September 05, 2007 12:44 PM (ry7L0)
4
Andrew Coyne recently described Canadian Politics as stupid. Steve, your investigations show why. It's not enough to be good, you have to be seen to being good to be good. Perception is reality and all that.
If alcohol induces honesty, then at least Canadians got the truth was from Sir John A. And that was probably the last time we got the truth.
Cheers
Posted by: Phil in Ottawa at September 05, 2007 01:00 PM (xUjnI)
5
Your next Canada Post price increase brought to you by Garth
Posted by: mungman at September 05, 2007 01:05 PM (w9ZkP)
6
What I want to know is this:
1. If an MP doesn't use his allotment of travel vouchers in a given year, is the cost of them lost or is there a savings to the taxpayer.
2. Same as above but regarding MP office budgets.
The reasons I ask these is because Garth continually says "no additional (or new) costs to the tax payers" for his tour. But he's getting people like McCallum and other Liberal MPs to use their "unused" budgets to help pay for the tour. Now if normal procedure is that unspent budgets are a savings to the taxpayers, then Garth is indeed adding "additional costs" to the taxpayer. Because people like McCallum didn't spend all they were entitled to it should go back to the pool of general revenue and not paying for a partisan Liberal tour.
Also, if an MP lives close to Ottawa, why do they get the same travel vouchers as someone who lives in Northern BC or Nunavut or PEI? I've never understood that. The travel points are to allow MPs to get between their riding and Ottawa. If you live close enough to Ottawa that you don't need the points you shouldn't be allowed to save them up for personal use.
Posted by: Reid at September 05, 2007 01:11 PM (rXo+C)
7
I received a mailing promoting Garth's "non partisan" Lost Tory tour in Edmonton.
It was addressed to the "blank" residence which is the same way any mailings from the Conservative Party is addressed to us.
It was sent postage free in a Garth Turner House of Commons issued white envelope.
I was under the impression that MP consituency budgets from the House of Commons was to be used for the member's OWN constituency and for non partisan information.
Partisan promotional materials and party political propaganda (which I would say Garth's is) would be paid for by the respective parties - not the taxpayers.
Is this a huge loophole the slippery Liberals have found in order to continue to use taxpayer money for Liberal politics?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 01:49 PM (rp6r3)
8
Actually, the rules are quite broad when it comes to franked mail. It can go to anywhere in Canada, not just to your own constituency. Now the complication comes into how the lists are created. I'm starting to think that this was a 10-percenter, a partisan party mass mailing from an MP to 10-percent of the households in his riding based on lists created by the constituency assistant, and paid for by the House of Commons. Can a 10-percenter be used to cover mail from McCallum or Pacetti sent to BC or Alberta? My guess is probably. But then a 10-percenter is supposed to paid for out of the HoC budget for this sort of thing, which then begs the question about exactly how this tour is not Liberal and not taxpayer funded.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 05, 2007 01:55 PM (eGtvb)
9
And it looks like Garth Turner was covering Edmonton...add it to my list.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 05, 2007 01:58 PM (eGtvb)
10
Well, according to CTV yesterday,
"Finance critic John McCallum and House leader Ralph Goodale met with more than 30 senior executives of some of Canada's largest energy trusts in Calgary" to discuss income trusts. Quite handy that it coincides with Garth's western tour.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 05, 2007 02:27 PM (8seW7)
11
Ah, the hell with the whole Garthology tour, it's just the little boy out and about trying to boost his ego, feel important as a member of a party drinking at Last Chance Saloon.
If he's going on the cheap, flying economy, paying his own expenses why is he acting like some key member of Parliament and taking his wife along? If the Liberals are so skint for bucks, one would think even donated stuff, freebies would be given where it would help their chances. Garth is helping the Conservatives with this tour.
Posted by: Libby at September 05, 2007 02:34 PM (29jCD)
12
Another few thoughts on this:
The Income Trust special interest lobby groups are actively promoting Garth's tour; helping fund it; helping organize it (Garth claims these are just good old regular non partisan members of the concerned public), especially CAITI whose vitriol about ITs is almost verbatum to Garth's flyers and Blog.
So, my question, is an elected member of Parliament (Garth)and taxpayer funds being used by a special interest lobby group to promote their Income Trust agenda?
Is this ethical?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 02:58 PM (rp6r3)
13
Next thought: Garth and the Liberal Party are saving themselves 55 cents per addressed mail and deferring that cost to Canada Post and the taxpayer.
Let us assume there were just 1,000 pieces of mail (which I'm guessing is low balling) from each of the 15 Liberal constituency budgets.
That is 15,000 total for a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $8,000 for a taxpayer funded Liberal Party special lobby group propaganda tour.
Any body else think this stinks?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 03:02 PM (rp6r3)
14
Before you get bent out of shape, perhaps you should rap the knuckles of Conservative MP's doing the same thing. It's like a virus these days. I.E. Del Mastro sending mailings from Peterborough to Halton, etc.
We should be getting on this case for ALL parties.
Posted by: Sara at September 05, 2007 03:05 PM (BnPhA)
15
The LPC : Bringing Quebec political sleaze/corruption to your doorstep.
See on the 12th Garth...me and most of the western conservatives in the audience will have the ripest Tomatos we can find to "share" with you. ;-)
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at September 05, 2007 03:30 PM (INHn8)
16
Interesting the Dion Liberals are using a proxy to conduct election candy tours of Alberta. Dion's last tour bought more boos than booze.
The fact that a scuzz bag like Turner would even feel safe coming out to Alberta where floor crossing is akin to pedophilia speaks to the arrogance and ignorance of the LPC.
Interesting also is the vote bribing of the oil patch with the trust fund candy....I hope when we send Garth's bruised ego back to his Liberal masters that he tells them the CEOs of big oil DO NOT represent the grass roots Alberta voter...who has has far more ethical motivations than some corporate whore they can buy with sleazy promises...they will find the Alberta voter is hard to buy and has an inherent disgust of liberals and Liberal sleaze.
Garth will also be meeting some of his ex constituents who had to relocate here after his party's policies downsized the Oakville auto pact industries....hope they show up to remind Garth what hot-air politics are worth.
Posted by: Western Trust at September 05, 2007 03:49 PM (INHn8)
17
Sara, I said explicitly all parties do it (use 10-percenters to mail into other ridings with attack ads and other electioneering-style missives). I also said Karen Redman, a Liberal, probably has a point that this is not what the tool was meant for, no matter who is doing it. But when the Liberals or the Conservatives or the NDP do it in general, they admit they are using HoC funds (and argue that they are not breaking the rules despite Redman's opinion). On the other hand, Garth Turner in particular is saying he is not costing the taxpayer any money, but if his mailings are 10-percenters, then that claim might deserve some extra scrutiny, if you buy into Redman's view of these things.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 05, 2007 03:51 PM (eGtvb)
18
I think that oil execs will snap back to reality after they are reminded that the Libs are the party of the National Energy Program, Income Trusts are nothing in the light of that.
Posted by: mungman at September 05, 2007 04:26 PM (w9ZkP)
19
"Before you get bent out of shape, perhaps you should rap the knuckles of Conservative MP's doing the same thing. It's like a virus these days. I.E. Del Mastro sending mailings from Peterborough to Halton, etc.
We should be getting on this case for ALL parties.
Posted by: Sara at September 5, 2007 03:05 PM"
Sara, I remember Garth Whining and crying on his blog when that happened (I personally never got one, nor have I heard of anyone else getting one). "Oh, woe is me, the cons are picking on me". He whines when he's at the receiving end of it, but turns around and does the exact same thing.
This is another example of Garth Turner having one set of rules for himself and another set for everyone else.
Rule for Garth Turner: "Garth is always right"
Rule for everyone else: "see above"
Posted by: Sentinel at September 05, 2007 04:31 PM (3/d+P)
20
We get mailings from both the NDP and CPC. We live in a Liberal riding.
Relax
Posted by: at September 05, 2007 05:52 PM (du0LM)
21
I deliver for Canada Post. These mailings caught my attention as they were from the libs and the mailing list is severely out of date.A customer opened one and showed me the contents which were on Garth's behalf,from Pacetti, as described earlier.What a waste of money,at least half were addressed to previous tenants or home-owners.I was wondering how this sham compares to the libs taking the conservatives to court over thier advertising during the last election? Is this what you expected from the libs? Would you buy a used car from Garth?
Posted by: postie at September 05, 2007 07:04 PM (JC48j)
22
I have received two pieces of mail from Jack Layton, no postage affixed, and I live in a Conservative-held riding in BC. What gives?
Posted by: The Rat at September 05, 2007 07:28 PM (FA74d)
23
The point is not that mailings were made, but that the Garth said no tax-payer money was being spent and that this was not a Liberal Party venture, both statements appear to be bald-faced lies.
(I am as relaxed as I get. Chill babe.)
Posted by: at September 05, 2007 07:29 PM (aZei4)
24
So how does this compare to the "scandal" that is going on now over the Conservatives election ads? The Conservatives were using donated money,the libs are using tax funds. Business as usual,righteous indignation as usual.Would you buy a used car from Garth?
Posted by: wallyj at September 05, 2007 08:07 PM (JC48j)
25
Well done and keep after this one. The targeting of constituents both politically and demographically utilizing taxpayer resources could be an evolving story.
The Lost Conservative Tour may well prove to be The Lost Conservative Membership List Manipulation Tour.
Correlation is all that is required to prove the hypothesis. Or this is a concerned MP's valiant attempt to include every sort of Canadian in the democratic process.
Probabilities vs. possibilities. Interesting.
Syncro
Posted by: Syncrodox at September 05, 2007 08:08 PM (/lERK)
26
I read the rules re: franking privileges on the parl.gc.ca website, and one thing immediately leapt to my attention: there doesn't seem to be a limit on how many mail items an MP can send out using his/her franking privilege.
That being the case, one wonders why Garth didn't just send these invites out all by himself, rather than involving a horde of Liberal accomplices? As mentioned by others, it still might not be "right" to use franking to send out partisan material, but it mightn't be so prominent on conservative radar if at least the invites to come and hear Garth came from Garth. It's that invites to hear Garth speak in Alberta are coming from an MP in Quebec that's raising eyebrows.
Oh, and Phil from Ottawa - I'm not far from Barrhaven; drop me an e-mail sometime if you want to grab a Timmy's...
Posted by: Tom at September 05, 2007 10:34 PM (JW99v)
27
I thought these "franking" mailers were also called 10 percenters because MPs can send postage free materials to 10% of their riding households. I'm not sure how many times per year they can do this.
So as I see it if a riding has 60,000 households an MP can send 6,000 flyers on the taxpayer's dime.
Usually I think this is done as unaddressed mail through a targetted postal code drop.
Not sure if ADDRESSED mail counts??
And, using House of Commons envelopes?
The letter I got in Edmonton did not come from Garth's Halton constituency office. It came from the House of Commons address.
In Alberta - NO political party business is allowed to be conducted in an MLA's taxpayer funded constituency office.
We could not even sell a party membership or have ANY PC Party political brochures, etc. in the MLA constituency office and the taxpayer paid for office staff were FORBIDDEN to do party work.
They could volunteer after hours in another location.
Is it the same for Federal MP constituency offices?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 11:00 PM (rp6r3)
28
Question: Where did Garth Turner get his mailing lists?
My Edmonton mail from Garth had a code in the mailing address which was not a label but a laser print on the House of Commons envelope and printed as part of the address.
Does anyone know what this code could possibly mean? The source of his list?
A07D86Y12H2
I am quite certain that I would not have ever given permission for a hate mongering Liberal from Halton Ontario to have access to my personal name and address.
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 11:23 PM (rp6r3)
29
We're told that most hotels for the Turners tour are donated! Are they trying to tell me that most hotels where the Turners are staying are Liberal! Come on. They're mainly American chains who couldn't care less about Garth Turner. The man has illusions of grandeur!
Posted by: Louise Fribance at September 05, 2007 11:37 PM (ID/Q7)
30
The more I read about this, the more I think Garth is achieving what he wanted: Everyone talks about him. Garth wants to be leader of any party who will take him. Let's ignore him and he'll have fail.
Posted by: Louise Fribance at September 05, 2007 11:50 PM (ID/Q7)
31
If anything is "donated" to a politician even in kind things like hotels and meals, etc. would these not have to be reported as political donations?
And, elections canada rules that ALL donations must come from from individuals only - not groups or businesses and cannot exceed $1100 per individual in a calendar year?
Posted by: Lorraine at September 05, 2007 11:54 PM (rp6r3)
32
I have received two pieces of mail from Jack Layton, no postage affixed, and I live in a Conservative-held riding in BC. What gives?
Rat, do you by chance belong to a union?
I live in a Liberal stronghold in Ontario, yet I routinely get mail -addressed to me- from Jack Layton -even though I positively loathe the NDP. I suspect he is getting my name from the union to which I have to belong if I want to work where I work.
Said union constantly shills for the NDP -to the extent of sending us letters just before federal elections, urging us to vote NDP (in '04, the letter arrived one day after the election. LOL).
Posted by: up north at September 06, 2007 10:49 AM (oo3he)
33
Agree with Louise, we're feeding Garth's salacious ego, he's really a person of little importance, although the more he scoots about, the more he helps the Conservatives.
Wonder if the people of Halton are giving him the cold shoulder so he's trying to get his ego stroking from those less familiar with his antics?
Talk about abuse of free mailing, we live far from Toronto and we got mailings from Joe Fontana,it would take at least four and a half hours drive to go vote for him, now that's a stretch!
Posted by: Libby at September 06, 2007 11:56 AM (i+MVm)
34
As for the donations, yeah, that might be a problem, but then Garth Turner says this is a not a Liberal Party tour.
Now that we know that 15 Liberal MPs are spending taxpayer money on franked mail to promote the tour then you have to wonder if those donations are now fair game for limits and such.
And for mass mailings into ridings, all the parties do it, and all complain that it is not what these tools were made for. Generally, 10 percenters generate little in the way of interest because of their low cost. But when an MP uses franked mail to get around the 10% limit, red lights go off because of the sheer expense.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 06, 2007 11:57 AM (eGtvb)
35
I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.MercurialVaporIXstore.com
Posted by: ctr 360 maestri 3 at December 03, 2012 04:27 PM (DWzv1)
September 03, 2007
Seniors are demanding action on income trusts!
Liberal MP Garth Turner of Halton is on a speaking tour of western cities, outlining the multitude of reasons why Stephen Harper and the Conservatives ought to be thrown out of office. One of those reasons is the October 31, 2006 announcement by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that income trusts would no longer enjoy tax-free status.
That announcement quickly devalued trusts, and investors whose portfolios were top-heavy with income trusts felt burned. That hit seniors particularly hard. Garth Turner says as much:
The Harper Party has repeatedly attacked its own bases of support. It betrayed seniors by taking their income trusts – folks who consistently have voted blue.
Seniors had their income trusts taken away? Why would seniors be so heavily engaged in income trusts in the first place? They are not a low-risk investment appropriate for a retiree's portfolio, at least not in a large proportion. You would think that the advice given by investment dealers is the real problem, especially since the taxation sword had been hanging over income trusts for quite some time.
Actually, you would be right to think that. A lot of seniors are thinking that too. If they are angry with Jim Flaherty, it is because they don't think he's moving fast enough on cleaning up that industry, an industry they believe is home to people who are little better than con men and who have been able to collect fees and commissions while dispensing poor advice to people who were too trusting.
Not exactly the spin Garth Turner has been putting on things.
Don't take my word for it though.
Check out other entries from the Garth Turner Lost Tory Tour category
Results will open in a new window.
Posted by: Steve Janke at
11:40 PM
| Comments (61)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2762 words, total size 19 kb.
1
Lets get two things straight about the .95 Canadian Dollar against the US currency.
First off , Liberals screwed us for about 2.5 $Billion
in the Softwood Lumber tarifs held in trust until Harper actually settled the issue by getting 80% of % billion dollars as opposed the Chretiens plan to get 100% of ZERO .
Secondly , Seniors now have more money to spend in Florida since the US dollars went from $1.55 down to the roughly $ 1.10 of today .
Canadians remind me so much like the CAW bosses that want to share in the Auto profits when GM and Ford finally make money , BUT , during the bad times they want the Taxpayers to keep them employed by making products people aren't buying.
Income trusts for Seniors are a doubled edged sword because the word "Trust" refers to some risk while giving a possible gain well above inflation or bank account interest rates.
Trust Companies are called that because they want YOU to Trust them , not them Trusting you .
Charter Banks have Capital rules for assets to protect the Clients while Trust Companies rely on hope and leverage to use YOUR money to loan out at a higher rate from the risk.
Posted by: Roger at September 04, 2007 02:54 AM (M7kiy)
2
Your points concerning the risk surrounding income trusts is identical to every other security in the investment arena, including bonds! Hell, I could make a case that GICs are risky. I had a bank refuse to redeem a GIC owned by an elderly lady who was dying of cancer. I finally was able to sell it to a bond trader OTC at a discount, better than the stonewalling the bank gave to her request for early redemption. I wish that you knew what you were talking about concerning income trusts. I could line up every argument against income trusts with a contradictory argument about income trusts. In the end, they were overall excellent investments for those who held them for their monthly distributions. Like any security, there are risks attached with having a concentration of one security, but even a moderately diversified portfolio of income trusts has outperformed other asset classes. Can you not intuitively see why they were a threat to the corporate elite in this country? Particularly, the CCCE? It is because there are investment products that couldn't compete with them.
Posted by: Geoffrey L. at September 04, 2007 05:17 AM (X0bq9)
3
And I thought this was a dead issue with you Cons. The campaign must be working.
I never thought I would see the day when Conservatives would be taking their business and economics policy from the NDP's Diane Urqhart and Jack Layton, but when desperate it's any port in the storm I suppose. Most of Janke's post is the usual drivel and myths spouted by the left and by Bay street annuity and mutual fund sellers who see trusts as a threat to their traditional lock on income investors, and has been thoroughly debunked by CAITI. I will agree with Janke on one point though, Garth has flipped on this issue, but then so has Harper!
Posted by: da prince at September 04, 2007 05:18 AM (ry7L0)
4
Your points concerning the risk surrounding income trusts is identical to every other security in the investment arena, including bonds! Hell, I could make a case that GICs are risky. I had a bank refuse to redeem a GIC owned by an elderly lady who was dying of cancer. I finally was able to sell it to a bond trader OTC at a discount, better than the stonewalling the bank gave to her request for early redemption. I wish that you knew what you were talking about concerning income trusts. I could line up every argument against income trusts with a contradictory argument about income trusts. In the end, they were overall excellent investments for those who held them for their monthly distributions. Like any security, there are risks attached with having a concentration of one security, but even a moderately diversified portfolio of income trusts has outperformed other asset classes. Can you not intuitively see why they were a threat to the corporate elite in this country? Particularly, the CCCE? It is because there are investment products that couldn't compete with them.
Posted by: Geoffrey at September 04, 2007 05:18 AM (X0bq9)
5
Roger, when you say:
Canadians remind me so much like the CAW bosses that want to share in the Auto profits when GM and Ford finally make money , BUT , during the bad times they want the Taxpayers to keep them employed by making products people aren't buying.
Did you know that the chief CAW economist had input into crushing income trusts? I find it ironic you talk about the CAW and income trusts in the same post, sounds kind of confused.
Posted by: Geoffrey L. at September 04, 2007 05:22 AM (X0bq9)
6
Let Garth and the Libs blather about income trusts:
1) 99% of people don't care
2) it will hurt them in the long run because they'll get that 1% all worked up and then they'll have to admit that Dion has said he wouldn't reverse the tax decision, he'd just postpone it by a few years.
If I was in that 1% and somebody went on for months about how wrong something was, but then turned around and said they'd do the same thing, I'd be pretty ticked off.
Posted by: Cool Blue at September 04, 2007 06:20 AM (TVqK0)
7
Nice work, Steve. So Garth was against income trusts before he was for them. But we all pretty much know that this is just his weapon of choice for beating Harper over the head.
I agree with Cool Blue; I'll wager the majority of Canadians are like me, just struggling to pay their bills every month, and don't give a crap about income trusts.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 04, 2007 07:11 AM (VKWtd)
8
Garth is flying through the West and he's landed for his first crap on Income Trusts. He's not talking to the large majority of ordinary Canadians who have no interest in the topic. It makes a sob inducing headline to mention "poor seniors", using seniors is what Cads are wont to do to get more attention.
Maybe they better investigate what went down under the Liberals with Ralphy Goodale et al, seems they had a hand in the process but lacked the political guts to do what had to be done.
The Conservatives reneged on the promise but the losses came from frenzied investing when Goodale said they wouldn't be touched. There was another little weasel in on the Liberal hanky panky that gave publicity to the issue, his name is Scott Brison.
Shameless Cads. That's where politics dives into the depths of depravity.
Posted by: Libby at September 04, 2007 07:40 AM (8QwOj)
9
Well , as someone who is over 60 , my view is that everyone who lost money in income trusts was basically greedy and thought they would get a free ride courtesy of younger taxpayers.
Too bad if you lost money ... who ever said any type of investment was a guarantee of success !
The Liberals created the mess , and I question their motives gievn their stellar handling of taxpayers money. The Conservatives had no choice but to cancell it , especially after several large corporations attempted to join the free ride crowd.
Posted by: Brian at September 04, 2007 08:46 AM (AFknx)
10
Well , as someone who is over 60 , my view is that everyone who lost money in income trusts was basically greedy and thought they would get a free ride courtesy of younger taxpayers.
Too bad if you lost money ... who ever said any type of investment was a guarantee of success !
The Liberals created the mess , and I question their motives given their less than stellar handling of taxpayers money. The Conservatives had no choice but to cancel it , especially after several large corporations attempted to join the free ride crowd.
Posted by: at September 04, 2007 08:48 AM (AFknx)
11
"my view is that everyone who lost money in income trusts was basically greedy and thought they would get a free ride courtesy of younger taxpayers."
ITs are fully taxed in the hands of the owners, who is getting this "free ride"? I payed over six thousand in tax on my trusts last year, that's no free ride.
"Too bad if you lost money ... who ever said any type of investment was a guarantee of success !"
More 'let's blame the victim'. No one who invests in trusts or any type of equity ever expects a "guarantee of success". We are more than willing to accept 'market risk' and have so for years. Our complaint is with a lying politician who plays bait-and-switch with Canadian financial markets. That's the stuff of third world despots.
Posted by: da prince at September 04, 2007 09:57 AM (ry7L0)
12
This proves once and for all that the bureaucrats really run this country. These Fabians tell the elected puppets what they are going to do. The only difference between the parties, red blue green, whatever, may be in how the issue at hand will be implemented.
This will continue until the CPC is in power long enough to clean house. So far there has only been a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Harper even named a LPC Senator to run a Commission. So far, for me it's business as usual in foggy bottom.
Turner, who had me bamboozzled during the election of 05-06 is doing what any true politician does- make political hay while the sun shines.
Posted by: David P from Campbell River at September 04, 2007 10:56 AM (0WQh0)
13
I'd be willing to bet that good old Garth is passing out donation forms for his re-election campaign at these events!
Posted by: Paul M at September 04, 2007 11:01 AM (0g/96)
14
The issue has traction because people do not trust Harper. I have been conservative all my life and do not trust Harper. Harper promised not to change the law on income trusts--he broke the promise. Harper promised to uphold the Altlantic Accord, he breached it. Harper promises not to impose a scary agenda if granted a majoprity government.....stuck at 36% in the polls. Little wonder.
There was nothing imprudent about income trust investmetns per se. The problem qwas severe double taxation in Canada, which was alleviated by income trust structures. Only the4 no-matter-what partisans would defend a move to preserve double taxation. Harper says, "double tax." "Yes, Steve; yes, Steve; all bow to Steve"
Posted by: murray at September 04, 2007 12:31 PM (dw9A3)
15
En route AC 255: Why, my wife asked, as she leaned over to read my BB screen on the tarmac, are they still trying to kill you? Which is one reason I love her. The woman is a sieve for malice. Her sunny attitude and continued astonishment at malevolent thoughts makes her the perfect companion to travel west with me for the next two weeks, doing politics.
But back to the Berry. Its weensy little display was showing a tiny little beaver’s head (maybe it’s a groundhog, or a ferret, or a rat – too small to say), above yet another Garth Turner story on a Conservative web site. But not just any blogging Tory. The loser one.
Two weeks ago this guy published a statement, fabricated by a young Con operative who showed up at one of my Town Hall meetings, saying I’d shouted down an 84-year-old veteran. It was crap. A half dozen or so people who were at the meeting posted here saying it was crap. The kid – his work done – disappeared back into juvenile anonymity. Strike one.
This past weekend the loser blogger published a long article admonishing me for using an illustration on my blog which came from another web source. I had identified it as, “Artistic rendering courtesy of The Wingunterer.” TW is a guy I’ve corresponded with, have met, sparred with and quite enjoy – even when he calls me a snake-oil salesman. The allegation that I used this without permission was crap. The Wingnuterer wrote the loser’s blog and said it was crap. Strike two.
But back to my Berry. Today the loser has tried again, even promoting his new anti-Garth posting as “meaty.” This one alleges that my speaking tour is all about income trusts, which were always risky investments (even I warned about four years ago); that I’m out to help my broker “friends” who make money selling trusts; that many seniors support Jim Flaherty’s taxing of them; and, well, that I deserve to die yet another political death.
Sadly, it is crap. The man who styles himself a Canadian investigative online journalist once again would fail the smell test as a cub reporter at the Leamington Bean. But I digress into ad hominem invective. My wife may be reading this.
Truth is, income trusts were, as I wrote in a widely-published newspaper column in 2003, not for everyone. But neither are equities or mutual funds. Even riskless GICs are risky for people who need growth. And bonds – like residential real estate – can be sinkholes for wealth when interest rates start gyrating. There is no “income trust” as a defined investment, as there is no “stock.” Every one is different, and some trusts were conservative with dependable cash flow, while others were poorly structured and destined to disappoint.
The simple belief that every income trust equals every other income trust is a major flaw undermining the pro-Flaherty arguments one hears from non-financial journalists. Another is the constant reiteration that all jilted IT investors now had all their investment eggs on one basket, and were guided there by investment advisors who were incompetent at best, crooks more likely. I suppose some did. But the vast majority of folks I have heard from actually had an excellent balance between fixed income, real estate and equity-based assets, including trusts.
As to the arguments that income trusts should have been taxed in an identical fashion to corporations, well, no easy answer to that. Trust equivalents have functioned extremely well in the United States, and provided hugely-needed capital in the Canadian energy sector. They clearly seem to have a place in the investment firmament.
What the loser fails to point out are the two overriding reasons Jim Flaherty was wrong on October 31st to announce the imposition of a 31.5% tax on income trusts, with neither warning nor consultation. No, it has nothing to do with CAITI or Brent Fullard or any investment sellers (who are not, by the way, sponsoring any of my activities). It has nothing to do with the inherent risk in all market-based securities. It bears no relation to my growing opposition to the economic, taxation and fiscal policies of the Harper Party.
Instead, it boils to this: First, Mr. Flaherty has proven to be wrong, perhaps a liar, in his justification for attacking income trusts. He said it was costing us all money since they were avoiding big whacks of tax, which would grow to be billions over the coming years if companies like Bell converted. I watched as he screamed across the aisle of the House of Commons, accusing Liberal opponents of speaking on behalf of their friends on Bay Street, as opposed to average Canadians.
We now know it is not so. The trust decision was responsible for the sale of many Canadian companies to foreigners, who will pay no tax. BCE is going private as another result, and its new owners will pay no tax at all – unlike the $700 million or so a year that investors would have paid, had it become a trust and distributed taxable profits to them. As well, initial public offerings have dropped almost 80% since the trust announcement, robbing us all of corporate tax revenues which I suppose will have to be made up by Joe and Josephine Average.
Second, well, second is easy. Stephen Harper said Conservatives would never tax income trusts. So, people bought them. Lots of ‘em. Companies converted into trusts. Lots of them, too. Risky or not. Dependable or not. Controversial or not. Foolish or not. At least investors were guaranteed of one thing – if Mr. Harper was elected, there would be no surprise tax.
Surprise. Strike three.
Gee, here we are in The Peg already.
Posted by: Garth Turner at September 04, 2007 12:46 PM (6A59q)
16
Wow,Garth and his alter ego da prince again show up at the same time.Get back on the meds Garth.
Posted by: paulsstuff at September 04, 2007 12:51 PM (Cpdi7)
17
Just checking over my post.
Did I call Garth Turner names like "loser"? No. Check.
Did I provide links to Garth Turner's original material so readers can judge for themselves? Yes. Check.
Did I make it clear that the income trust story is more complex than "Seniors hate Jim Flaherty!" I thought I did, but maybe not. Rely on reader feedback to get a check on that one.
It's too bad that Garth Turner did not see fit to provide a link for his readers to follow to study the material I've provided for themselves. It's also too bad that besides the logo, Garth Turner does nothing to help a person even search out my blog via a search engine.
Well, I'm made of sterner stuff than that. The post above now contains a link to Garth Turner's response. I encourage you to read it and weigh the facts and arguments against each other.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 04, 2007 01:04 PM (eGtvb)
18
Generally, I agree that people who invest in ANYTHING take a certain risk, and need to be personally accountable for the risk they assume.
However, I don't think its unreasonable, when assessing the risk of an investment, for someone to take a government at its word. The risk of income trusts was X. Then the Tories promised not to tax income trusts, and ran on that, so when they formed the government the risk became X minus Y. So you invest, knowing the trusts won't be taxed, and then after you've made that decision you find out it wasn't true, and that they WILL be taxed. THAT's the issue. These people aren't upset (or at least, have little right to be) that a risky investment didn't pay off. They're upset because the government's actions changed the nature of the risk involved AFTER they had invested their money based on the original risk. They're upset because they made a decision to invest when the risk was X minus Y, and thanks to the government, the risk went back up to X (actually, even higher, as a lot of people rushed out of the income trust market when the government reversed itself).
Frankly, almost everyone lost SOME money due to the income trust changes, because confidence in the market as a whole was shaken, as people concluded that the government promising X to the investment community didn't actually mean they'd give X to the investment community (their status as Canada's NEW government - trustworthy and accountable - notwithstanding).
Anyway, I don't think this is so much people complaining becuase the risk they took didn't work out. I think it's people complaining because the nature of the risk changed, AFTER they had invested their money, becuase the government decided not to keep their word (for the record, probably the right decision, but a reversal that negatively effected people's investments nonetheless).
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at September 04, 2007 01:41 PM (3aZl7)
19
That's a valid point, LKO, and I doubt it was a decision that was taken lightly. But if you want to talk about shaken confidence, consider the effect of a leaky finance ministry and the effect allegations of secret information given to favoured insiders has. But I found it very interesting that the attitude from seniors is hardly monochromatic. Certainly not the uniform rage portrayed by some people. In fact, it looks like seniors involved in income trusts are more upset with shady investment dealers who pushed a risky investment tool on them using fraudulent marketing techniques (their allegation, not mine), so much so that they don't want the tax on income trusts withdrawn for fear that people will start jumping in to income trusts all over again.
That's not the reason Jim Flaherty gave for changing the tax rules, of course. But for seniors who think defenders of income trusts are really defending their own brokerage fees, it was a welcome move.
Like I said, this story is more complicated than it appears.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 04, 2007 01:55 PM (eGtvb)
20
Income Trusts = Ponzi Scheme ..??!!!
Posted by: Observer at September 04, 2007 02:06 PM (Y5Cx+)
21
Thanks Steve,
And yes, there is CERTAINLY a lot of grey here (frankly, I'm surprised anyone's pushing this anymore, as it does seem - problematic or not - that it's generally felt that the Tories did the correct thing on this file. That their error wasn't BREAKING the promise, but making the promise in the first place.
A lot of commentators though seem to think this is all about seniors just being ticked because they took a bad risk, and that that is their own damned fault, and that too is much too black and white. Sometimes risks don't work out, and that's not the government's fault. However, in this case, what the government did had an effect on the nature of the risk, and I think that needs to be kept in mind. Clearly the risk of investing in income trusts was different when the government was promising not to tax them than it was after the government changed their tune, and THAT at least is probably, in some cases, worth getting upset about.
It's a pretty silly campaign issue though, and I really don't think it'll do much damage politically. Turner has a personal bee in his bonnett about this one, but I'd be surprised to see it prominently used by the opposition against the new government. Especially given the fact that, from the opposition's point of view, this has to be, like, item #542 on their list of things they don't like about Canada's New Government.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at September 04, 2007 02:15 PM (3aZl7)
22
Ah, everyone knows the goose that lays the golden eggs will eventually be killed. That's why Garth's new message is fear and panic over the coming real estate bust where we all lose the equity in our homes.
After the Goodale debacle on income trusts, people had to know this was a volatile risk. If they felt assured investing in income trusts because the Conservatives came to power with a slim minority which could be defeated at any time then they weren't very smart.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 04, 2007 02:33 PM (BZ/Xe)
23
There is still a lot of ignorance about income trusts as an investment vehicle. There is also a lot of ignorance about the tax structure for income trusts.
Garth Turner knows this and hopes to exploit the ignorant and gullible. That's his natural audience!
Posted by: OMMAG at September 04, 2007 02:36 PM (GL4I6)
24
"In fact, it looks like seniors involved in income trusts are more upset with shady investment dealers who pushed a risky investment tool on them using fraudulent marketing techniques (their allegation, not mine), "
I'm not sure what seniors you've spoken with but the ones I know don't blame anyone but Harper, period. The CARP polls taken some months ago confirm this. The "National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation" you quote reverently is essentially one man's hobby (Art Field)run out of some place called Little Britan. Try to get membership info? Their web site doesn't seem to work. They speak for no one, unlike CARP which actually exists with dues paying members.
You should disabuse yourself of the notion thats it's only seniors who bought trusts. These were popular investments for a whole range of people looking for income and who had grown tired and disillusioned with corporate scandals and meltdowns like Nortel, JDS, Air Canada, Stelco, Bre-X all non trusts.
Some trusts have had to cut distributions, many more have increased them, at least in the ten years I've been buying trusts. Non-trust corporations have also cut dividends. I owned blue chip TransCanada Pipe in the nineties when it cut it's dividend by 30%. No one suggested that this was the fault of the 'corporate model'.
Investing in equities is risky. But in the twenty plus years I've been investing I have never seen an Income Trust bankruptcy, but I have seen plenty of corporate bankruptcies.
Posted by: at September 04, 2007 02:57 PM (ry7L0)
25
Turner's just jealous Steve, that your blog is better writen, beter sourced and likely has more hits than his own work of ficti....err...I mean blog.
Posted by: Paul M at September 04, 2007 03:06 PM (0g/96)
26
Muttsrus, you write: "people had to know this was a volatile risk. If they felt assured investing in income trusts because the Conservatives came to power with a slim minority which could be defeated at any time then they weren't very smart".
Well, as to the wisdom of individuals' investment decisions, a lot of these people probably WEREN'T that smart. I'll give you that. However, bringing up the minority government is a bit tricky of you, as it implies that this was a risky move becuase there was a minority government in Parliament, so the government was not guaranteed to be able to implement their election platform. Which is true, but has little to do with income trusts. The Tories aren't taxing income trusts because they didn't have the votes to implement their platform, they simply changed their platform after the elction. Had the Tories been defeated in the legislature (or their income trust plan defeated) no one would have anything to complain about (or, rather, they'd be complaining about the opposition defeating the government's plan, which wouldn't be the government's fault, not the government failing to implement their plan). The government didn't do the opposite of what they said they were going to do because they lost a vote in a minority legislature. They decided on their own to do the opposite of what they said they were going to do. There's no indication they would have done any different if they had a majority (unless you mean to indicate that the decision to tax income trusts is bad policy, and the Tories are just implementing bad policy becuase they've been forced to by their minority status, but I doubt that's what you intended to convey, and no one in the CPC has suggested that tyo my knowledge).
I think that comment illustrates the "investing is risky, it's your own damn fault if things go south" argument that completely glosses over the fact that the government promised not to do X, and then went ahead and did X anyway.
Investing IS risky. Risky enough that we don't need the government adding to the risk by promising that an area of investment will be treated in fashion Y, and then treating that area of investment in fashion X.
I just don't think it's that unreasonable that when the government says they're not going to do something with regards to investing and the economy, that taxpayers can invest in the market secure in the knowledge that the government's not going to do it.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at September 04, 2007 03:40 PM (3aZl7)
27
Does Garth kiss his wife with that mouth?
You know, I originally thought that Garth was just an immature, ego-centric attention seeker who couldn't handle taking a back seat at any time.
Turns out, I'm partially right. It seems he's also a jerk.
It's probably killing Garth, that he's not even on the radar in most of Canada. THAT'S what Garthapalooza 2007 is all about -- All Garth, All The Time.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at September 04, 2007 05:06 PM (pdsIS)
28
Government Boy blackberried:
initial public offerings have dropped almost 80% since the trust announcement, robbing us all of corporate tax revenues which I suppose will have to be made up by Joe and Josephine Average.
Yep, when government revenues are down don't knock anything off your government paycheque or lay off any of your government staff. And don't cut any porkbarrel spending or welfare programs. Just dig deeper into our pockets. We wouldn't want you to feel "robbed" if foreigners decided not to invest in this high-tax, socialist dump of a country.
Posted by: Joe and Josephine Avg. at September 04, 2007 07:20 PM (tgNL5)
29
If Garth draws as little interest as Dion did on his summer tour he'll be talking to half empty rooms. It would be too bad, the Conservatives could benefit from a few rants from Garth!
Does anyone know how Garth gained such fame?
Posted by: Libby at September 04, 2007 07:26 PM (fEqhi)
30
Government Boy blackberried:
initial public offerings have dropped almost 80% since the trust announcement, robbing us all of corporate tax revenues which I suppose will have to be made up by Joe and Josephine Average.
Yep, when government revenues are down don't knock anything off your government paycheque or lay off any government staff. And don't cut any porkbarrel spending or welfare programs. Just dig deeper into our pockets.
And you Conservatives that are laughing at Garth - wipe that smile off your face. Your prime minister is a high-spending, tax-raising joke.
Posted by: Joe and Josephine Avg. at September 04, 2007 07:33 PM (tgNL5)
31
The same federal civil servants who advised Goodale on ITs also advised Flaherty. Did they change their analysis or was it necessary to kill ITs then as is was now?
Garth is just trying to be Dion's attack dog shit-disturber because Garth's survival in the Liberal party depends on Dion's survival .. which doesn't look very good nowadays.
Posted by: Observer at September 04, 2007 08:40 PM (ue4BO)
32
Despite some of my comments on the blog (and I apology for being immature), I really admits your post. It is more mature and rational compared to Turner's rants. You only looked at the facts while Turner screamed about actions on income trusts being the end of the world.
Posted by: Crazy Dan at September 04, 2007 09:31 PM (mkNxH)
33
One question.......
Wasn't the Income Trust change part of the Budget and that was passed with the support of some Liberals if I remember correctly, maybe even Garth voted for it. If the decision was so bad, why didn't the Liebrano's defeat the Government over it?
The reason is they knew it had to be done and thier own Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale tried to do it and backed down because he knew with an election imminent they would lose votes and so did the next best thing, and allegedly leaked info to thier friends and accomplices in the Investment Community.
I agree it was a dumb statement to say the Conservatives would never tax Income Trusts, as never is forever, as foolish as "I guarantee" but when does one ever, ever put thier hard earned cash on the line based on a Politicians statements.
I have been an investor for over twenty five years, do all my own research, make my own decisions based on the facts, not on what someone else says is good for me. I had some Income Trusts in my Portfolio and held on to them and they are now at new highs.
The red herring in all this is that trust investors lost 25 billion or whatever the number is that was thrown out there.....The fact is you haven't lost or gained anything until you sell and take your profits or losses!!!! The folks who panicked, or were advised to sell and lost money, made a second mistake if the trust was a good one, but those who were prudent in thier original investment decisions in the first place and held on are doing quite well, thank you very much.
A last comment to those of you who would take what Garth Turner says as gospel, have a look at his book, The Strategy, A Homeowners Guide to Wealth Creation, written in the late nineties, I believe and look at his section on morgaging your house to invest in stocks at the peak of the Dot Com bubble.
Yes Garth, keep talking and acting like a Puffin, your parties new mascott.....
Posted by: capndan at September 04, 2007 09:44 PM (5AhYB)
34
...a couple of things i learned from investing:
1. don't put all your eggs into one basket
2. greed never wins, wait.
Posted by: tomax7 at September 04, 2007 09:55 PM (jHhd0)
35
Good points Steve.
I think the most important point of all however, was left out:
Here we have a clear example of Government and a private industry (CAITI is a collection of fund sellers) working together to try and get a legistated market advantage for what they are selling. They plan to do this through Garth and the Liberals if they can get them into government.
Personally I favor lower taxes across the board. I don't like it when I see government being bought out by private individuals trying to get legislation giving their product a market advantage. I don't like it when politicians reverse their promises, but in this case I don't see any gain for Harper for doing this so he's likely doing what he thinks is the right thing. I'm much more concerned about government cronism and it appears Garth is willing to accept those bribes.
Posted by: langmann at September 04, 2007 10:20 PM (8zqaL)
36
I'm not a senior, but I'm saving to be. IT's were an effective investment vehicle, paid good monthly distributions and I bought quality trusts, including REITS which I might point out are still exempt from the new tax. I paid the taxes on the income trusts, at my marginal rate of 42%. I paid happily and I don't need any crap from those of you posting here that I was greedy or stupid or any other reason. Those who post those opinions didn't own income trusts and their investment vehicles are GIC's, bank RRSP cash accounts or government pensions. This decision benefited GOVERNMENT employees and their big fat pensions. The trust decision affected every private sector SDRRSP investor by restricting their choice on investment vehicles to grow their own "pensions". It ensured that "double taxation" survives at investors' expense not government. Harper spoke for government on this, pay us first then we'll see what's left over for you Mr & Mrs taxpayer. Who is buying BCE? Ontario Teachers Pension. Are they going to pay any tax on that income sheltered inside their pension? Why did the government restrict Income Trust holdings inside pensions to 5% of their portfolios? "cause they would have loaded up on income trusts, they are efficient cash producers, to the detriment of government revenues being raked in on the higher marginal rates paid by investors. As for the "risks" on income trusts, that is my decision to take, not anyone elses, because it was my f/n money to spend! I EARNED that money, not Mr Harper or Jim Flaherty. I have the right to spend it and invest it, knowing all the risks, as I see fit! Nobody needs "Government risk" in this country or you will be sucking hard to raise capital in our financial markets. I am also a Conservative voter in Harper's f/n riding. I don't vote for liars, crooks or commies. Harper and the Cons can take a long hard suck to get me to vote for them EVER!
Posted by: jt at September 04, 2007 10:39 PM (Bs6Ry)
37
Well the desperate Liberal team of Goodale and McCallum et al are now desperately trying to cobble up another scheme with IT's , these are the same people who had an RCMP investigation into what they'd been up to. As with most investigations of Liberal goings on, nothing happened. It should be reopened. If Ralphy could find humility and tell what he knows to be the right course, the one Flaherty has taken, he'd gain some credibility. McCallum, well that's another story, he's a financial "expert", he too should know the score. Alas politics gets in the way of reasoned thought.
Anyone worried about being conned had better not vote Liberal, they're the proven masters of the old game.
Posted by: Libby at September 05, 2007 07:36 AM (gZnTs)
38
There is nothing intrinsically more risky about an income trust--it is just a legal structure designed to alleviate some of the double taxation that applies to dividend recipients in Canada. They work well with an established business with a reliable income stream, such as a pipeline business. These investments are perfect for senior's portfolios, espcially once they have to collapse their RRSPs and rely on dividend income.
The political issue here is trust. I am a lifelong conservative and do not trust Harper one bit. They prmised to leave income trusts intact; they reneged. And they did it in an indefensible manner--leaving REITS but no other sector and doing nothing to alleviate the double taxation problem that made income trust ubiquitous in the first place.
Harper has also blown trust by reneging on his promise not to undermine the Atlantic Accords, which the latest budget breaches in significant ways. Little wonder Harper's polls are stuck at 36%. I, a lifelong conservative, would not trust him with a majority, as the scary right-wing moral agenda is surely in the wings (despite the Harper "promise"). The polls are interesting, because people seem to accept the conservative giovernment, but do not trust Harper.
Posted by: murray at September 05, 2007 08:14 AM (dw9A3)
39
While I agree that the Conservatives should never have promised that IT's were safe from a legislated end and that many people, mostly Liberals and IT losers hold out the Prime Minister and Jim Flaherty to be Liars we can not forget that the move on IT's was a necessary evil. Garth Turner at one of his town halls agreed that IT's had to be changed. He only disagreed with the size and implementation of the tax assigned. John Manley, a potential Liberal leader at one time, agreed with the government's position on IT's. After all is said and done, the Conservative has delivered on 4/5 of its core promise which is more than the Liberals did in 13 years at the Helm.
PFW
Posted by: PFW at September 05, 2007 08:42 AM (rSr9i)
40
The party die-hards can rationalize this nine ways to Sunday but they have their heads in the sand if they do not realize this issue has done them serious damage. A good percentage of conservatives I know are royally pissed off about this and do not trust Harper. The polls show it. Time to face reality.
Posted by: murray at September 05, 2007 08:55 AM (dw9A3)
41
The Cons screwed up royally and will pay for it. You don't whack your core supporters and expect to walk away. The Liberals are consulting with affected parties, something the Cons were afraid to do, and will come up with sound policy to the good of the economy and capital providers (investors). The Liberals proposed 10% tax on trust distributions to foreign holders will eliminate to so-called "tax leakage" which Flaherty used as his excuse.
The damage to the oil patch is already evident. Trusts are no longer able to invest in the marginal fields they specialized in so those resources are going undeveloped possibly forever as the large corps wont bother with them. Oil and Gas explorers who used to use trusts as a ready market for their small, marginal finds no longer have that option and as a result are having difficulty financing new exploration.
Harper is so not a leader.
Posted by: da prince at September 05, 2007 09:27 AM (ry7L0)
42
Anyone so bloody concerned about one so-called lie which is more like a necessary change of mind , had better muster up their recall and remember some doozies the Liberals told.
The rat's bum Chretien got elected in whopping majority for telling a whopper, he'd scrap the GST.
I'm sick of those nagging nellies going on about the IT's, it would have been one huge disaster to them roll. It's to the point anything still floating the Liberals can hang on to to keep them from drowning, they'll grab.
Posted by: Libby at September 05, 2007 10:32 AM (bT8PY)
43
Anyone so bloody concerned about one so-called lie which is more like a necessary change of mind , had better muster up their recall and remember some doozies the Liberals told.
The rat's bum Chretien got elected in whopping majority for telling a whopper, he'd scrap the GST.
I'm sick of those nagging nellies going on about the IT's, it would have been one huge disaster to let them roll. It's to the point anything still floating the Liberals can hang on to to keep them from drowning, they'll grab.
Posted by: Libby at September 05, 2007 10:35 AM (bT8PY)
44
Is there an echo or gremlins in this blog to explain the double posts?
Posted by: Libby at September 05, 2007 10:37 AM (bT8PY)
45
Chill Libby, according to you Cons this is a dead issue.
Posted by: da prince at September 05, 2007 10:40 AM (ry7L0)
46
Garth's credibility waned when he crossed the floor. He by the way, denies doing this! Note to Garth; At least Stronach and Emmerson got Cabinet positions for their move.
It should be beneath an MP to call somebody who disagrees with him a"loser". What will he say if we disagree with his position on say handguns or Afghanistan. He should apologize but don't hold your breath.
Garth I suspect, quit the Con. party in some sort of hissy.
He had a reputation for being egotistical and difficult to work with back in his journalistic days. He hasn't changed much.
Posted by: David at September 05, 2007 11:02 AM (KwJgT)
47
Awesome post as usual but one minor quibble:
"If you are still not sure (about income trusts), hey, join the club. "
The case against income trusts is overwhelming. Off the top of my head:
-Lowers tax burden on rich investors and places tax burden on working people.
-People under 35 are paying off student loans and mortgages and simply don't have as much money to invest as older people, so it's a bad deal for young people.
-Income trusts are a sign of a dysfunctional and uncompetitive economy.
-Income trusts don't re-invest in their own companies enough and unless protected by lack of competition they wither away.
-Finally, they are highly discriminatory against working single moms.
Posted by: Economist at September 05, 2007 12:57 PM (HHrOG)
48
"Finally, they are highly discriminatory against working single moms"
And they discriminate against blacks, natives and the elderly. Oh wait, scratch elderly.
Posted by: da prince at September 05, 2007 01:26 PM (ry7L0)
49
I attended Jason Kenny's town hall meeting in SW Calgary last spring, which talked about income trusts. Judging by the mood of the crowd, in a "safe" Conservative riding, this issue is going to cost them votes in their own ridings. The mood of the crowd was hostile and if we could have got away with it, he would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail! The Cons know it. They had an earlier morning meeting, unadvertised I might add and that meeting was a free for all, Conservative Party, public whipping. The later audience was peppered by plain clothes COPS, with two uniformed ones standing at the back. The cops filmed the crowd so that they now have a video record of who was present and who might cause these crooks some grief. Not what I call a free and democratic meeting. More like welcome to the Gulag. Here's our policy, f-u. This issue is a hot button because the effects of the decision hit investors of all ages, not just seniors, on their investment choices and the amount of tax being stripped away by government (read government employees of all levels) to fund their own salaries and gold plated pensions. It was outright theft of our future investment returns, confiscated by government on a lie. The lies being propagated by some of the posters on this site are typical of un-sophisitcated boobs, who know nothing about how capital markets work in this country. the effects on the oil and gas industry are already being felt. reduced capital expenditures = less drilling, which affects my job. I thank you all. Nothing like a little governemnt interference in the economy like the Trudeau governemnt and it's NEP policy. Well this is NEP-lite, by a so-called Conservative government. I voted Conservative but I got a central-canadian-government-controls-your-life-Liberal party member elected in this weatern riding. Their actions stripped 20% of my net worth, and I was diversified, and affects my earnings on the job as well as the future of my job. I should just trust these pricks with my future? Not on your life! Flaherty then, didn't win any respect from those affected, by producing blacked out pages of information witheld from those investigating the rationale for their trust decision. If the Liberals had done that, they would have been vilified as the crooks that they are. Well, the Cons are just that, Cons and no better than the shmucks who ruled us for 13 years previously. You want government regulated economies, government interference in your life, then reap what you sow. The effects of thet mentality are free for study in the USSR and China. No freedom of choice and your economy is run like a biker gang.
Posted by: jt at September 05, 2007 02:13 PM (Bs6Ry)
50
This decision benefited GOVERNMENT employees and their big fat pensions. The trust decision affected every private sector SDRRSP investor by restricting their choice on investment vehicles to grow their own "pensions". It ensured that "double taxation" survives at investors' expense not government.
Attaboy, jt.
For the rest of you ...
There's a war on - or hadn't you heard? There's a war between people who get government cheques on one side, and your income and your savings on the other side. So far the war is going really badly (for you).
Lowers tax burden on rich investors and places tax burden on working people.
Er, no, *income trusts* don't place a burden on working people, *government* does.
In your Economist textbooks, no matter how hard you look, and even if it is the understated premise of nearly everything that you were taught in the government education system, I doubt very much that you will find a Law of Economics that says that government "must" make up its revenues somewhere, from someone. Most of the money taken by your government is wasted and stolen. Why "must" people feed the corruption machine with their hard-earned dollars? Why do people permit the government to inflate the currency every year, destroying the value of whatever they don't tax away? Why - in a million years, given the corruption and egregious stupidity that is revealed in every single AG report - would anyone think that people in government are actually smarter, more generous and more far-seeing than ordinary blokes? The fact that people rather meekly surrender to the tax-grabbers - IN THEIR OWN CONSERVATIVE PARTY - makes me think, boy oh boy, we really are all Turdeau's children, aren't we?
Income trusts are a sign of a dysfunctional and uncompetitive economy.
You may be correct. It seems like a rather odd and stilted way to invest money. But why do you attack that which is only a symptom of a dismal economy, instead of attacking its source - punitive taxation, strangling regulation, rampant cronyism, and massive spending on welfare projects?
Remember Jerry Seinfeld explaining the war between Morning Guy who has to get up and go to work, and Night Guy who likes to party all night?
Night Guy always screws Morning Guy. There's nothing Morning Guy can do. The only thing Morning Guy can do is try and oversleep often enough so that Day Guy loses his job and Night Guy has no money to go out anymore.
The government is Night Guy. They're screwing working people and they don't give a damn. Morning Guy, an ordinary Canadian schlub, will take his revenge by getting government loans, staying in school til he's 30, smoking dope all day, then refusing to work until he gets a government job too. What's Night Guy going to do then? Probably he'll try to create special tax-free economic zones like maquiladoras to lure back foreign investment ... but he'll never give Morning Guy a break. And he's sure as hell not going to stop partying.
Posted by: at September 05, 2007 07:54 PM (tgNL5)
51
Nice work, Steve. So Garth was against income trusts before he was for them. But we all pretty much know that this is just his weapon of choice for beating Harper over the head.
I agree with Cool Blue; I'll wager the majority of Canadians are like me, just struggling to pay their bills every month, and don't give a crap about income trusts.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 4, 2007 07:11 AM
Nice try muttsrus. So Stephen Harper was for income trusts before he was against them. But we all preety much know that this was just his weapon of choice for getting elected and then beating seniors over the head. I'll wager the majority of seniors and those just struggling to pay their bills every month, will understand the dishonesty of Stephen Harper:
Questioning income trusts puts seniors at risk
Byline: Stephen Harper
Source: National Post
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Page: A20
On September 19, the Prime Minister acted recklessly when he ordered his Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, to wade into the income-trust market like a proverbial bull in a china shop. On that day, investors were put on notice that their popular income trusts were going to be targeted by a Liberal government seeking higher tax revenues from companies and investors.
Martin's reckless action has caused uncertainty over the future of income trusts, and so has wiped out billions of dollars in market capitalization from Canadian companies and tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement nest eggs of individual investors. Most notable was the damage done to Canadian seniors who may not have the time to recoup their losses.
One couple e-mailed my party to complain that the uncertainty around income trusts caused by the Liberals' announcement trimmed $30,000 from their retirement portfolio in a single day. Another man wrote to tell us that he had lost 15% from his his portfolio.
Many seniors feel the government is putting their retirement at risk and have let Ottawa know. In a letter to the Finance Minister, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said, "Seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for the essentials of daily living."
Income trusts are popular with seniors because they provide regular payments that are used by many to cover the costs of groceries, heating bills and medicine. They also provide tax relief from a government that is addicted to taking too much money from their pockets and spending it without care, and very often without meaningful results.
So one must ask, why is the government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors?
But it gets worse. Instead of immediately moving to assure markets that income trusts are here to stay, the Liberals are justifying their actions in the coldest political terms. As one government member was quoted in the media as saying about income trust investors, "They have no constituency. They don't count politically."
That kind of arrogance cannot go unanswered. There is just no justification for what amounts to a Liberal government attack on investors, and especially on seniors.
The government continues to overtax Canadians and run multi-billion dollar surpluses, yet their first instinct is to attack an investment vehicle that can make the difference between bare survival and a dignified retirement for millions of Canadians.
The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.
As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground.
It's time to stand up to Paul Martin and stop his attack on seniors and investors.
Posted by: Geoffrey L. at September 06, 2007 01:05 AM (slIPt)
52
Nice work, Steve. So Garth was against income trusts before he was for them. But we all pretty much know that this is just his weapon of choice for beating Harper over the head.
I agree with Cool Blue; I'll wager the majority of Canadians are like me, just struggling to pay their bills every month, and don't give a crap about income trusts.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 4, 2007 07:11 AM
Nice try muttsrus. So Stephen Harper was for income trusts before he was against them. But we all preety much know that this was just his weapon of choice for getting elected and then beating seniors over the head. I'll wager the majority of seniors and those just struggling to pay their bills every month, will understand the dishonesty of Stephen Harper:
Questioning income trusts puts seniors at risk
Byline: Stephen Harper
Source: National Post
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Page: A20
On September 19, the Prime Minister acted recklessly when he ordered his Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, to wade into the income-trust market like a proverbial bull in a china shop. On that day, investors were put on notice that their popular income trusts were going to be targeted by a Liberal government seeking higher tax revenues from companies and investors.
Martin's reckless action has caused uncertainty over the future of income trusts, and so has wiped out billions of dollars in market capitalization from Canadian companies and tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement nest eggs of individual investors. Most notable was the damage done to Canadian seniors who may not have the time to recoup their losses.
One couple e-mailed my party to complain that the uncertainty around income trusts caused by the Liberals' announcement trimmed $30,000 from their retirement portfolio in a single day. Another man wrote to tell us that he had lost 15% from his his portfolio.
Many seniors feel the government is putting their retirement at risk and have let Ottawa know. In a letter to the Finance Minister, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said, "Seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for the essentials of daily living."
Income trusts are popular with seniors because they provide regular payments that are used by many to cover the costs of groceries, heating bills and medicine. They also provide tax relief from a government that is addicted to taking too much money from their pockets and spending it without care, and very often without meaningful results.
So one must ask, why is the government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors?
But it gets worse. Instead of immediately moving to assure markets that income trusts are here to stay, the Liberals are justifying their actions in the coldest political terms. As one government member was quoted in the media as saying about income trust investors, "They have no constituency. They don't count politically."
That kind of arrogance cannot go unanswered. There is just no justification for what amounts to a Liberal government attack on investors, and especially on seniors.
The government continues to overtax Canadians and run multi-billion dollar surpluses, yet their first instinct is to attack an investment vehicle that can make the difference between bare survival and a dignified retirement for millions of Canadians.
The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.
As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground.
It's time to stand up to Paul Martin and stop his attack on seniors and investors.
Posted by: Geoffrey Laxton at September 06, 2007 01:08 AM (slIPt)
53
Nice work, Steve. So Garth was against income trusts before he was for them. But we all pretty much know that this is just his weapon of choice for beating Harper over the head.
I agree with Cool Blue; I'll wager the majority of Canadians are like me, just struggling to pay their bills every month, and don't give a crap about income trusts.
Posted by: muttsrus at September 4, 2007 07:11 AM
Nice try muttsrus. So Stephen Harper was for income trusts before he was against them. But we all preety much know that this was just his weapon of choice for getting elected and then beating seniors over the head. I'll wager the majority of seniors and those just struggling to pay their bills every month, will understand the dishonesty of Stephen Harper:
Questioning income trusts puts seniors at risk
Byline: Stephen Harper
Source: National Post
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Page: A20
On September 19, the Prime Minister acted recklessly when he ordered his Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, to wade into the income-trust market like a proverbial bull in a china shop. On that day, investors were put on notice that their popular income trusts were going to be targeted by a Liberal government seeking higher tax revenues from companies and investors.
Martin's reckless action has caused uncertainty over the future of income trusts, and so has wiped out billions of dollars in market capitalization from Canadian companies and tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement nest eggs of individual investors. Most notable was the damage done to Canadian seniors who may not have the time to recoup their losses.
One couple e-mailed my party to complain that the uncertainty around income trusts caused by the Liberals' announcement trimmed $30,000 from their retirement portfolio in a single day. Another man wrote to tell us that he had lost 15% from his his portfolio.
Many seniors feel the government is putting their retirement at risk and have let Ottawa know. In a letter to the Finance Minister, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons said, "Seniors are actually enraged, frightened and panicked about potentially losing retirement savings that they count on for the essentials of daily living."
Income trusts are popular with seniors because they provide regular payments that are used by many to cover the costs of groceries, heating bills and medicine. They also provide tax relief from a government that is addicted to taking too much money from their pockets and spending it without care, and very often without meaningful results.
So one must ask, why is the government clamping down on the retirement savings of seniors and investors?
But it gets worse. Instead of immediately moving to assure markets that income trusts are here to stay, the Liberals are justifying their actions in the coldest political terms. As one government member was quoted in the media as saying about income trust investors, "They have no constituency. They don't count politically."
That kind of arrogance cannot go unanswered. There is just no justification for what amounts to a Liberal government attack on investors, and especially on seniors.
The government continues to overtax Canadians and run multi-billion dollar surpluses, yet their first instinct is to attack an investment vehicle that can make the difference between bare survival and a dignified retirement for millions of Canadians.
The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.
As my party's finance critic, Monte Solberg, says, the success of income trusts represents a rare triumph for investors over the tax man. Let's not be so naive as to assume that the Liberals will do the right thing to protect taxpayers. We'll need to fight hard to keep what we have, and even harder to gain ground.
It's time to stand up to Paul Martin and stop his attack on seniors and investors.
Posted by: GL at September 06, 2007 01:12 AM (slIPt)
54
I listened to "Rutherford" yesterday as McCallum tried to explain the Liberals policy; what an idiot. Dave asked him explain it, he couldn't. McCallum said certain industries should be exempt. Dave asked which ones-John didn't know. And it's his policy !! Today he had John Carpenter on, head of the CGA Association of Alberta. He said the Liberal's plan is the same as the Conservatives. They are just fiddling with the rate. Now the reason McCallum was tapdancing make sense.
Posted by: Boomer at September 06, 2007 03:11 PM (MjNTe)
55
He said the Liberal's plan is the same as the Conservatives. They are just fiddling with the rate.
Both parties are liars and fiddlers because the people who pay taxes are not their true constituency. Their real constituents are the people who they keep on a leash with government cheques. Non-government types who earn their own keep are not really impressed by anything that politicians get up to and they don't buy into the new and improved nanny state crap that politicians are always pushing. But take someone out of the real job market and get them at the trough, they start to feel their talent, drive and marketability slipping away, and they turn into doughy, unambitious fiscal dependents, and oh boy, have you ever got them by the balls. And vice-versa. Have you ever seen a mob of *taxpayers* trying to storm the legislature? Welfare bums is the politician's BFF. Taxpayers rate about as high on the politician's list as dog poo on their shoes.
Posted by: at September 06, 2007 08:19 PM (tgNL5)
56
So that smirking twit Flaherty has started to unleash the attack dogs by disparaging "helpless seniors" and "greedy investors". Well, I'm not buying it. Many of us feeble old seniors were skilled managers and investors before we became befuddled seniors, and we're easily capable of analyzing the quality and risk of our retirement investments. It's just so much Harper crap to try to present this issue as one of saving foolish seniors from financial charlatans. Even the National Post gets on this band-wagon from time to time, saying that seniors should have known better.
However, this is not the issue. The issue is that Stephen Harper went out of his way to assure us that the Conservatives would protect income trusts and that seniors could rely on them if the Conservatives became government. When he and (smirking-twit) Flaherty flip-flopped, it was because they intended to all along, or they were bamboozled by their bureaucrats. They're not saying publicly, so we can safely assume, absent any plausible explanation, that it was one OR the other and these two twits are at the root of it.
We're retired executives now, fully capable of recovering from the financial piracy of two inexperienced and treacherous nitwits, so the issue is not one of degraded investments. The issue for the Cons is how to get badly burned seniors to support a party of treacherous big-spending nitwits. From where I sit in my rocking char, it ain't going to happen. Without our support, they're going to be stuck at 36% for a long time.
Posted by: JJJoseph at September 07, 2007 01:01 AM (kTp0G)
57
So that smirking twit Flaherty has started to unleash the attack dogs by disparaging "helpless seniors" and "greedy investors". Well, I'm not buying it. Many of us feeble old seniors were skilled managers and investors before we became befuddled seniors, and we're easily capable of analyzing the quality and risk of our retirement investments. It's just so much Harper crap to try to present this issue as one of saving foolish seniors from financial charlatans. Even the National Post gets on this band-wagon from time to time, saying that seniors should have known better.
However, this is not the issue. The issue is that Stephen Harper went out of his way to assure us that the Conservatives would protect income trusts and that seniors could rely on them if the Conservatives became government. When he and (smirking-twit) Flaherty flip-flopped, it was because they intended to all along, or they were bamboozled by their bureaucrats. They're not saying publicly, so we can safely assume, absent any plausible explanation, that it was one OR the other and these two twits are at the root of it.
We're retired executives now, fully capable of recovering from the financial piracy of two inexperienced and treacherous nitwits, so the issue is not one of degraded investments. The issue for the Cons is how to get badly burned seniors to support a party of treacherous big-spending nitwits. From where I sit in my rocking char, it ain't going to happen. Without our support, they're going to be stuck at 36% for a long time.
[Please forgive me if this is posted more than once. Steve's blog system doesn't easily tell us what it's doing as it fumbles with our postings. I've tried maybe six time to post this message. Several times it replies "Error 500. Bugger" Only Steve knows for sure what happens after we press "Post"!]
Posted by: JJJoseph at September 07, 2007 01:51 AM (kTp0G)
58
Sorry about that commenting problem, JJJoseph. Understand that this is a shared MT 2.6 installation hosting about 50 blogs or so. So I don't administer global stuff like comments scripts. They break, and then they get fixed, and I'm just as surprised as everyone else. And no, I don't like that error message either. Not very descriptive.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 07, 2007 07:00 AM (eGtvb)
59
Late in on this discussion, but I noticed the comment about the seniors struggling to pay their bills...?Where are they?Half the seniors I know are comfy but not wealthy enough or informed about investing.They would not be the ones 'upset ' by this. The other half own the house and the condo in Florida and won't notice any difference in the cashflow.
As someone already pointed out Goodale knew what had to be done and chicken farted thru the election campaign. It's obvious once Flaherty and Harper got into the books and started listening to the advisors, they knew what had to be done.
My income is taxed. Why not tax income from investments?
Posted by: bluetech at September 07, 2007 08:07 AM (TCzS6)
60
Income from investments (including trusts) _IS _ taxed - and now it's proposed to tax it TWICE. The problem is not taxation, it's intentional double-taxation. The Tories said they wouldn't, but they did.
It's not right to keep twisting the argument to imply that greedy seniors are cheating the system. They're still paying their share, just like they ought to. That has nothing to do with Harper and Flaherty breaking their word and falling into a PR tarpit because they're too gullible and shallow to figure out what the bureaucrats-with-double-taxation-agenda are feeding them.
Posted by: JJJoseph at September 08, 2007 02:08 AM (kTp0G)
61
cheap nike nfl jersey wholesale nfl football jerseys
Posted by: Bears jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:56 AM (wmdzq)
Garth the General
Garth Turner posted an artistic rendering that shows him to be Stephane Dion's general assigned the task to take back the West for the Liberal Party, while General Stephane Dion takes the east. Taken in the context in which it was intended, the cartoon is actually poking fun at those who think Garth Turner has been assigned such an exalted task.
Of course, Garth Turner doesn't provide that context, nor does he link to where you can understand the original context.
more...
Posted by: Steve Janke at
07:18 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1082 words, total size 7 kb.
1
If I were Garth, I would have provided some context. When I first saw the cartoon, I though Garth was taking a potshot at Dion.
With the caption "No one is expecting Liberal leadership" it looks like Garth is expressing shock that Dion is actually making a stand on some issue.
Knowing the context that the cartoonist intended, it is clear that this is not an attack on Dion. With Garth's blog as the only source, however, it is easy to think Dion is the target.
Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at September 03, 2007 08:55 AM (y8R4c)
2
Not to mention, IF Dion HAD a Western General, why would he pick an Easterner? Yeah, like that would go over well.. another Easterner heading West to tell those "reprobate, childlike Westerners" how the Liberals will save them. Considering the East/West divide, Dion would have to be a COMPLETE idot to appoint Garth to the Western flank.
Posted by: SSomax at September 03, 2007 09:09 AM (4a9dM)
3
So what you're saying is that this is a poorly rendered cartoon with a murky message that is being misused by one of its intended targets who mistakenly believes it is complimentary.
Sounds like par for the course for the fiberal farty.
Posted by: A. N. Onymous at September 03, 2007 09:19 AM (aZei4)
4
I don't think it would be wrong to assume that Garth was flattered by this cartoon showing him as Dion's right hand man considering the fact that no context was given. The caption "No one is expecting Liberal Leadership" gives the impression that Garth is included in said "Leadership" and a central figure in the party.
Perhaps Dion is right to have that gun trained on Garth, heh heh.
Posted by: at September 03, 2007 09:31 AM (e4X5f)
5
Actually,the cartoon seems to show Dion ready to empty his rifle into Garth,probably because he,like Harper,now realizes what an absolute moron this guy is.
Posted by: paulsstuff at September 03, 2007 09:34 AM (Cpdi7)
6
That was my 09:31 post that I forgot to put my alias on. I guess some people are warning Dion about Garth's motives and Garth is blaming it, of course, on Harper:
"I even heard today that members of the Harper Conservative leadership have just ‘warned’ Dion’s people that I am not to be trusted, and impossible to work with. If they choose to believe that, then I guess I’ll stay a no-title, garden variety backbench MP."
Posted by: muttsrus at September 03, 2007 09:43 AM (e4X5f)
7
Garth is out on an Ego trip and the Liberals are not in a position to do much about it, he may take a hissy fit and start slagging them. They sure have little room for any more problems .
They have a leader who can't speak clearly in the language of the majority , sounds like Bob Dylan on dope and a co-leader who muses about about adopting a bird that hides it's s**t.
No, they need all the help they can get, even taking a chance with a guy with a short fuse.
Thing is, the people in the West know phony when they see it, he won't get away with much there.
Posted by: Libby at September 03, 2007 10:31 AM (6G7GZ)
8
Considering that the Liberals are often so anti-American, it is incredibly amusing that they try to use a cartoon to their own benefit in which they are wearing AMERICAN battledress....... It is even more amusing that Mr. Dion is holding a Thompson sub-machinegun when you think about the fact that the Liberals are so keen on strict gun control legislation.
Posted by: The Mad Maple at September 03, 2007 11:23 AM (R+zzS)
9
Boy oh boy, this is really something to be investigated - suspicious, worthy of investigative reporting, calling Dr. Sleuth.
C'mon - this is dumb. It's just a picture.
Hey maybe you should call in the RCMP - this is serious stuff.
LOL, LOL!
Posted by: Sara at September 03, 2007 11:29 AM (BnPhA)
10
Yeah Sara, but a picture is worth a thousand words.
Get the feeling your not really laughing.
Posted by: Libby at September 03, 2007 12:27 PM (D5brm)
11
are these restricted weapons registered ?
Posted by: spike at September 03, 2007 12:28 PM (6sL9I)
12
Garth, Garth, Garth...Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth,...Garth, Garth, Garth....Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, did I mention Garth, Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth...
Garth, Garth, Garth...Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth,...Garth, Garth, Garth....Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, did I mention Garth, Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth...
Garth, Garth, Garth...Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth,...Garth, Garth, Garth....Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, did I mention Garth, Garth Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth, Garth...
Posted by: not Garth Turner at September 03, 2007 12:37 PM (ry7L0)
13
What's interesting about Garth's proposals to allow income splitting and sweetheart income trust schemes is that they are in direct conflict with the rest of the socialist Liberal agenda, and anything that can conceivably be written by the guy writing Liberal policies, the socialist Bob Rae, or a guy who wrote his thesis on Marxism, Stephane Dion.
The Liberal Women's caucus' Pink Book calls for universal state-run institutionalized day care costing $15 billion a year, indexed to GDP. The Liberals also support Kyoto and carbon markets, which would see billions of taxpayer dollars go to sketchy overseas schemes, all while the Chinese build a new coal power plant a week for the next ten years.
Add a few billion for other Liberal policy proposals largely believed to be included in the Liberal platform, such as seniors homecare, pharmacare, and more post-secondary funding (all of which are provincial jurisdiction, btw), and we're looking at additional annual spending of between $20 billion and $25 billion on new social programs.
In this context, it is entirely reasonable to ask how the Liberals, should they adopt Garth's schemes, plan to simultaneously increase spending $20-25 billion while giving divisive, inequitable sweetheart tax breaks worth billions to key demographic targets, all while not plunging us back into deep deficit.
Posted by: Pierre at September 03, 2007 12:37 PM (nJcuZ)
14
Great Catch Steve!
Posted by: Sentinel at September 03, 2007 01:00 PM (oJP/3)
15
Nothing like cradle to grave care, and tax your ass off to pay,if you work for a living, then tax the hole in the ground we all end up in. Rest in Peace?
Posted by: Libby at September 03, 2007 01:45 PM (HfDOR)
16
I can get better quality service, any day of the week, from the local hookers and crack peddlars...than I could ever get from these two f***ing clowns.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at September 03, 2007 06:59 PM (GN3Xe)
17
Wow, Steve, you are so close to understanding the point of my "artistic Rendering" (giggle, I think Garth was being overly kind with those words).
Well, I'm not going to bust your nuts over this issue, not worth the effort over small details, but I will clear up a few details that you pondered about permissions and rights of use.
1) Many, many months ago I gave Garth Permission to use any "art" my site that he wished. That is also open to any blogger or media source, including you.
2) When I have materials that are not for redistribution without consent, such as my underwater photograph (sorry gang, there is literally tens of thousands of dollars of training, equipment and travel expenses spent getting those pictures and video) I clearly mark them as such.
3) Lastly, since I am a regular on Garth's Blog most people know where to go to find the details, and the day prior to Garth using that "artist Rendering" ~giggle~ I had posted the link in his comment section where he talked at the charming lady who was bothered by Garth and Dion's attempted overthrow of Canada's New Government TM.
PS, btw you put way to much thought and analysis into this none issue,... was it a slow news days or what?
Anyways, thanks for the link and traffic and feel free to my "artist Renderings" ~giggle~ in the future. The silly season is coming to the end and hopeful morons in Ottawa will prive me much better photos and stories to "artistically render" Wish I had the time to do Iggy and the Puffins, but I had too much work to spare the ten minutes and the news cycle is now to old for the Iggiot's lame duck joke,... HA I kill me!
Zorph
Posted by: Zorpheous at September 03, 2007 08:49 PM (LhwS7)
18
What "west" is Garth going to take for the Liberals - you mean, the "far west", like west of Keele Street? Good luck with that. Those people back of Etobicoke and on the frontier in Mississauga are barely above the level of savages. They're just not ready for someone with the keen intelligence and political cunning of Wise Old Garth.
Have they tried sending Bebimba out west? Maybe they'll fall for the Political Courtesan with a Heart of Gold shtick.
Posted by: at September 03, 2007 09:27 PM (tgNL5)
19
lol talk about taking up a lost (or in this case NONE) cause.
You sure got bent outta shape over nothin. I think Zorpheous wrapped it all up just fine though.
lol what a joke.
Posted by: SJ at September 03, 2007 09:57 PM (StbX5)
20
FRAG THE FUCKER .... STEPHANE ... NOW ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Observer at September 03, 2007 11:10 PM (v/e7j)
21
I really expected the reaction to be harsher than this. I hope my readership isn't get soft on me.
This was a lightweight post, to be sure. I stand by my statement that not providing links and context is bad form in a blogger. But call this an appetizer. My real post is one that took hours to prepare, but now it's up. It's a lot meatier than this bit of pastry. It looks into major controversy to which Garth Turner has taken a strong stand. It shows another side to the argument, with supporting documentation, that suggests a very different focus on who is really responsible for a lot of the pain that Garth Turner is using to score political points with.
And no cartoons. Promise.
Posted by: Steve Janke at September 04, 2007 12:45 AM (82+9s)
22
I received an invitation to the Garth Turner Public Meeting in Abbotsford. I am a Conservative member, so it is obvious Turner used his list of Conservative member to try to pack his meetings because he knows he won't get enough Liberals interested. On top of that, the invitation were mailed from John McCallum's office! I guess Turner doesn't have much of a budget with the Liberals.
Posted by: Louise Fribance at September 04, 2007 08:30 PM (ID/Q7)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
258kb generated in CPU 0.0453, elapsed 0.1135 seconds.
101 queries taking 0.0793 seconds, 472 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
101 queries taking 0.0793 seconds, 472 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
