[Bruce_the_vii]

Here it is:

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/12/20/wont- ... ieff-says/

I really like the way the article is written. Hits the right notes. Ignatieff as well, certainly talking sense by and large.

One thing. Ignatieff says he will emphasis job creation rather than deficit reduction. He will be less of a hawk on the deficit. He'll need a finance minister as dumb as a rubber tire. Presently the scheme of things is to import immigrants aggressively which will absorb any extra jobs created by deficits. Immigration will take maybe half the jobs created by the economy, the stimulus created jobs. I call this Keynesian immigration and it's blindingly dumb. Joe McCallum would do just fine as a complicit Liberal Finance Minister. If you want a Finance Minister that can piss away $10's of billions thirty rum and cokes a day McCallum is your best bet.

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Here it is:

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/12/20/wont- ... ieff-says/

I really like the way the article is written. Hits the right notes. Ignatieff as well, certainly talking sense by and large.

One thing. Ignatieff says he will emphasis job creation rather than deficit reduction. He will be less of a hawk on the deficit. He'll need a finance minister as dumb as a rubber tire. Presently the scheme of things is to import immigrants aggressively which will absorb any extra jobs created by deficits. Immigration will take maybe half the jobs created by the economy, the stimulus created jobs. I call this Keynesian immigration and it's blindingly dumb. Joe McCallum would do just fine as a complicit Liberal Finance Minister. If you want a Finance Minister that can piss away $10's of billions thirty rum and cokes a day McCallum is your best bet.

Not sure why he'd have to import so many immigrants with the numbert of jobless alrerady in existence. Get us down to 1 or 2 percent, then go looking.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The job creation in the last decade was about 300,000 a year. Meanwhile immigration is about 255,000 which means 150,000 workers. So that's half the job creation. It's pretty crazy to run deficits just to absorb immigrants. .

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

The job creation in the last decade was about 300,000 a year. Meanwhile immigration is about 255,000 which means 150,000 workers. So that's half the job creation. It's pretty crazy to run deficits just to absorb immigrants. .

Ummm.... yeah. One would think you'd manage immigration with job availability.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I've read a lot of literature on immigration and economists just drop it out of their consideration. World recession with countries spending wildly to combate unemployment, you won't find any economist mentioning immigration. So there are several countries that have stimulated and immigrated and they are now back at it with the world recession. It's an accounting fiasco, no more wholesome than Enron or WorldCom.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I'm sorry to say Michael Ignaitieff is neither a Liberal, a politician or particularly good at history. He's a mediocre male, an unknow American professor with French. It had to be said. Lots of people saying give him a chance still. The poor boy thinks he's on the learning curve, is completely deluded about his performance.

In early September he threatened Harper and threatened a national election. He did this without establishing a platform or the support of caucus. He assumed a Liberal vote amongst the public but support dived instead. It’s been characterized as a rash decision but going forward in 2010 it’s going to sink into the public’s perception and the polls that that’s what he’s got.

Subsequently he has said “the environment” would be a centre piece of a Liberal platform but they just disposed of their environmental leader, one Stephen Dion. That History lesson has been immediately lost on a Harvard History professor.

Ignatieff has something of a silver tongue, for example has said the Liberal Party would be more concerned about jobs that the deficit. However this means nothing, the deficit will be very troublesome. His silver tongue has nothing to do with actual political strategizing, the hard choices.

Ignatieff does not have the experience and data, the Canadian data, to tell one bureaucratic snow job from another. He will not be saying anything of interest or inciteful going forward in 2010, certainly nothing Churchillian.

The Liberal Party will be having a policy convention in January and this will be characterized by leftie intellectuals, experts and PhD’s putting their hand out for $1 billion or possibly $10 billion.

The Liberal political event of 2010 will be Ignatieff has no idea, no idea where to find an idea. Hot buttons, smart program initiatives and more significant Conservative blunders are simply not part of his academic, fine pencil work, background.

[ridenrain]

I liked the guy but he's definately not a Liberal.

[Bruce_the_vii]

ridenrain wrote:

I liked the guy but he's definately not a Liberal.

Yeah, I don't think so either. However, what do you characterize him as?

[ridenrain]

I take him as a soft Republican by US standards but he's more of a stuffed shirt with a great PR team. He's done lots of talk about freedoms and the obligations of the US and that's uncommon for a Democrat.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I like stuffed shirt.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I found this steaming turd in the morning paper.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/742695

Former Trudeau principle secretary Tom Axworth opins we need "to have government policies that encourage the growth of quality jobs". I thought that was one of Moses' original commandments. Tom describes it in terms of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity - although he uses the original french spelling in the article as any quality journalist would do.

The Liberal policy convention in March is promising to be a gathering of pointy heads who will similarly relieve themselves.

Expectations of government are low, and may go down from there.

[Bruce_the_vii]

ridenrain wrote:

I take him as a soft Republican by US standards but he's more of a stuffed shirt with a great PR team. He's done lots of talk about freedoms and the obligations of the US and that's uncommon for a Democrat.

Ignatieff has maybe writen about freedom and obligation but I think your term "stuffed shirt" may be descriptive. I don't think he's an Einstien at, for example, the people's approach to the neck-hole.

[kenmore]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

I'm sorry to say Michael Ignaitieff is neither a Liberal, a politician or particularly good at history. He's a mediocre male, an unknow American professor with French. It had to be said. Lots of people saying give him a chance still. The poor boy thinks he's on the learning curve, is completely deluded about his performance.

In early September he threatened Harper and threatened a national election. He did this without establishing a platform or the support of caucus. He assumed a Liberal vote amongst the public but support dived instead. It’s been characterized as a rash decision but going forward in 2010 it’s going to sink into the public’s perception and the polls that that’s what he’s got.

Subsequently he has said “the environment” would be a centre piece of a Liberal platform but they just disposed of their environmental leader, one Stephen Dion. That History lesson has been immediately lost on a Harvard History professor.

Ignatieff has something of a silver tongue, for example has said the Liberal Party would be more concerned about jobs that the deficit. However this means nothing, the deficit will be very troublesome. His silver tongue has nothing to do with actual political strategizing, the hard choices.

Ignatieff does not have the experience and data, the Canadian data, to tell one bureaucratic snow job from another. He will not be saying anything of interest or inciteful going forward in 2010, certainly nothing Churchillian.

The Liberal Party will be having a policy convention in January and this will be characterized by leftie intellectuals, experts and PhD’s putting their hand out for $1 billion or possibly $10 billion.

The Liberal political event of 2010 will be Ignatieff has no idea, no idea where to find an idea. Hot buttons, smart program initiatives and more significant Conservative blunders are simply not part of his academic, fine pencil work, background.

What a load of crap you have written here.. the man is well know as an author, educator, intellectual who is respected internationally. He comes from a wealthy family and his father was a diplomat. He was born in Toronto. Michael Ignatieff has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, the University of California, the University of London and the London School of Economics.

Over his career, Michael Ignatieff has been a commentator, critic and broadcaster for TVO, the CBC and the BBC.

Michael Ignatieff is the author of 16 fiction and non-fiction books.
Grant Hall at Queens University is named after his great grandfather who was the principal of Queens. His heritage is pretty impressive. So what you have written here is truly bullshit..

[kenmore]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

I'm sorry to say Michael Ignaitieff is neither a Liberal, a politician or particularly good at history. He's a mediocre male, an unknow American professor with French. It had to be said. Lots of people saying give him a chance still. The poor boy thinks he's on the learning curve, is completely deluded about his performance.

In early September he threatened Harper and threatened a national election. He did this without establishing a platform or the support of caucus. He assumed a Liberal vote amongst the public but support dived instead. It’s been characterized as a rash decision but going forward in 2010 it’s going to sink into the public’s perception and the polls that that’s what he’s got.

Subsequently he has said “the environment” would be a centre piece of a Liberal platform but they just disposed of their environmental leader, one Stephen Dion. That History lesson has been immediately lost on a Harvard History professor.

Ignatieff has something of a silver tongue, for example has said the Liberal Party would be more concerned about jobs that the deficit. However this means nothing, the deficit will be very troublesome. His silver tongue has nothing to do with actual political strategizing, the hard choices.

Ignatieff does not have the experience and data, the Canadian data, to tell one bureaucratic snow job from another. He will not be saying anything of interest or inciteful going forward in 2010, certainly nothing Churchillian.

The Liberal Party will be having a policy convention in January and this will be characterized by leftie intellectuals, experts and PhD’s putting their hand out for $1 billion or possibly $10 billion.

The Liberal political event of 2010 will be Ignatieff has no idea, no idea where to find an idea. Hot buttons, smart program initiatives and more significant Conservative blunders are simply not part of his academic, fine pencil work, background.

What a load of crap you have written here.. the man is well know as an author, educator, intellectual who is respected internationally. He comes from a wealthy family and his father was a diplomat. He was born in Toronto. Michael Ignatieff has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, the University of California, the University of London and the London School of Economics.

Over his career, Michael Ignatieff has been a commentator, critic and broadcaster for TVO, the CBC and the BBC.

Michael Ignatieff is the author of 16 fiction and non-fiction books.
Grant Hall at Queens University is named after his great grandfather who was the principal of Queens. His heritage is pretty impressive. So what you have written here is truly bullshit..

[Mustang1]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

I'm sorry to say Michael Ignaitieff is neither a Liberal, a politician or particularly good at history. He's a mediocre male, an unknow American professor with French. It had to be said. Lots of people saying give him a chance still. The poor boy thinks he's on the learning curve, is completely deluded about his performance.

Whether or not you view him as a competent politician, a shrewd campaigner, a decent strategist or simply a failed leader of the Liberal party, he is a Liberal, he's hardly mediocre (especially in academics), he's actually quite adept at history and he's an accomplished individual. Your rather subjective rant is just that - an unsubstantiated personal belief.