Lik

原帖由 soli 於 2008-12-2 00:23 發表
很奇怪呢~
如果在選舉結束後﹐自由黨和新民主黨立刻申請要成立聯合政府﹐會得到魁人黨的支持嗎? 不會吧~
為甚麼現在就可以呢?
是保守黨執政後太自大和卑鄙了﹐可惡得在國會裡得不到任何其他反對黨的支持。
總合我上面所說﹐說組聯合政府合情合理兼合法。
合法者﹐乎合加拿大憲法。
合情: 保守黨欺人太甚﹐反對黨派乃狗急跳場而已~
合理者﹐經濟環境改變﹐右派政權倒台乃大勢所趨﹐而聯合政府所代表的是過半數加拿大人﹐這正正體現了少數服從多數的民主精神。

I wonder how you can jump to the conclusion that the coalition government proposal can be legitimate now.

As I have mentioned already, the Opposition has every right to overthrown the Conservative minority government. This was written into the law books, and is the rules that everyone abides by.

On the other hand, to put forth a coalition government proposal 6 weeks after the Conservative government is re-instated is playing against the rules. The Liberals and the NDP have already accept their role as the opposition. And now they want to turn the tables?! How does that ever have any legitimacy?

As an example, Soli, I suggest that you try signing a contract now, only to breach it 6 weeks later. Does the other signing party have the right to sue you for damages? You bet they do.

-Lik

yayaya

lol,  welcome back

maiamcy

100% agree.  They have to restructing instead.  Their sales are down because their products ARE NOT selling!!  

The "coalition" government's proposal to help the Canadian auto manufacturing sector completely misses the point as well. The Big 2.5's are shutting down plants left and right because the cars these plants make are not selling down in the US. What good does it do for Canada when this coalition government wants to keep these plants open? The Big 2.5 needs a re-structring plan coming straight from Detroit, not money from the Canadian government to keep uncompetitive plants open.

bbqfish

well, at least this government lasts for 6 weeks. the shortest in canadian history was 1 day. Maybe liberal and NDP wants to create jobs such as election clerks, election officers, making more banners, printed pamphlets, news reporters...etc.

daimo

if a coalition  government will come, it won't last very long anyway.  So if the election $ is to be spent, might as well do it earlier.

low_B

So. what else we can do?

sheep

I wonder if  "coalition" government is formed, in what way we can bring it down? No way I think.
Call another election is the best way.

ACC-HE

News1130's Listener Poll
(current result)

siumaibb

OMG, Lik is back, welcome and I support your view......Liberal & NDP are shameless losers

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 soli 於 2008-12-1 23:09 發表
那 BiscottiGelato 即認為現在政府應該甚麼也不用做。大企業銀行要倒就讓他們倒﹐失業率上升就讓他升﹐政府收入少了﹐就削減開支﹐帶頭裁減公務員﹐加稅。等到大家跳樓的跳樓﹐燒炭的燒炭。重複看兒子欠債砍母親﹐失業父親殺全家後 ...

Stuffing words in my mouth doesn't gain you any credibility. I am merely saying there are two sides to the argument. Economic stimulation is not the only way that might solve the problem. It might make it worse. Did I ever say the government should do nothing? I just said that they shouldn't try to solve the problem by using lowly economic stimulation strategy like the US has.

People are hungry now doesn't mean you should just buy food for them. You can reduce government spending, thus reducing tax on both corporate and the people, allowing higher productive to increase things like exports, which actually increase the value of both the dollar, foreign reserve, foreign investment and thus ultimately lead to domestic wealth and job creation. This comparitively is a slower method, but it's the sustainable method. How much unnecassary jobs can the government afford to pay out of it's own account? I am just saying the government should do whatever it always have been doing, but also tighten up their spending to reduce taxes on categories that allow for more competitive climate for business and hirings. I am encouraging the government to employ long term sustainable approaches as opposed to stupid method that only focuses on instant gratification.

Even tho yes, I agree that most people just look at the jobless rate for the next month and the GDP for the next year. But a responsible government should have a longer outlook than that. Contracting government spending is definately a great start so the government have more bullets to place money at the right places and if anything, to at least not go back into a red bottomline.