Well put. For once our unique banking system and mortgage markets are different from the U.S financial environment. The scary scenario is that Dion and Layton don't want to acknowledge theses differences — after all their anti-American stances in the past (some of which have been to our benefit). In this case they prefer to "copy" the U.S. actions — which are not required here.

The challenge is to make sure we can (i) ensure we minimize the impact on exports to countries under duress and (ii) ensure there is credit available to business (especially small business) in times when even the banks effectively don't trust each other for short term loans.

Harper, however, has not been very good at presenting and articulating these arguments. He needs a good "marketing communications" consultant.

But what do I know? I’m not in government. I just have to balance income against expenses in my personal life and my business on a day to day basis.

As far as safe injection sites go… well, that’s my beef with all big C conservatives. They conflate morality with health issues, morality with personal choice issues, etc. Give me a tight hand on the finances and a libertarian viewpoint on personal choice any day.

But at this point in time, Ma, there’s no way I’m voting for any leader running around with his or her hair on fire claiming that the economic sky is falling. I don’t believe it is, and I sincerely believe that attempts to “fix” a non-existant “problem” will create many more problems than they will resolve. The last thing we need is more government meddling in the economy.

I watched Jack Layton call for an emergency all party meeting on the impact of the US economy on Canadians, Stephan Dion go off script during the debate to announce a 30 day emergency program after the debate, and Elizabeth may calling for a "proactive approach". These three don't have a plan, and they're making it up as they go along.

It makes a guy like me head for the hills.

Yer everlovin' MA

PS None of the opposition leaders has been behaving in the way you describe. Maybe you have swallowed messages from the Conservative WAR ROOM.

The Conservatives have more than 4x the campaign money that the liberals have. That's one of the reasons we have a campaign right now is because they're ready to go and the libs aren't. If Harper can force the Liberals to spend now it's going to be a very long time before they're ready for another campaign. Heck, Stephan Dion hasn't even paid off the bills for his leadership campaign.

You don't have to like what Harper's doing, but neither is it dishonest. It is exactly the tactic that Chretien used in 2000 as the Canadian Alliance was being formed. He knew that if he waited to call an election, they might be able to organize, raise funds and so on. So he dropped the writ, and won a third majority.

The reason that the Conservatives have so much money to spend this time, by the way, is that the Conservatives, especially old school Reform members, have historically been very good fund raisers. They're populists, first and foremost. The Liberal party has never been as good at fund raising from individuals. Liberals WERE very good at raising money from corporations, however, and when Chretien's 2003 campaign finance reforms eliminated the role of corporate and union donors it eliminated a huge funding base for the liberals (and the NDP).

Ironic isn't it? Conservatives as successful populist fund raisers and Liberals as the struggling "natural governing party" who can't raise a dime…

As for the surplus — you will recall that the very first thing Harper did was to knock down the GST. Again, you may disagree with the policy (and I do, as I feel he should have kept those taxes and continued to pay down the debt), but what has happened has been pretty transparent. Canadians voted for tax cuts in the last election, and it wiped out a good chunk of the surplus. It's unsurprising. Given the choice, most people vote themselves bread and circuses.

Yer everlovin' MA