2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm with you there. The beauty of tax credits is that should you not need to encourage or discourage certain activities in the future, you just pull the credit or incentive, no one needs to be let go and paid severance or shuffled into another government department. Plus when programs are created there's a whole new level of bureaucracy that has to get fed an increasing amount of money every year. The last thing Canada needs is more unionized 9-5 timerenters with defined benefit pension plans who expect raises above the annual CPI regardless of output.

Plus the fact that many people are too lazy to use all the tax credits at their disposal.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess I'm curious to understand how Ignatieff has arrived at a billion dollars per year for his daycare program. in 2005 Quebec spent 1.4 billion on daycare, and they increased it by nearly 600 million this year to add 15,000 spaces.

I think Quebec is spending twice as much for a percentage of the spaces that the Liberals would need to create.

I think that's a perfect example of how any new program with the name 'care' at the end of it is a nonsensical moneypit from a fiscal perspective. In Quebec's case it isn't as hard a sell becasuse ultimately they aren't paying for it.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm with you there. The beauty of tax credits is that should you not need to encourage or discourage certain activities in the future, you just pull the credit or incentive, no one needs to be let go and paid severance or shuffled into another government department. Plus when programs are created there's a whole new level of bureaucracy that has to get fed an increasing amount of money every year. The last thing Canada needs is more unionized 9-5 timerenters with defined benefit pension plans who expect raises above the annual CPI regardless of output.

Exactly. Ignatieff saying it will cost 1 billion dollars to implement is all well and good. What happens twenty years down the road when the program costs 30-40 billion dollars a year to operate.

[IliketoPuck]

I think a lot of the problem with the way Canadians are being pitched this election is that a majority of them do not understand the actual implications behind the promises being made.

Daycare for all! Sounds nice, but the reality is that it will drag us further into debt.

Down with military spending! Ok.. but ten years down the road when Canada is asked to contribute to a UN or NATO operation and cannot due to a lack of modern equipment, what happens. Or what happens when that lack of modern equipment causes more Canadian soldiers to lose their lives?

Harper is an evil man in contempt of parliament! Ok... the only reason that any of the Liberal governments under Chretien weren't in contempt was because they had a majority. I'm impressed that Harper has managed to keep a minority government going for this long considering how power hungry the opposition is.

[Slava]

^ Thats funny. I think that the way the CPC is running this campaign is intellectually dishonest and not entirely truthful. Saying that the BQ is part of the coalition when it isn't and they know that to be the case. Saying that taxes are going to increase when in reality the tax rate through 2010 would be the same as what goes on for years to come.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I think a lot of the problem with the way Canadians are being pitched this election is that a majority of them do not understand the actual implications behind the promises being made.

Daycare for all! Sounds nice, but the reality is that it will drag us further into debt.

Its one thing to just throw a number at it, but this is where we got into trouble with the long gun registry. I was half listening to the news this morning and they were interviewing some professor about the day care program and he snorted at the billion dollar price tag and stated that for you to do national daycare in Canada, you'd probably need to spend 10 times as much.

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Down with military spending! Ok.. but ten years down the road when Canada is asked to contribute to a UN or NATO operation and cannot due to a lack of modern equipment, what happens. Or what happens when that lack of modern equipment causes more Canadian soldiers to lose their lives?

I was really heartened by the increase in spending and the additional purhcases especially after Canada's rough start in Afghanistan. However the purchases that they've done have merely pushed out the catostophic rust out date of the Canadian Forces and stalled what could have been the death of the Forces. We still need to purchase replacement Command and Control ships to replace the Iroquis destroyers, without those command and control ships the Canadian Navy cannot form their own coordinated task forces.

The Forces still isn't in a great position to deal with more then one natural disaster at a time which is a primary mission.

The CF-18's, the LAV III's the Leopard 2Cs and our ability to communicate securely are all reaching end of life. Currently the tanks that we use in Afghanistan are leased, we need to decide how we're going to replace them since we poop canned the Stryker purchase (Thank god).

Our naval replentishment ships are eol and we need to replace them, or depend on other countries to keep our ships going on long deployments.

The Victoria Class Submarines need serious upgrades in a short period of time, and the halifax frigates have now gone beyond their expected half life.

If the Forces would have been doing constant phased upgrading through the years we wouldn't have reached the point when the Conservatives came in where we had to suddenly purchase new transport planes, and better equipt recon and transportation vehicles.

As it stands the Navy and Airforce are still sucking hind t1t when it comes to the budget and they have the highest technology requirements.

[IliketoPuck]

I guess politics is really just about who is able to convince a vastly uninformed population to vote based on flashy promises, while really maintaining the status quo.

The best thing for this country going forward is a majority government. Another good thing would be the abolishing of the Bloq party.

How exactly is the campaign dishonest? I see politicking by both sides, but to call it dishonest is a bit of a stretch.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Thats funny. I think that the way the CPC is running this campaign is intellectually dishonest and not entirely truthful. Saying that the BQ is part of the coalition when it isn't and they know that to be the case. Saying that taxes are going to increase when in reality the tax rate through 2010 would be the same as what goes on for years to come.

1) On the coalition with the bloc. Yes 'officially' the coalition was an NDP-Liberal one. In practice they would effectively need the Bloc's blessing to pass legislature that reflected what the two parties fought for in the previous election. Effectively, coalition with the Bloc's blessing.

2) This is 2011 and right now according to law the corporate tax rate is 16.5%. Calling 18% not an increase from where we stand right now is more of a doublespeak than your coalition with the bloc complaint. We argued this pages back. Stop rehashing the same argument that isn't an arguement. From this moment (Which is what counts) it's a tax increase.

In the spirit of being intellectually honest, why not argue the benefits of $442 extra per student as offered under the 'Learning Passport' vs. increased ecnomic activity from lower corporate taxes. That's the issue, whether you want to call it an increase or temporary refund adjustment.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

re: military

I agree CC. As a casual military buff myself I am disheartened by the way the Canadian Forces have been left to rot over the last fifty years. Canada used to actually carry some military weight in the world, but the result of a lack of government funding has turned our fighting forces into a shadow of what they used to be. By no means am I asking that Canada spend on the military what the Americans do, but I do want Canada to have stand alone capability as a military force. What that requires, I'm not completely sure, but upgrades across the board seem to be necessary, and I am all for the Airforce receiving top tier fighter planes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Y'know... I really wish there was a "No Debt Party" whose platform was essentually to make non-partisan spending and taxation changes until input matched output. I live within my means but apparently not a single Federal Political Party feels any obligation to do the same.

Originally Posted by Ark2

Wasn't that basically what the 2009 federal budget proposed to do until the opposition threatened to topple the government unless wild stimulus packages were doled out?

I think the best budget is a balanced budget. People who rave about the surpluses that the Liberals had under Chretien make me wonder if they actually understand what a surplus is. It literally means that we paid more in taxes and got less in services. Not sure how that is desirable.

Ark2, you've pretty much explained why the Conservatives choose not to be the "No Debt Party". They'd rather cut taxes and/or spend money than run a surplus (as evidenced by the 2006 to 2008 budgets).

There are problems with aiming for a balanced budget though. First, it's easy to miss the mark, so that if you're not running a surplus you end up running a deficit instead. Second, running a balanced budget in good economic times means you're almost certain to run a deficit in bad times, even without economic stimulus (you'd actually have to hike tax rates / cut services to offset the losses in revenue). Third, if you have debt, and Canada does, you're not doing anything to reduce the servicing costs of those debts.

The 2009 budget did try to minimize the deficit, but it done because the Conservatives had already minimized the surplus, not as an attempt to minimize the debt. It may also have something to do with Flaherty's prediction that Canada would not go into a recession.

==========

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

In the case of the $1200 subsidy, it allows the parents to spend that money how it best works for their economic situation. With a day care system, that money is tied directly to that one service.

From an economic stand point it is more efficient to allow the individual to chose what to spend the money on, than creating a program specifically designed to only provide that service.

Is the objective the welfare of the parent, or for the welfare of the child? The economy, as a whole, functions more effeciently without the subsidy and without the day care program (assuming no externalities). Giving money to parents maximizes the benefit to the parent, but not necessarily the benefit to the child. A parent can be given $1200 and decide they get the most utility out of hookers and blow. Economically efficient, but not necessarily desirable from a public policy point of view.

==========

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It would be one thing to not fulfill his promise on Senate reform, but it's another to appoint the most senators of any prime minister in Canadian history. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Originally Posted by Hesla

Trying to even out the Liberal domination of the senate.. .at least make it more balanced. He also has to make appointments as Senators retire/die.

I think the guys he appointed all are for term limits on Senators or abolishing it completely.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

He tried to reform the senate numerous times and was voted down by the appointed Liberal senators.

Can you find me some info on this? From what I can tell, the Senate reform bills died at the ends of parliamentary sessions (Senate reform section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada). What I can find, though, is that the Conservative senators killed a bill that had passed through the House, and that they did so by using the unprecedented act of calling a bill for a vote before any debate had taken place.

So much for just appointing Senators to prevent the Libs/NDP from doing so.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is the objective the welfare of the parent, or for the welfare of the child? The economy, as a whole, functions more effeciently without the subsidy and without the day care program (assuming no externalities). Giving money to parents maximizes the benefit to the parent, but not necessarily the benefit to the child. A parent can be given $1200 and decide they get the most utility out of hookers and blow. Economically efficient, but not necessarily desirable from a public policy point of view.

If it were up to me there would be no subsidy. However, the current subsidy is better for the economy than the proposed day care program could ever be.

Obviously you can't control what the parent spends the money on. However for the vast majority I would assume that the spending would benefit the overall well fare of the family, which in turn benefits the child by proxy.

[SebC]

nm

[J pold]

I'm with IliketoPuck here and he has summed up my thought pretty well. To me at the end of the day governments have extended what they are capable of providing their citizens at reasonable levels. Social programs are great but at what cost? The long term monetary implications don't even seem to considered, which is foolish and short sighted.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I guess politics is really just about who is able to convince a vastly uninformed population to vote based on flashy promises, while really maintaining the status quo.

The best thing for this country going forward is a majority government. Another good thing would be the abolishing of the Bloq party.

How exactly is the campaign dishonest? I see politicking by both sides, but to call it dishonest is a bit of a stretch.

Its absolutely dishonest. Harper knows that the BQ was not part of the coalition (it was NDP and Liberal with the Bloc to consider on a case by case basis). If he knows that full well then its dishonest....what else would you call it? Misrepresentation? Flat-out lying?

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

1) On the coalition with the bloc. Yes 'officially' the coalition was an NDP-Liberal one. In practice they would effectively need the Bloc's blessing to pass legislature that reflected what the two parties fought for in the previous election. Effectively, coalition with the Bloc's blessing.

2) This is 2011 and right now according to law the corporate tax rate is 16.5%. Calling 18% not an increase from where we stand right now is more of a doublespeak than your coalition with the bloc complaint. We argued this pages back. Stop rehashing the same argument that isn't an arguement. From this moment (Which is what counts) it's a tax increase.

In the spirit of being intellectually honest, why not argue the benefits of $442 extra per student as offered under the 'Learning Passport' vs. increased ecnomic activity from lower corporate taxes. That's the issue, whether you want to call it an increase or temporary refund adjustment.

I get what you're saying on the tax point, but my point here is that this is not some enormous increase. Its an "increase" back to where we were 3 months ago. If the tax rate 3 months ago didn't force high unemployment and stall the recovery then don't try to sell me that this will happen today. I also note that even with that "draconian tax rate" in 2010 the Canadian economy seemed to tick along just fine and many canadian corporations seemed to fare rather well.

[MarchHare]

Re: military spending

Perhaps this topic should be its own thread, but how much do people think Canada should be spending on our Forces? In terms of global rank, Canada is the #13 country for defense spending, which feels about right for a country that's ranked #9 in GDP and #36 in population.

As a percentage of our GDP, we spend roughly the same amount on our military as Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark -- those seem like appropriate countries to compare ourselves to, IMO, since we don't have the population nor the GDP to spend at similar levels as the US, China, UK, France, Russia, etc. without becoming a North Korea-esque military state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Re: military spending

Perhaps this topic should be its own thread, but how much do people think Canada should be spending on our Forces? In terms of global rank, Canada is the #13 country for defense spending, which feels about right for a country that's ranked #9 in GDP and #36 in population.

As a percentage of our GDP, we spend roughly the same amount on our military as Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark -- those seem like appropriate countries to compare ourselves to, IMO, since we don't have the population nor the GDP to spend at similar levels as the US, China, UK, France, Russia, etc. without becoming a North Korea-esque military state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

The problem with Canada is it's physical size... Countries like Belgium are like tiny, so they don't need 65 jets, they need like 10, and spend very little on the navy, which Canada needs lots of because of the amount of ocean it has to monitor.

Chris

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Re: military spending

Perhaps this topic should be its own thread, but how much do people think Canada should be spending on our Forces? In terms of global rank, Canada is the #13 country for defense spending, which feels about right for a country that's ranked #9 in GDP and #36 in population.

As a percentage of our GDP, we spend roughly the same amount on our military as Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark -- those seem like appropriate countries to compare ourselves to, IMO, since we don't have the population nor the GDP to spend at similar levels as the US, China, UK, France, Russia, etc. without becoming a North Korea-esque military state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

None of those countries have even remotely close to the area to defend and maintain soveriegnty over. That's an issue that should be brought up when discussing this point. Spending more than those countries doesn't necessarily mean we would become a hawkish, jingoistic state.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I agree CC. As a casual military buff myself I am disheartened by the way the Canadian Forces have been left to rot over the last fifty years. Canada used to actually carry some military weight in the world, but the result of a lack of government funding has turned our fighting forces into a shadow of what they used to be. By no means am I asking that Canada spend on the military what the Americans do, but I do want Canada to have stand alone capability as a military force. What that requires, I'm not completely sure, but upgrades across the board seem to be necessary, and I am all for the Airforce receiving top tier fighter planes.

At the end of WW2 Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world, one of the best trained small armies on the planet, and a fairly formidable airforce.

But its unrealistic for anyone to expect a pocket power like Canada to retain that kind of strength.

The problem with the way the Canadian Government is that they had no vision and no concept of what was important. What was even worse was that we had a series of prime ministers who had no grip on military matters or ones who outright hated and didn't trust the Canadian Forces (I'm looking at you Pierre and even more so at you Jean) we also had prime ministers with good intentions and no execution (Yeah thats you Brian and Paul).

It always urked me that our government was so willing to call on the forces to execute missions that we weren't equipt for. Every prime minister would send us on UN peace keeping missions with ratty equiptment inadequete training and criminally low levels of support.

Through it all and through the destruction of Canada's fighting moral they still tried hard and trained hard and tried to be a professional army only to be thrown into situations like Coatia where the PPCLI was labeled as the Can't do regiment, not because they couldn't do the job, but because the Canadian Government did an embarressing job of setting up a working command structure and wanted to command the mission from Ottawa.

Basically the greatest enemy to the military were not only successive liberal governments but leaders that outright hated the military and its members. Then just when we had a smattering of hope in Mulrooney who promised that he would turn things around and reinvest, he turned out to be full of crap as well.

In terms of the Military the Conservatives have taken the first good steps so that the army, navy and airforce can respond to their mission mandate of anytime and anywhere by providing the CF with air lift capability, dumpting the Itlits jeeps, leasing battle tanks that can function, and slowly deploying search and rescue helicopters these are only first steps.

Our frigates still need adequete replacements for the Sea King helicopters, the new EH-101's are coming but until they arive the Frigates are lacking one of thier biggests components.

We still have a massive problem with search and rescue, being able to handle logistics for over seas deployment ourselves and dealing with disasters.

At this point, the budget has gone from levels of pathetic where we were in the bottom 2/3rds of GDP spent to the middle.

but each year we have to look at replaceing equiptment in key areas, not all at once but we have to start keeping things relatively current.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Can you find me some info on this? From what I can tell, the Senate reform bills died at the ends of parliamentary sessions (Senate reform section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada). What I can find, though, is that the Conservative senators killed a bill that had passed through the House, and that they did so by using the unprecedented act of calling a bill for a vote before any debate had taken place.

So much for just appointing Senators to prevent the Libs/NDP from doing so.

Yes, they did die at the end of sessions but only from successful Liberal stonewalling in the Senate. The Liberals have been open about resisting any change to the Senate for a very long time now, and while they controlled the Senate they just referred bills to infinite review/debate/etc.

Here's an article talking about their intentions from 2007.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...05?hub=Calgary

In terms of killing a private members bill that was totally designed by the opposition to embarass the government and was truly inactionable (private members bills cannot exact spending), I don't really see what the fuss is about.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

The problem with Canada is it's physical size... Countries like Belgium are like tiny, so they don't need 65 jets, they need like 10, and spend very little on the navy, which Canada needs lots of because of the amount of ocean it has to monitor.

Chris

A fair point -- would Brazil be a valid benchmark then? The countries are roughly similar in size, and both have extensive coasts. From the link I posted above, Brazil spends only slightly more on its military than Canada does annually ($27.1B vs. $20.5B) despite having more than five times our population and 1.3 times our GDP.