Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That was twenty years ago. Ontario's been through more hardships since then. I mean I guess its possible it could work on older voters but its not like the equally if not more unpopular Mike Harris government that followed in Ontario hurts Harper much (and the Liberals ran attack ads to compare them in the past).

Rae also led the Liberals for a while too... so I suppose it could be a two birds with one stone thing.

Thats what the Cons hope for. All they need is for the 55+ crowd to continue to come to the polls in droves to keep the 'communist lefties' out, and they win.

If the Libs or NDP want to win this election, they are going to have to start making inroads to the old vote. Sad, but true.

....Either that or the impossible: Get the 18-30 crowd out voting.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This. I am not in support of handing out huge amounts of money for child care (like the Conservatives recently did), especially when people have larger families. That means taxpayers without kids now have to support other people's kids, whether they need it or not. And if you have three children or more, it becomes excessive. How can childless taxpayers also benefit? I don't think they can. They should just take that from taxpayers who have registered as having children. I will likely also be voting Liberal as well, with this in addition to the other concerns you listed above.

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

My apologies to 90% of CP for my language and terminology, but is getting hitched and releasing your spawn into the world supposed to be a financial windfall? If someone has more than 3 kids, can we start charging them extra somehow? Once I hit a certain income level, is there a pool of trophy wives and husbands to draw from for tax evasion purposes?

Thanks PCs. I'm now leaning toward the Liberals, whom I've never considered voting for in the past. I didn't know about these awesome cuts, that I ideologically support, now that I've heard of them for the first time. I will use only your attack ads as the basis for all of my information on these policies, which seems fair.

Just an FYI to you two since you seem upset that the Tories are giving money to families with young children and as a result are switching your vote to the Liberals.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trude...lank-1.2356892

Trudeau also proposed a new “Canada Child Benefit,” which would give families up to $6,400 annually for every child under six and up to $5,400 annually for children aged six to 17. The benefit would vary, depending on the family’s income.

“A typical family of four earning $90,000 a year will receive a monthly cheque of $490, tax-free,” Trudeau told a room of supporters in Gatineau, Que.

“Under the Harper plan, that family gets about $275 a month,” he added.

As childless singles/couples I also assume you would benefit from the increase in TFSA contributions which the Liberals would scrap.

[octothorp]

Won't somebody not think of the children?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Just an FYI to you two since you seem upset that the Tories are giving money to families with young children and as a result are switching your vote to the Liberals.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trude...lank-1.2356892
As childless singles/couples I also assume you would benefit from the increase in TFSA contributions which the Liberals would scrap.

Yep, having two you kids the TFSA thing was kind of a kick in the teeth. A tax credit for people with money to save, while somewhere around 15%-20% of family incomes before taxes goes towards various child care programs.

FYI for those who don't know for a kid under 5, full time child care could cost anywhere from about $800 - $1500 / month / child depending on a few factors. That's anywhere from $20,000 - $36,000 / year for a family with 2 young children.

As some have pointed out even though you decided not to have children, there are very very good reasons we have social programs for those who are not able to work (Children, Ederly, Disabled) and all have us have and will benefit from these programs at times throughout our lives.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jacks

As childless singles/couples I also assume you would benefit from the increase in TFSA contributions which the Liberals would scrap.

Only if you make enough to actually save that amount. It does absolutely nothing for people on the lower end of the spectrum.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by #-3

Yep, having two you kids the TFSA thing was kind of a kick in the teeth. A tax credit for people with money to save, while somewhere around 15%-20% of family incomes before taxes goes towards various child care programs.

FYI for those who don't know for a kid under 5, full time child care could cost anywhere from about $800 - $1500 / month / child depending on a few factors. That's anywhere from $20,000 - $36,000 / year for a family with 2 young children.

As some have pointed out even though you decided not to have children, there are very very good reasons we have social programs for those who are not able to work (Children, Ederly, Disabled) and all have us have and will benefit from these programs at times throughout our lives.

Our daycare is 2k a month. For one kid (under 24 months)

[edslunch]

Rumour of an election call this weekend. What have we done to deserve an 11 week campaign?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Rumour of an election call this weekend. What have we done to deserve an 11 week campaign?

I was hoping we'd get 1 month of no election, snow removal, or construction signs this year.

On one hand the parties are essentially in campaign mode anyways, so why not call it, on the other, please move up the date somehow so we don't hear this crap over 11 weeks.

[edslunch]

I don't buy the argument of we're already in campaign so let's just make it official. There's a significant difference between an official campaign and an unofficial one including direct cost to the public and an order of magnitude more coverage, polling, door-knocking, etc.

I really hope if Harper calls it early that it backfires on him

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I was hoping we'd get 1 month of no election, snow removal, or construction signs this year.

On one hand the parties are essentially in campaign mode anyways, so why not call it, on the other, please move up the date somehow so we don't hear this crap over 11 weeks.

The thing is that the parties can spend more money if they call it sooner, and as a result of the laws they also get more money refunded to them by the taxpayers for a longer campaign period.

An interesting tidbit is that Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau (the three suspended senators) are all back as senators during the campaign period. Obviously Harper just can't wait to get his buddies back on the payroll!

[rubecube]

What a difference a week and one poll makes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...click=sf_globe

the election happened today, there is a ...
79%
chance that the Conservatives get the most seats
22%
chance that the NDP gets the most seats
0%
chance that the Liberals gets the most seats
4%
chance that the Green party gets more than one seat
95%
chance that the Liberals and NDP have a majority together
16%
chance that the Bloc regains official party status (more than 12 seats)

It's incredibly depressing that simple vote-buying like the UCCB works so well.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What a difference a week and one poll makes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...click=sf_globe



It's incredibly depressing that simple vote-buying like the UCCB works so well.

So you don't support tax breaks/benefits to low/middle income Canadian families?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So you don't support tax breaks/benefits to low/middle income Canadian families?

Pretty sure the cheques went out to anyone with kids, regardless of need, correct?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pretty sure the cheques went out to anyone with kids, regardless of need, correct?

Of course

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, why would you only want to buy SOME parents' votes?

[temple5]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Our daycare is 2k a month. For one kid (under 24 months)

Wow, we pay 950 a month in Bridgeland for daycare (going up to 1050 in September).

[Ozy_Flame]

If anyone gets laid off, just start a daycare and watch the money roll in.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, why would you only want to buy SOME parents' votes?

That was my point?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What a difference a week and one poll makes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...click=sf_globe



It's incredibly depressing that simple vote-buying like the UCCB works so well.

I saw a very different looking poll. I wasn't able to hear the TV but it was showing that 66% of Canadians think it's time for a change in federal government. That's pretty telling I think as it indicates that some people are lining up to vote whichever way is necessary to make that change.

I stand by my thought that the PC's are getting worried. Lots of funding announcements and throwing money at Calgary because they see the very real threat of losing seats here. I think Kent Hehr wins Calgary Centre for the Liberals, and they could also add another here in NE Calgary. The Greenline and Ring Road cash aren't purely coincidental.

[killer_carlson]

I dunno Slava.

The threat for them to lose seats is in Edmonton, where the NDP is riding high.

It didn't go over well seeing calgary get a billion to edmonton's hundreds of thousands from the feds. To say lead balloon is an understatement. May even mobilize addition resources against PC interests up here.

I think the Cgy money was done not to win seats but to boost their relationships with calgary deep pocketed donors.

Same result long term, but I think the PCs will get a rude awakening up here. I'm told some PC candidate war chests are under $12,000 for the campaign...