40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Dion doesn't even know what the Green shift is. First it is a Carbon tax, no he is claiming it isn't and that the conservatives have propogated that belief. See below quotes.

“We are starting to explain it after months, months of propaganda by the Conservatives. I'm sure you and many people thought it was a carbon tax. You didn't know it was a green shift” (CBC Radio interview, quoted in

*sigh* It's not *JUST* a Carbon tax. What he is saying is that the Conservatives are attacking this as if it is a new tax that Canadians will have to pay. Dion is saying it is a "Green Shift", meaning that it is a carbon tax PLUS A DECREASE IN PERSONAL INCOME TAX, which the Conservatives are not talking about.

Which speaks to why the Liberals shouldn't have chosen someone with such weak English skills. We know that Conservatives like to twist words completely out of context.

(FYI - I oppose the "Green Shift", I just don't oppose it by lying (cause recession) and purposefully taking the words of someone learning English out of context. I think that it is something that needs to be put on the table and discussed in earnest, something I don't think Dion has the ability to do.)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

*sigh* It's not *JUST* a Carbon tax. What he is saying is that the Conservatives are attacking this as if it is a new tax that Canadians will have to pay. Dion is saying it is a "Green Shift", meaning that it is a carbon tax PLUS A DECREASE IN PERSONAL INCOME TAX, which the Conservatives are not talking about.

Which speaks to why the Liberals shouldn't have chosen someone with such weak English skills. We know that Conservatives like to twist words completely out of context.

(FYI - I oppose the "Green Shift", I just don't oppose it by lying (cause recession) and purposefully taking the words of someone learning English out of context. I think that it is something that needs to be put on the table and discussed in earnest, something I don't think Dion has the ability to do.)

I don't think it is lieing when they say it will cause a recession. Many indications suggest it will. Obviously no one has a crystal ball.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't think it is lieing when they say it will cause a recession. Many indications suggest it will. Obviously no one has a crystal ball.

May not be lying but it's disingenuous as most economists and modellers seem to believe that it wont create a recession.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't think it is lieing when they say it will cause a recession. Many indications suggest it will. Obviously no one has a crystal ball.

I still just want to know what Harpers plan is though. I get it...the Conservatives don't think that the Green Shift will work...so what are they going to do in the meantime?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I still just want to know what Harpers plan is though. I get it...the Conservatives don't think that the Green Shift will work...so what are they going to do in the meantime?

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=75038EBC-1

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

most economists and modellers seem to believe that it wont create a recession.

What did most economists think about the NEP before it was implemented? I really have no idea, since I was so young at the time, all I remember (vaguely) is the aftermath.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What did most economists think about the NEP before it was implemented? I really have no idea, since I was so young at the time, all I remember (vaguely) is the aftermath.

No idea. Not sure why this is relevant in the least.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Based on the research and analysis contained in this report and supporting documentation, the NRTEE makes the following recommendations to the federal government:

2. Institute a market-based policy that takes the form of an emission tax or a cap-and-trade system or a combination of the two.

I'm not sure there's anything market based about the libs approach, and it's certainly not economy wide like the round table suggested. I'm also not sure it has much to do with reducing emissions.

It's a robin hood policy basically. Take money from Alberta and Sask and hopefully buy votes in Ontario and maybe BC. Gotta love politics indeed.

This smells so much like the NEP it scares the crap out of me.

[Ronald Pagan]

I'm not sure there's anything market based about the libs approach, and it's certainly not economy wide like the round table suggested. I'm also not sure it has much to do with reducing emissions.

Respectfully...

You could not be more wrong on each of your three points.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I think that was there intention all along with that bill. Try to appease the recording industry by showing they were working on a bill but all along having the intention of the government being toppled before it could be passed.

Atleast that is what I hope they were doing.

I think they were hoping to have it pass through second reading right after the summer break without any debate, but the election thing killed it outright.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What did most economists think about the NEP before it was implemented? I really have no idea, since I was so young at the time, all I remember (vaguely) is the aftermath.

If I remember even members of the Liberal cabinet approached Trudeau and I believe Marc Lalonde and begged them not to implement the NEP program because it would create a real split in Canada. I also remember that Alberta warned the Feds several times that if they implemented the NEP that Alberta would simply shut off the taps to the rest of the country.

The NEP was an outright bad idea by a vindictive Prime Minister who didn't really like the West and was frustrated that Alberta and Peter Lougheed would not come to heel with his vision of a centralized country.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Looks like Dion won't support a fight for Canada's arctic sovereignty if he forms a government.

“We can't win against the Americans; we can't win against the Russians and we are too civilized to shoot the Danes." (Dion Campaign Rally in Alexandria, CPAC, September 20, 2008)

Can you provide more context for this quote? I'm curious to know whether he was speaking strictly about military action, or about a general policy toward the arctic. I previously hadn't heard much from Dion about the North and for me it's a major voting issue.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Respectfully...

You could not be more wrong on each of your three points.

if you say so...

What's market based about a tax alone?
How is it economy wide if the majority of the costs are born by two provinces that make up a minority of the economy?
How will it reduce emissions if the price of emitting is not passed along to consumers?

It's a wealth transfer, pure and simple. Which is liveable as long as we continue to enjoy more wealth around these parts. If the price of oil tanks and the world economy goes south, I'm not sure I still want to be paying for the gas subsidies in Ontario so their car plants can keep churning out SUVs.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Conservatives tell everyone willing to listen that they are the ones who will guide the economy through tough times, but earlier this past year they barely even kept us out of deficit. The Liberals on the other hand not only erased the budget deficit, but got the financial house in order in the first place through the 90's and early part of this decade.

An arguement can be made that the difference between 'near deficit' this year and 'record surpluses' a couple of years ago is what's still left in your wallet after tax cutting. The conservative position has always been that money in your pocket and business' pocket is better in an economic sense than whatever new spending initiatives they could come up with. The worst thing for an ailing economy would be higher taxes even if it means higher surpluses. A balanced budget is great and should be mandatory, but running $15 billion dollar surpluses isn't a sign of good governance but rather of a regime that takes too much from its citizens.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

if you say so...

What's market based about a tax alone?

Because a tax internalizes the costs of environmental pollution. Emitters will then seek out opportunities to minimize their costs. A cap and trade does the exact same thing just in a different way. Both policies are quintessential market mechanisms.

How is it economy wide if the majority of the costs are born by two provinces that make up a minority of the economy?

??

It's economy wide because all sectors of the economy are subject to the tax as apposed to a cap and trade system that focuses on large emitters.

How will it reduce emissions if the price of emitting is not passed along to consumers?

It is passed along, through the tax...

It's a wealth transfer, pure and simple. Which is liveable as long as we continue to enjoy more wealth around these parts. If the price of oil tanks and the world economy goes south, I'm not sure I still want to be paying for the gas subsidies in Ontario so their car plants can keep churning out SUVs.

Gas subsidies in Ontario so that they can keep producing SUVs?

LOL wut?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Looks like Dion won't support a fight for Canada's arctic sovereignty if he forms a government.

“We can't win against the Americans; we can't win against the Russians and we are too civilized to shoot the Danes." (Dion Campaign Rally in Alexandria, CPAC, September 20, 2008)

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Dion here?

Honestly, I don't particularly like Dion, and despite being a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party I'm still undecided who I will vote for this election (or if I'll vote at all), but in this case, he's absolutely right.

Are you suggesting it would be in Canada's interest to get into a shooting war with either the US or Russia? What are the implications for a potential NATO-Russia conflict if our forces start firing on their's?

In a dispute with Denmark, he's also right -- most Canadians would want to see that situation resolved with diplomacy, not us engaging our forces to fight our allies in another Western democracy.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

An arguement can be made that the difference between 'near deficit' this year and 'record surpluses' a couple of years ago is what's still left in your wallet after tax cutting. The conservative position has always been that money in your pocket and business' pocket is better in an economic sense than whatever new spending initiatives they could come up with. The worst thing for an ailing economy would be higher taxes even if it means higher surpluses. A balanced budget is great and should be mandatory, but running $15 billion dollar surpluses isn't a sign of good governance but rather of a regime that takes too much from its citizens.

So long as we have a national debt, there's no such thing as a government surplus. Once Ottawa is debt-free, then and only then should any surplus money be returned to the citizens in the form of tax cuts or whatever.

That being said, surpluses shouldn't be spent on government programs that weren't part of the previous year's budget -- excess government revenue should only be used to pay down the debt.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

No idea. Not sure why this is relevant in the least.

It is an example of when a policy that could hurt Alberta was put into place by a Liberal government. I simply was wondering if anyone recalled economists thinking it was a good idea as well, since you are claiming

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

most economists and modellers seem to believe that it wont create a recession.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I remember even members of the Liberal cabinet approached Trudeau and I believe Marc Lalonde and begged them not to implement the NEP program because it would create a real split in Canada. I also remember that Alberta warned the Feds several times that if they implemented the NEP that Alberta would simply shut off the taps to the rest of the country.

The NEP was an outright bad idea by a vindictive Prime Minister who didn't really like the West and was frustrated that Alberta and Peter Lougheed would not come to heel with his vision of a centralized country.

Capn, I'm afraid that some of this is just wrong. Peter Lougheed was originally all for the NEP. If I ever win a powerball lottery I want to buy a piece of prime real-estate to create a huge bronze statue of Lougheed and Trudeau clinking their champagne glasses to toast the deal!

IIRC the "let those eastern bums and creeps freeze in the dark" mentality didn't come till a few years later.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and try to defend the NEP as a good policy...but the Green Shift is not anywhere near that plan.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Because a tax internalizes the costs of environmental pollution. Emitters will then seek out opportunities to minimize their costs. A cap and trade does the exact same thing just in a different way. Both policies are quintessential market mechanisms.

Both policies together are part of a market. If they authors meant simply insititute a tax on one part of the economy they probably would have said that. I guess we simply disagree on what a market approach is.

It is passed along, through the tax...

Isn't the idea that consumers will not feel the pain? Gas prices, heating prices, transport prices will not go up thanks to reductions in fuel tax? Or do I have that wrong?

Imagine a cigarette tax that taxed manufacturers but promised a pack of smokes would cost the same thing. Would that be considered anything other than a tax on the manufacturers? Would anyone think it would reduce the amount of cigarette sales?

Maybe I'm just too cynical. But when the libs themselves call this a social spending initiaitve, when I haven't heard emissions reduction targets or stated goals other than to tax and spend, and when the majority of the costs are paid where they won't get votes anyway, I smell politics, not policy.