2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Government spending went from 209 billion in 2005/2006 (the last Liberal budget) to 239 billion in 2008/2009 (the last Harper budget pre-recession). 14% increase over 3 years... well beyond inflation.

Ya but in their defence they had a lot of influence peddlers to keep quiet. When you've got all these guys to keep happy it doesn't come cheap!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by SebC

Government spending went from 209 billion in 2005/2006 (the last Liberal budget) to 239 billion in 2008/2009 (the last Harper budget pre-recession). 14% increase over 3 years... well beyond inflation.

Thats because they restored the transfer payments and attempted to rebuild our military capacity.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Thats because they restored the transfer payments and attempted to rebuild our military capacity.

I see. So the when the Liberals spend money, we can't afford it. But when the Conservatives spend money, it's okay.

Now tell me how cutting GST instead of income tax was sound economic policy, rather than costly vote-buying.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that there are real problems with how the budgetary officer arrived at his cost estimates. He added an extra decade to the costs, and he based his cost estimates on what the British were buying which were the STOLV and carrier based versions and not the A variety that Canada is buying.

There are also some questions on the legitimacy of the estimated costs of the tough on crime bill as an independant professor came out and stated that the costs would be lower (It was an article in the sun a few days ago)

It can also be argued that the Parlimentary officer estimation on the jets didn't include direct economic benefits or the partnership purchase benefits.

I would fully expect that Ignatieff probably won't debate too hard on the jets.

2. Please show me how Ignatieff or Layton would be a good alternative. And your second paragraph could be reversed that its useless arguing with a Liberal supporter because all they can really bring up is some nebulous unproven Darth Sideous style hidden agenda. Or that Ignatieff would make a better prime minister because Stephen Harper is a mean vindictive man.

3) No its not ok, the Bev Oda thing to me was oderous, The in and out scandal really doesn't bug me because its a practice that all parties do practice. But the sponsership scandal does stand out because in a lot of ways it was to me a lot more oderous then what we've seen in a long time.

My problem as a voter is that Stephen Harper stinks less then Ignatieff and has a higher sense of reality then the world that Jack Layton and the NDP float in.

And most of his calculations were based on the weight of the fighter jets.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by SebC

I see. So the when the Liberals spend money, we can't afford it. But when the Conservatives spend money, it's okay.

Now tell me how cutting GST instead of income tax was sound economic policy, rather than costly vote-buying.

Why play a shell game with the funding for health care ect? Either it gets paid for at the provincial level, or it gets paid for at the federal level. At the end of the day its still paid for by the taxpayers. Who said anything about the GST? But since your bring it up, I remember Chretien campaigned on axing that tax. What happened there?

[Daradon]

We're going to be in the exact same position we are now, another Conservative minority.

It doesn't bug me too much, I just worry about the whole coalition slant from those the other parties that are so eager to grab power but can't even earn it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

It was actually the house procedure committee who sent a report suggesting they be found in contempt. This is after the ruling by the speaker of the house who ruled there had been a prima facie breach of priveledge.

This is not a petty political issue, it is a big one and taken seriously. The vote is on friday and the majority of the house is going to vote them in contempt. Big deal indeed, if you think democracy is important. A historical first nobody should be proud of.

If the Liberals or NDP - depending on which party you support - thought that democracy was important, they wouldn't have sought to overthrow the government SIX WEEKS after the 2008 election. So yes, really, a bunch of opposition MP's trying to hold the Conservatives in contempt is hardly earth shattering given the politics the opposition has played practically from the moment the people dropped their X's on to paper.

In the end, they are all contemptible, and I doubt this ploy will have the impact the American presidential Prime Ministerial hopeful expects.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Why play a shell game with the funding for health care ect? Either it gets paid for at the provincial level, or it gets paid for at the federal level. At the end of the day its still paid for by the taxpayers. Who said anything about the GST? But since your bring it up, I remember Chretien campaigned on axing that tax. What happened there?

The health care cuts were accompanied by greater provincial autonomy. That means the provinces were given increased flexiblity to eliminate waste. Of course spendings cuts hurt, but the point is that the Liberals aren't tax-and-spend bogeymen that can be lumped in with the NDP as killer_carlson did. Their recent record is of lower spending than the conservatives.

I brought up the GST cut because it falls into fiscal responsibility. And frankly, it's better to promise to do something stupid and then not do it than to promise to do something stupid and actually follow through, even though it's stupid.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Why is Iggy trying to revise history?


The Liberal Party has released new TV ads featuring Michael Ignatieff talking about his family.
It's heartwarming stuff : Ignatieff describes his dad as an immigrant who "came off a boat in 1928 without anything" and worked his way "up the ladder one rung at a time."
"Nothing is ever given to you, everything has to be earned."

Ignatieff told CTV his "family lost everything in the Russian revolution. They started over again in Canada. They came here with nothing."

But according to Ignatieff's own book about his family, The Russian Album, that's just not true. Ignatieff's family weren't regular Russians. They were high-ranking ministers in the government of the czar. They're aristocracy, actually -- Michael Ignatieff himself is a count, a title he will pass on to his son,Theo, and so on.

But like so many, they were able to squirrel away money. The Ignatieffs fled to London in 1919, where they had £25,000 waiting for them in a bank. That's worth more than $2 million in today's currency. The Ignatieffs lived there for nine years before moving to Canada in 1928.

Why is Ignatieff trying to revise his family's history to make them sound like poor working class shlubs?Why did he say his dad came herewith nothing -- when in fact his family were the equivalent of multi-millionaires?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/co.../17707481.html

[transplant99]

And frankly, it's better to promise to do something stupid and then not do it than to promise to do something stupid and actually follow through, even though it's stupid

So...in essence...you want your winning party to run on a platform of XXX and then NOT do what they were elected to do?

I mean this in it's most literal sense....

As sad as anything ever connected to politics from a voter as I have ever heard/read. Or the stupidest....I cannot decide which.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Agenda 2: Replace all llama names and references with Alpaca. So much cuter and softer.

Agenda 3: Profit?

[McG]

i expect a conservative minority government again. politico wonks will point out wins and losses of a political nature, and canadians will wonder yet again why we spend millions of dollars just to feed the egos of a few people.

back in the day, i had more of an opinion about all of this stuff...now i just want reliable, stable, consistent government. i want to see canadians treated with respect instead of the contempt that we seem to get from organizations like the crtc and their ilk telling canadians "how it is".

and i want to see taxes reduced, or at the very least some tax credits that are a "good deal for you, good deal for me".

i read those tax rates for HK and while i don't know if those rates would even be possible in canada... between federal and provincial taxes, GST, hidden taxes, property taxes, environmental taxes and levies, various recycling fees, duty, tire taxes...man its a wonder a canadian can buy anything at all.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So...in essence...you want your winning party to run on a platform of XXX and then NOT do what they were elected to do?

I mean this in it's most literal sense....

As sad as anything ever connected to politics from a voter as I have ever heard/read. Or the stupidest....I cannot decide which.

I'd rather they not run on XXX at all, where XXX is bad. But between breaking a campaign promise (which happens all the time, from all parties), and implementing a campaign promise that should never have been made in the first place, I'll chose breaking the promise.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'd rather they not run on XXX at all, where XXX is bad. But between breaking a campaign promise (which happens all the time, from all parties), and implementing a campaign promise that should never have been made in the first place, I'll chose breaking the promise.

Fair enough on the last point, and maybe that is preferable to you.

However, when a party takes a stand on a platform during a campaign and then delivers on it, that has to be a better outcome than not doing what they were elected to do. Thats why they are there afterall and why there was a vote cast for each and every one of them. When we get into "yeah well they didnt do what they said but its ok" and make it acceptable, then no one has a single grievance when whatever party does whatever they want. That could cause instability beyond comprehension and have massive reprecussions.

We have to hold ALL elected accountable for what they said they would do when they wanted our vote. Otherwise the whole system is on a tipping point.

[Slava]

^thats fair and I'm generally in favour. In the case of the GST though the problem was they made the promise to get rid of it, got into power and then realized/saw just how bad things were. So while they could've followed through with dropping it they would've been doing a disservice had they gone through with it. These things happen when you move from opposition to government.

[FlamesAddiction]

Almost every time a tax is lowered, they make up for it somewhere else. When the GST was brought in, it was basically shifting revenue from a corporate tax to one that the common person would be paying.

If the average person wants their own personal taxes lightened, it will likely mean having to move the tax revenue uphill.... which is very hard to do since rich people tend to be the ones that are more prepared to lobby government (or make up the government).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

The health care cuts were accompanied by greater provincial autonomy. That means the provinces were given increased flexiblity to eliminate waste. Of course spendings cuts hurt, but the point is that the Liberals aren't tax-and-spend bogeymen that can be lumped in with the NDP as killer_carlson did. Their recent record is of lower spending than the conservatives.

I brought up the GST cut because it falls into fiscal responsibility. And frankly, it's better to promise to do something stupid and then not do it than to promise to do something stupid and actually follow through, even though it's stupid.

Yes, personal or corporate income tax cuts are more economically efficient than consumption tax cuts. But consumption tax cuts are better than no tax cuts at all. There is still an economic efficiency gain, its just not as large.

[TylerSVT]

It would be sweet for Quebec to finally break off and Canada can have a coalition government that actually works. Quebec pretty much ruins everything.... again.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yes, personal or corporate income tax cuts are more economically efficient than consumption tax cuts. But consumption tax cuts are better than no tax cuts at all. There is still an economic efficiency gain, its just not as large.

An inefficient tax cut comes at a cost either to spending or to efficient tax cuts. It's wasteful, and whilst different people support different levels of spending and taxation, I think we can all agree that waste is bad.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

An inefficient tax cut comes at a cost either to spending or to efficient tax cuts. It's wasteful, and whilst different people support different levels of spending and taxation, I think we can all agree that waste is bad.

Sure, I think most people would agree that waste is bad. Every extra tax cut puts fiscal pressure on the gov't which decreases spending. Gov't spending adds inefficiency to the economy, so less of it is more economically efficient.