2011 Canadian Election Thread

[automaton 3]

I really can't see anything in the Liberal's platform that would help my family very much, or at all. Some huge spending in there for I'm not sure what gain.

The F-35 cancellation promise is disingenuous IMO...the CF-18s must be replaced, they only have a few years left in their airframes. There is nothing else on the market that compares to the F-35 (F-22s are not for sale). What will the Liberals do if the F-35 wins the competition they are promising? Or will they rig the requirements towards "anything but the F-35" a la the ongoing Sea King fiasco (the Cyclones are STILL not operational).

Meanwhile the taxes on our business would increase. The Liberals seem to be overlooking, or ignoring the fact that many small businesses are incorporated.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ My MP is a blatant liar and spewer of half truths. I would doubt he's actualyl set foot in the riding, let alone done anything to represent us in Ottawa.

Well then... do not vote for him. I am assuming you are in a riding with a CPC landslide... so honestly the best thing to do is to try and get people together to dent his landslide so he may be bumped out in the future.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ My MP is a blatant liar and spewer of half truths. I would doubt he's actualyl set foot in the riding, let alone done anything to represent us in Ottawa.

Definately don't vote for him then.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ My MP is a blatant liar and spewer of half truths. I would doubt he's actualyl set foot in the riding, let alone done anything to represent us in Ottawa.

Yeah, I used to live in Calgary Southwest too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I really can't see anything in the Liberal's platform that would help my family very much, or at all. Some huge spending in there for I'm not sure what gain.

The F-35 cancellation promise is disingenuous IMO...the CF-18s must be replaced, they only have a few years left in their airframes. There is nothing else on the market that compares to the F-35 (F-22s are not for sale). What will the Liberals do if the F-35 wins the competition they are promising? Or will they rig the requirements towards "anything but the F-35" a la the ongoing Sea King fiasco (the Cyclones are STILL not operational).

Meanwhile the taxes on our business would increase. The Liberals seem to be overlooking, or ignoring the fact that many small businesses are incorporated.

There were a few things that have really bugged me about the F-35 thing.

When we purchased the Cf-18's in 1982 the project cost was a total of 4 billion plus an additional $2.6 billion in fleet upgrade costs not including annual maintenance for $138 planes.

So in terms of 1982 dollars the cost per plane was about $47 million per plane. If I use an inflation claculator that translates to about $109 billion per plane in 2010 dollars.

I don't think that the Liberals understand that other similar fighter planes like the Eurofighter are all in the $100 million dollar range or more and are not nearly as capable as the 35a, and to be honest when you have a small fleet of 65 aircraft you need to have the maximum mix mission capability that money can buy.

There are also no real side benefits of buying european made fighters in terms of economic benefits for our aerospace industry.

The Super hornet would probably be around $57 to $60 million per copy at least, however the JSF is a better plane and more well rounded which we have to take into account if we are buying a fighter that needs to last 20 or 30 years.

My only real dislike about the F-35 and its a biggy but its personal preference is that it runs on one engine instead of 2.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Actually, you're the one who doesn't get it. I'm not really Ignatieff's greatest fan, but your attitude sums up "blind partisanship" completely.

Anyone who disagrees with you is sadly deluded. Anyone who agrees with you is righteous and enlightened. This seems so obvious to you that you don't even bother with little things like "evidence" or "argument."

A discussion along those lines is pointless. There is no argument that will persuade you that you were wrong, and no evidence that will demonstrate to you that you have been mistaken. I could show you a video of Stephen Harper bludgeoning an old lady with a cricket bat and it would make no difference.

U mad? I hardly blindly support any one party. But in this election, I truly believe there is only one viable candidate, which is actually unfortunate. But IMO it is reality. I do not think for one second that Ignatieff has a real vision for Canada, and will say and do absolutely anything to get elected. He is already proving that by tossing spending plans around like candy, and worse his "plans" are simply not realistic. Actually they are downright stupid and dangerous, at best.

Harper is hardly perfect, and some of his antics I find distasteful, but he has proven he knows how to keep our economy stable.

Originally Posted by Ark2

I've always voted Conservative in the past and that is probably how I will go this time, but I can't say that I am terribly impressed by any party at this point. Politics is no longer about ideas. It is about who can bribe the most voters.

I feel the same way, it's like you have to vote for the party that has the best bribes.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Mysteriously...they are campaigning like Ignatieff and his 8 billion dollars in promises thus far.

Yeah, but at least the Liberal platform is costed out.

If you consider the Tory budget to be their platform then the handout to Quebec wasn't included... so where is the money coming from? There are only three options 1: Increase Taxes, 2: Cut Services, 3: More (Blah) Public Debt... I wanna know which one it is.

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.

[Ark2]

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.

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.

[Parallex]

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?

Oh please, like the Tories weren't tickled pink to get to hand out all those giant novelty cheques and spend millions more taxpayer dollars on TV ads bragging about them.

Originally Posted by Ark2

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.

Depends on what's done with it. Under Chretien all the surplus automatically went to into additional debt repayment. Ideally you'd want debt servicing entirely costed into the budget such that the bottom line equals zero but barring that I'd rather have surpluses that further reduce public debt then deficits that further increase it. Regardless I still want to know where the money for that handout to Quebec is going to come from.

If anyone hasn't guessed I ####ing hate debt.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I dont really have an issue with it. Of course I'd rather not kick anymore money towards Quebec, but its only fair since Ontario and BC received compensation.

Didn't Quebec adopt something similar to HST in like 1991? Why should they get the money now?

As I understood it BC and Ontario got the money as incentive to adopt HST as a way to offset the cost of it (correct me if I'm wrong). Quebec shouldn't have the same issues if they already did this in 1991.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ My MP is a blatant liar and spewer of half truths. I would doubt he's actualyl set foot in the riding, let alone done anything to represent us in Ottawa.

You're in Ignatiff's riding? Cool.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/toron.../17853131.html

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yeah, but at least the Liberal platform is costed out.

If you consider the Tory budget to be their platform then the handout to Quebec wasn't included... so where is the money coming from? There are only three options 1: Increase Taxes, 2: Cut Services, 3: More (Blah) Public Debt... I wanna know which one it is.

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.

From what I've read the costing out is pretty vague, and there seems to be some controversy whether or not the additional corporate taxes will be enough to cover it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by old-fart

You're in Ignatiff's riding? Cool.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/toron.../17853131.html

I actually think that the party leaders should just get a seat in parliament and then we could actually get proper representation from an MP. My MP won't be participating in any forums/debates with his opponents or really be campaigning at all.

Part of the issue is that he's out doling out money to buy votes from Quebecers....I suppose that somehow serves me and my neighbours well, but for some reason I just can't figure out how.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Well then... do not vote for him. I am assuming you are in a riding with a CPC landslide... so honestly the best thing to do is to try and get people together to dent his landslide so he may be bumped out in the future.

I'm assuming he is talking about Anders? How about Harper and his other reform goonies not allowing anyone to run against him? or finding some loophole? Any dick could run against Anders and win if it was for the CP nomination. It's just that NO ONE can.

scary stuff people!

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm assuming he is talking about Anders? How about Harper and his other reform goonies not allowing anyone to run against him? or finding some loophole? Any dick could run against Anders and win if it was for the CP nomination. It's just that NO ONE can.

scary stuff people!

They would have to make a change if about 2000 people spoil their ballots in protest of Anders... It is just people go and check [x] next to him automatically. Why would the CPC go through the effort to bring in someone else when it is essentially automatic ?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Oh please, like the Tories weren't tickled pink to get to hand out all those giant novelty cheques and spend millions more taxpayer dollars on TV ads bragging about them.

Then why didn't they propose those stimulus packages in the first place? I liked their initial budget as it was something that as a small C conservative, I could identify with. Once they were basically forced to go the route of big spending, of course they were going to try and give themselves all the credit, that's just politics.

Depends on what's done with it. Under Chretien all the surplus automatically went to into additional debt repayment. Ideally you'd want debt servicing entirely costed into the budget such that the bottom line equals zero but barring that I'd rather have surpluses that further reduce public debt then deficits that further increase it. Regardless I still want to know where the money for that handout to Quebec is going to come from.

If anyone hasn't guessed I ####ing hate debt.

I'm with you on that. I think that debt repayment should be worked into the budget, but it should be managed such that it is balanced. My second choice would be to have a surplus, but then I am left wondering what the heck we are paying for.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm assuming he is talking about Anders? How about Harper and his other reform goonies not allowing anyone to run against him? or finding some loophole? Any dick could run against Anders and win if it was for the CP nomination. It's just that NO ONE can.

scary stuff people!

Yes yes, the Cons are very very scary. Ohhh... hidden agenda... ooh booga booga.

How's that "hidden coalition" going with Iffy, or the hidden cap and trade plan?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Hesla

They would have to make a change if about 2000 people spoil their ballots in protest of Anders... It is just people go and check [x] next to him automatically. Why would the CPC go through the effort to bring in someone else when it is essentially automatic ?

If Harper doesn't care who runs against Anders for Calgary West why would he care about some spoiled ballots in an election that is a guaranteed seat for him?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Yes yes, the Cons are very very scary. Ohhh... hidden agenda... ooh booga booga.

How's that "hidden coalition" going with Iffy, or the hidden cap and trade plan?

hahahaha. awesome!

Conservatives aren't that scary. Former reform party members with power sure are. Boogie Woogie?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

If Harper doesn't care who runs against Anders for Calgary West why would he care about some spoiled ballots in an election that is a guaranteed seat for him?

Sure it is guaranteed..... but if there is any sort of question mark in the riding he will be ushered out and replaced by someone that is more likeable. Or at least ushered out and replaced by someone else that will do nothing.