2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Tinordi]

It's not like you and the rest of the province wasn't warned about climate change Cowboy89 and the need to reign in development of the oil sands. We'll be forced to anyway investing so heavily in an unsustainable industry was always risky.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I can't be the only one who burst in to laughter at this point.

That post explains a lot.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by evman150

I walked to and from school in a blizzard ten miles uphill both ways with temperatures over 100 degrees, why the hell can't you?

A blizzard with temperatures over 100 degrees?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Ark2

A blizzard with temperatures over 100 degrees?

Exactly.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by evman150

Wow. There's just no reasoning with someone who posts something like this.

Didn't realize I needed green text, but I suppose it is a political discussion thread, live and learn.

Did you take your economics course yet? I would love to know how you rationalize the NDP campaign promises.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by evman150

Wow. There's just no reasoning with someone who posts something like this.

I agree that the homeless in Ferraris is over the top, but it's not like you are even attempting to reason with anyone here. Just seems that you are interested in making smarmy remarks signed by emoticons.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

That post explains a lot.

Who will give me the best advice on how to run this country? Canada Post of course!

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I agree that the homeless in Ferraris is over the top, but it's not like you are even attempting to reason with anyone here. Just seems that you are interested in making smarmy remarks signed by emoticons.

Not only that but they wouldn't driving ferrari's that takes away jobs from hard workin' canadians. Subsidized GMs for everyone.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Slava

So on the topic of cap and trade, who has the best plan? I'm clearly not in favour of any...but all of the parties are proposing it! It's one of my main arguments regarding the fact that there isn't much difference between the fiscal policy of the Liberals and CPC. The tankers on the coast though, is another issue and to me the Liberals miss the boat there.

The cutting of the subsidies is something common to all three parties as well....might be better marketing from the CPC here, I don't know.

I guess if those are two major reasons why the CPC is going to be better to the oilpatch though then the doomsday clock is closer to midnight then I thought!

In reality the oilpatch can probably make a go of things without a subsidy for the time being? I feel like my paying about $1.20/litre this morning is giving a good, healthy margin and hopefully they can make do. As a fiscal conservative I would just say there are other areas where the government can be effective and subsidizing corporations likely isn't one of them.

The devil's always in the details of whichever path you propose to implement. The Conservative's platform of regulations is pretty much the worst though from an economic perspective. It fails to harness the equi-marginal principle of cost distribution minimizing total costs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd agree with you except for the fact that the CPC is just as guilty as spending as anyone. Do we really need new fighter jets and mega prisons in a country with a declining crime rate and an international mandate for peacekeeping?

On the jets, I've gone through it before, and I am firmly on the side of yes, we need jets, and yes we need far more capable jets the the CF-18 under the current mandate of cutting the air force basically in half.

I'd encourage you to look at this study by Doctor Ian Lee that discusses the declining crime rate statistic and takes a close look at it.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files...March_2011.pdf

A base summary from the national post

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-p...211/story.html

And the international mandate for peacekeeping is a fallacy, Peace Keeping from a Canadian Standpoint is dead, and its a useless proposition as long as the UN is running it. The term has to be peace enforcement. The day and age where we can sit around and think we're doing something useful while wearing the Blue Beret is unrealistic at best.

When Michael Ignatieff started talking about only deploying with the approval of the UN I lost complete interest in the man.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Didn't realize I needed green text, but I suppose it is a political discussion thread, live and learn.

Did you take your economics course yet? I would love to know how you rationalize the NDP campaign promises.

I don't rationalize them, I don't have to. It's not like Jack's going to have a majority. He's going to have many people to answer to in the remote scenario where he is PM. It's not like he's PM and BOOM the platform is implemented.

I'm a liberal federally, but this election has been a gong show of a flop for the party. So if it's a choice between the CPC and the NDP, I choose the NDP. Mostly because I'm disgusted by the blatant disregard Harper and his cronies have for democracy.

[Ark2]

Oh well. I've already voted. Whatever happens now, it's out of my hands. Time to hope for the best and not worry about potential issues until after the election.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The big thing is, kids need to start saving money before they go to University. Things are pretty manageable when you've got a decent chunk of money sitting in your savings account but I knew lots of kids in high school that either spent their pay cheques as soon as they got them (on some very none essential things, btw) or didn't even bother getting a part time job. Frankly, I have no sympathy for these people and I don't see how it is everyone else's responsibility to make sure that they get to go to university.

This probably true, but I don't think you make your policies based on what people "should do," you base them on what people do because people generally don't change. And I agree that people should try to hold down part time jobs, but it can be tricky to maintain a high GPA on a full course load and work 20 hours/week. You also have to take into account single parents trying to pursue post-secondary (yes I know there are assistance programs for them) and the fact that it's not always possible to find part-time work.

At any rate, I've heard that in countries where post secondary education is paid for by the government, they don't even see significant increases in attendance, so what are we really accomplishing here?

I think having less personal debt in a country is always a good thing.

[burn_this_city]

Fighter jets, mega prisons and abuse of democracy, check. At least evman is consistent with all the Liberal talking points.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

These are replacing jets we have that get used everyday with our existing mandates, and even then we're replacing them with fewer jets. It's not like this purchase is hawkiish or departing from who we are already as a people.

Our forces absolutely need replacement fighters in the next 5-10 years, but I'm not convinced buying the best and most expensive option available to us makes sense (on a single-sourced no-bid contract at that!). Harper seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 when our defense needs might be just as capably met with a more modest option (like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, etc.). Unless we have an open competition with multiple bidders and evaluate all options on a combination of mission capabilities and price, we'll never know for sure that Canadian tax payers are getting the best value for their money on our new fighter purchase.

And does ANYONE still believe Harper's claim that the program will cost $75 million per plane?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

As with post secondary education (Again a provincial responsibility), I don't really see how the Liberal platform does less for students. I'll admit the Conservatives don't have an answer on this.

The reason why the middle class is shrinking has nothing to do with domestic policy and everything to do with global trade. All of a sudden, doing menial tasks at a manufacturing plant doesn't buy you a single family home with a big yard and a nice family sedan. If people want those jobs back in Canada they're going to have compete on wage and productivity with other places in the world. Of course in order to compete we won't see wages at a rate that can buy middle class existance in Canada.

You really think domestic policy has nothing to do with the stagnant or declining purchasing power of the middle class?

If anything one of the solutions to the problem you describe is more investment in post-secondary. If we cannot compete with manufacturers overseas then we find a better advantage. Information economy services, the like, they all require educated people to perform those tasks. THe more educated from more university access could be very good economic policy.

Countries in Europe have done just that. Look at how small Norway and others are leaders in software. Why can't Canada be?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Our forces absolutely need replacement fighters in the next 5-10 years, but I'm not convinced buying the best and most expensive option available to us makes sense (on a single-sourced no-bid contract at that!). Harper seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 when our defense needs might be just as capably met with a more modest option (like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, etc.). Unless we have an open competition with multiple bidders and evaluate all options on a combination of mission capabilities and price, we'll never know for sure that Canadian tax payers are getting the best value for their money on our new fighter purchase.

And does ANYONE still believe Harper's claim that the program will cost $75 million per plane?

And that's pretty much besides the point which was in reference to the alarmist folks saying "the NDP will overspend and kill us economically!!" When if you actually look at things, no other party has spent more and got us deeper in debt than the Conservatives. Talk about cognitive dissonance. If you really cared about spending and government revenue you would absolutely not support the Conservatives based on their recent and long-term history. Couple that with the fact that the big new spending initiatives are on a) fighter jets, b) prisons and tough on crime spending for a problem that doesn't exist and c) corporate tax cuts it's just shocking that we are here trying to defend other parties.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Our forces absolutely need replacement fighters in the next 5-10 years, but I'm not convinced buying the best and most expensive option available to us makes sense (on a single-sourced no-bid contract at that!). Harper seems hell-bent on buying the F-35 when our defense needs might be just as capably met with a more modest option (like the Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, etc.). Unless we have an open competition with multiple bidders and evaluate all options on a combination of mission capabilities and price, we'll never know for sure that Canadian tax payers are getting the best value for their money on our new fighter purchase.

And does ANYONE still believe Harper's claim that the program will cost $75 million per plane?

I REALLY hate this assertion there was a single sourced no-bid contract. It's just so patently untrue.

PBS had an hour long special on the competition for the fighter and it's development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_S...ighter_Program

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I REALLY hate this assertion there was a single sourced no-bid contract. It's just so patently untrue.

PBS had an hour long special on the competition for the fighter and it's development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_S...ighter_Program

It's not untrue at all.

The JSF program was a competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, but Canada was under no obligation to buy the winning fighter without even looking at other options. This is what I take issue with. Other aircraft manufacturers were not permitted to submit a competitive bid for the replacement to our CF-18s.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think having less personal debt in a country is always a good thing.

Sure, no one likes to have debt, but in many cases, recently graduated students are in a very good position to handle their debt. I'm sure some will accuse me of generalizing here, but never the less, many students get out of university, get and job and move back in with their parents. Sure, the job they get will not be all that high paying, but what are their expenses? A car, gas, insurance, maybe you pay your parents a little bit of rent, but really, that's not a whole lot considering you have steady income coming in. Again, if you are conservative with your money, managing student debt after you graduate shouldn't be all that difficult, and what's more, it should be good practice for when you get older and take on a some real debt (i.e. a mortgage, new car payments, etc.).

I'd like to see policies that encourage responsible debt management amongst young people. The reason the economy got as bad as it did was, in a nutshell, people borrowed themselves into financial ruin. As Canadians, we are fortunate that our banking institutions didn't allow for this to happen to the same extent it did in the US, but I don't believe we should be encouraging a further departure from fiscal responsibility.

I'll also add this: if you think you are going to eliminate debt by having the government pay off student loans, then I think you are mistaken. People that have no concept of being smart with their money will more than likely see their debt forgiven and realize that they can buy a brand new car or move out and rent a place for more money then they can probably afford to pay.