Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I agree with you here and that's why I'm still undecided about who to vote for. On the overall political spectrum I probably align most closely with the Liberal party, but even though Trudeau handled himself credibly in the first debate I'm not at all sold on him as PM. I don't know who the Liberal candidate is in my riding yet - that could influence my vote.

I'll save my potential Liberal vote for down the road when the oil & gas sector is in better shape. In the mean time I selfishly want a party and leader who is the biggest promoter of it because it will help me keep my job, help my company do better, and help keep the Albertan economy as well off as it could be in these circumstances. That party is the Conservatives.

[DFO]

I just don't see the CPC doing anything substantial in terms of promoting O&G or sorting out a national strategy. I don't view the anti-science stance related to climate change or lip service to Keystone as helping much. In the last decade or so we've needed leadership on the Aboriginal file which would be essential to form a national energy strategy and ultimately multiple export options. They just won't expend any political capital to wade into the issues.

[peter12]

These are all very, very valid criticisms, DFO. I think what most people, like me, who are only CPC by default are saying is that we don't have an option, and we wish that we did.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by peter12

These are all very, very valid criticisms, DFO. I think what most people, like me, who are only CPC by default are saying is that we don't have an option, and we wish that we did.

So I've been a CPC voter in the past but just can't do it this time around. I'll go Liberal this time. I don't buy into the narrative that the Conservatives are the only option when it comes to the energy and economy stewardship. I see the Liberals as an option because they've done it before. Guess I can accept Trudeau if it means less Harper.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by DFO

So I've been a CPC voter in the past but just can't do it this time around. I'll go Liberal this time. I don't buy into the narrative that the Conservatives are the only option when it comes to the energy and economy stewardship. I see the Liberals as an option because they've done it before. Guess I can accept Trudeau if it means less Harper.

While I would agree that the Liberals are the only reasonable alternative I don't think Trudeau or the current party have a lot in common with Chretien or his government.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fire

Are you saying generating construction jobs is bad for the economy? Seems like a smart move with the country possibly going into a recession. The Conservatives are primarily concerned with the economy and this policy helps on that front. Goes along with their moves to lower taxes in order to stimulate the economy.

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but housing is the one sector of the economy that doesn't need help. In fact, it is just going to encourage people to go into more debt to cash in on it. Everything I have read is that it is a bad policy. You have some articles to dispute that?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I'm actually warming to the liberals and Trudeau.

To me he's coming a cross as a reasonable pragmatist which is stark contrast to the ideologues on either side of him. Usually that just means you lose though.

Long way to go before I'd vote liberal, but hey it's a long election so who knows.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'm actually warming to the liberals and Trudeau.

To me he's coming a cross as a reasonable pragmatist which is stark contrast to the ideologues on either side of him. Usually that just means you lose though.

Long way to go before I'd vote liberal, but hey it's a long election so who knows.

This is the middle-of-the-road demographic that the Liberals have always keyed in on.

Nice to finally see them back on message to be honest.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'm actually warming to the liberals and Trudeau.

To me he's coming a cross as a reasonable pragmatist which is stark contrast to the ideologues on either side of him. Usually that just means you lose though.

Long way to go before I'd vote liberal, but hey it's a long election so who knows.

As hardline as I have been on here in the past and in posts on this very page, I will admit that directionally I am relatively more warm to the Liberals today than I was a month ago.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I'm actually warming to the liberals and Trudeau.

To me he's coming a cross as a reasonable pragmatist which is stark contrast to the ideologues on either side of him. Usually that just means you lose though.

Long way to go before I'd vote liberal, but hey it's a long election so who knows.

I would agree. Not convinced on anybody at this point but Mulcair is Harper left. Seems to say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes. (then again, what politician doesn't)

Mentioned already, but I wish another party would leave the increased TFSA limit intact.

[Slava]

Here are a couple points from the Duffy trial going today. It's really disgraceful that the PMO, with absolutely no knowledge of the PM, acted in this manner. http://www.brandonsun.com/national/b...221.html?thx=y

[Canuck-Hater]

Hate to say it but Trudeau so far seems to have a more reasonable platform than the others. I suppose he's still learning how to play the "game" but I'm willing to bet he's not as inexperienced as the Conservatives claim. My problem is his stance on C-51, if he's serious repeal that abomination of a bill then Ill consider voting Liberal.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Hate to say it but Trudeau so far seems to have a more reasonable platform than the others. I suppose he's still learning how to play the "game" but I'm willing to bet he's not as inexperienced as the Conservatives claim. My problem is his stance on C-51, if he's serious repeal that abomination of a bill then Ill consider voting Liberal.

I thought he made a reasonable enough point on C-51 in the debate that there were some good parts of it that would help right away, and he would repeal the crappy stuff. Now, what is "good" I don't know, or know enough about it. But in that regard, it maybe made a little sense to vote for it. Unless he was just doing it not not appear soft on terrorists and give Harper another thing to attack him on.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Here are a couple points from the Duffy trial going today. It's really disgraceful that the PMO, with absolutely no knowledge of the PM, acted in this manner. http://www.brandonsun.com/national/b...221.html?thx=y

Plausible deniability.

[MrCallahan]

Can someone help explain why abolishing the TSFA increase is a bad thing? everyone say it does nothing but help the rich, and doesn't help lower-middle class. I can see how it can help the more wealthy, by increasing their tax-free shelter. But why can't everyone take advantage of that?? for people that could be putting a few hundred per month in an mutual fund, why not move it into the TSFA? that way they won't get taxed on their gains during growth periods if they decide to pull out money?

I'm not a pro when it comes to the finance or the political world, so trying to wrap my head around that one stance that everyone except the conservatives seem to be against.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MrCallahan

Can someone help explain why abolishing the TSFA increase is a bad thing? everyone say it does nothing but help the rich, and doesn't help lower-middle class. I can see how it can help the more wealthy, by increasing their tax-free shelter. But why can't everyone take advantage of that?? for people that could be putting a few hundred per month in an mutual fund, why not move it into the TSFA? that way they won't get taxed on their gains during growth periods if they decide to pull out money?

I'm not a pro when it comes to the finance or the political world, so trying to wrap my head around that one stance that everyone except the conservatives seem to be against.

I'd think mostly because people don't have $10 000 for TFSA and maybe another $15 000 for RRSP's per year to spare. Maybe people can only save a few thousand a year so offering the tax breaks to those who have enough spare to maximize their benefits ends up taking those tax dollars away from govt revenue, and in the end may cost low income earners more because that money has to be made up somewhere. Either in cuts to government services or increasing other taxes.

Basically the wealthy can use the benefit to its fullest, the poor to middle income can't.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by MrCallahan

Can someone help explain why abolishing the TSFA increase is a bad thing? everyone say it does nothing but help the rich, and doesn't help lower-middle class. I can see how it can help the more wealthy, by increasing their tax-free shelter. But why can't everyone take advantage of that?? for people that could be putting a few hundred per month in an mutual fund, why not move it into the TSFA? that way they won't get taxed on their gains during growth periods if they decide to pull out money?

I'm not a pro when it comes to the finance or the political world, so trying to wrap my head around that one stance that everyone except the conservatives seem to be against.

You're going to get better answers than this but in my opinion, the 40k that can be sheltered in a tfsa at this point is peanuts for actual rich people. It amounts to the interest on the pocket change some people carry around. There are bigger fish to fry for rich folk.

The people who do benefit are mostly middle class and it is in my opinion a very very smart thing to encourage people to save after tax money. While having a tfsa doesn't effect your government benefits (you still get ei, oas, cpp), a population that has more wealth will ultimately reduce liabilities on the public purse. Will it compensate for the billion plus in lost tax revenue over ten years? I have no idea.

People who have money to invest will obviously benefit from a tfsa more than those who don't. However, if you have an extra $100 at the end of the year, the proportional benefit is still there for you. This is exactly how first generational wealth is created. All the dummies whining about this being a break for rich people are absolutely missing the point. This is how people get rich, especially in a society where we have been encouraged to do nothing but spend as fast as humanly possible.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Hate to say it but Trudeau so far seems to have a more reasonable platform than the others. I suppose he's still learning how to play the "game" but I'm willing to bet he's not as inexperienced as the Conservatives claim. My problem is his stance on C-51, if he's serious repeal that abomination of a bill then Ill consider voting Liberal.

Liberals have to find ways to be different than the NDPs (their direct opponent). Trudeau's argument is that Harper is pro war no matter what, Mulcair if anti-war no matter what. Harper is pro-pipeline no matter what, Mulcair is anti-pipeline no matter what. etc etc...

So Trudeau is playing the middle. We like some pipelines and don't like others. We recognize there is a threat to Canada and Bill C-51 is good on principle but needs many amendments.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You're going to get better answers than this but in my opinion, the 40k that can be sheltered in a tfsa at this point is peanuts for actual rich people. It amounts to the interest on the pocket change some people carry around. There are bigger fish to fry for rich folk.

The people who do benefit are mostly middle class and it is in my opinion a very very smart thing to encourage people to save after tax money. While having a tfsa doesn't effect your government benefits (you still get ei, oas, cpp), a population that has more wealth will ultimately reduce liabilities on the public purse. Will it compensate for the billion plus in lost tax revenue over ten years? I have no idea.

People who have money to invest will obviously benefit from a tfsa more than those who don't. However, if you have an extra $100 at the end of the year, the proportional benefit is still there for you. This is exactly how first generational wealth is created. All the dummies whining about this being a break for rich people are absolutely missing the point. This is how people get rich, especially in a society where we have been encouraged to do nothing but spend as fast as humanly possible.

If you only have an extra $100 at the end of the year, then the increase in TFSA space does nothing for you. That's the point. The $5,000/yr was already enough.

I am of the belief that the vast majority of Canadians don't put away $25,000+ each year (max RRSP, max TFSA). TFSA's are already brutally expensive in terms of government policy, and the benefit only goes to the top 10%.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Hate to say it but Trudeau so far seems to have a more reasonable platform than the others. I suppose he's still learning how to play the "game" but I'm willing to bet he's not as inexperienced as the Conservatives claim. My problem is his stance on C-51, if he's serious repeal that abomination of a bill then Ill consider voting Liberal.

You need to accept that no one is repealing that. The NDP won't even repeal it. It's here to stay. Once they have that power, they don't give it back.