Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I think, at least in the west, most people considering the Liberals are leaning that way despite Trudeau, not because of him. It's the rest of the people around him and their platform that has them back in contention.

Outside of some extreme circumstance, I'd never really care about who the candidate is, just their platform.

I guess if I was a baby boomer and a decent clip older than Trudeau that might throw me off.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So is anyone sick of the election already? I think, that even if I was going to vote for Harper to begin with, I'd simply not vote for him now out of spite for doubling the length of this thing.

Not really. I look at the US and their gongshow and thank the heavens ours isn't that bad.

[Jacks]

Considering we sold the GM stock at $35.61/share and the price has been going down since ($30.36 today) I'm not sure what there is to complain about.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yep. Truthfully, they also probably made money on the deal. The question at hand is, why did they choose now to cash them in. Was GM stock as high as it's going to get and now made the most sense and it just happened to line up with the election; was there a specific plan this money has been earmarked for; or (and this is the one Liberals and NDP are going to point too unless the Cons make a compelling argument) are they just fudging the numbers and cashing these in now despite it not being a good time and having no real plan for the money.

The Federal Government should not be in the business of owning a large portion of a private enterprise like GM for longer than absolutely necessary.

Case and point: a prominent auto union lobbyist is saying the Federal government should have held the shares to pressure GM to reinvest in Ontario (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle23828543/). That sounds a bit further left than socialist to me.

The price of GM could go up or down tomorrow, that doesn't matter. The bailout was provided to enable the company to continue operations. Now that the crisis has passed, the federal government should prudently reduce its exposure.

The Canadian taxpayer ends up getting some of the investment back, and ultimately losing money. Great. However, without the bailout, GM might not be around, and a whole bunch of taxpayers might not have a job, and there would undoubtedly have been ancillary fallout to the broader Canadian market.

Is the unknown ancillary fallout that was avoided worth the price we paid? That's the real question.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by pepper24

To be fair though deficits started in 08-09 when the great recession started. Before that they had surplus's according to graph in the article.

Yes, but the surpluses were shrinking before the recession - meaning that once you implement stimulus (which they didn't want to do, but they had a minority at the time and were forced) the deficits created are larger than otherwise.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well to be fair Trudeau's dreamy eyes seem to elicit random thoughts in his supporters. Like the NDP in Alberta part of me wants it to happen just so people can learn their lesson again to vote with their heads not out of anger.

The thing you fail to realize is that's what's happening. Harper was elected out of anger towards the sponsorship scandal. Having control of a country without median voter support is an inherently unstable position, and now the spring is pulling back.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, but the surpluses were shrinking before the recession - meaning that once you implement stimulus (which they didn't want to do, but they had a minority at the time and were forced) the deficits created are larger than otherwise.

Well they cut the GST and increased transfers to the provinces, it's not like they blew the money in a VLT or something.

Originally Posted by SebC

The thing you fail to realize is that's what's happening. Harper was elected out of anger towards the sponsorship scandal. Having control of a country without median voter support is an inherently unstable position, and now the spring is pulling back.

That may be but they won 2 elections after that including a majority.

[Fuzz]

Good article on how the Harper Govt has bungled government finances:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/anal...227370?cmp=rss

[XeO]

What happens with provincial equlity payments. I know before we were considered a "have" province. Does this mean some other province gives us money this year? or do we still have to give away money to the other provinces?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Good article on how the Harper Govt has bungled government finances:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/anal...227370?cmp=rss

It may be that they have, but I'm not sure the author is much of an authority.

Don Pittis has been a Fuller Brush man, a forest fire fighter and an Arctic ranger before discovering journalism. He was principal business reporter for Radio Television Hong Kong before the handover to China and has produced and reported for CBC and BBC News. He is currently senior producer at CBC's business unit.

[nik-]

He's been reporting on business for almost 20 years. I'd say that gives him some credibility.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by XeO

What happens with provincial equlity payments. I know before we were considered a "have" province. Does this mean some other province gives us money this year? or do we still have to give away money to the other provinces?

That's not how Equalization works. No province gives money to any other province. The federal government, which collects tax revenue from all the provinces, transfers money each year to the provincial governments of the have not provinces.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by XeO

What happens with provincial equlity payments. I know before we were considered a "have" province. Does this mean some other province gives us money this year? or do we still have to give away money to the other provinces?

It doesn't exactly work like that. t's not exactly like Alberta writes a cheque with pay to the order of Quebec.
Equalization payments are taken from general revenue and distributed to 'have not' provinces based on a complicated formula that is supposed to average out per capita revenue potential (taxation) in all ten provinces. Every citizen who pays taxes contributes, so a wealthy person in Quebec will pay far more into equalization than a 'poor' person in Alberta. I

Alberta is definitely a have province.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not how Equalization works. No province gives money to any other province. The federal government, which collects tax revenue from all the provinces, transfers money each year to the provincial governments of the have not provinces.

Same semantic argument every time it is brought up.

If we pay higher taxes per capita, in theory we should be receiving a higher level of service than the have-not provinces.

The fact that it comes out of Albertan's federal income taxes and goes directly into Quebec's coffers is doesn't change the fact that it's coming from Alberta.

Put it another way. If the formula is instead "provinces get whatever they pay into the equalization pool back" (ie. no equalization), Alberta would get more money than the current scheme.

Of course, we are a united country, and I believe in helping "have-not" provinces, but I don't agree that some provinces, like Quebec, get a higher level of service than Alberta/Ontario (ie. $2500 a semester tuition rather than $9000). Other places, like the Maritimes, need the equalization to get to a "Canadian" level, and that's fine, but it's time that the formula gets revisited, and things like hydro or other exports get added to it.

[EldrickOnIce]

^ the kicker is the same level of service for the same level of taxation.
Quebec does provide more services for residents, but those residents pay far more taxes as well. But yeah, hydro calculations are one thing definitely wrong, and the exclusion of municipal user fees. Quebec does get significant benefit on both these issues.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

It may be that they have, but I'm not sure the author is much of an authority.

Wow, talk about attacking the messenger. Incredible.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wow, talk about attacking the messenger. Incredible.

Attack? By suggesting that a Fuller brush salesman/forest fire fighter is not necessarily an authority?

If that's an attack, my friend - your skin is too thin.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Attack? By suggesting that a Fuller brush salesman/forest fire fighter is not necessarily an authority?

If that's an attack, my friend - your skin is too thin.

To be fair, while not necessarily attacking, you were taking the ad hominem route.

[Fuzz]

You said, and have now repeated that his previous career choices makes his journalism credentials (which from the sounds of it, he has been at for 20 years) makes him "not an authority". It's the perfect example of attacking the messenger. Clearly the article must be perfection, since you chose to pick on the author, and not his words.

[EldrickOnIce]

Right. And as I initially said, it may be they have bungled the economy.
But authority is important.
For that reason reason, for a medical diagnosis I will place greater credence in a doctor's opinion than in the opinion of an individual who reports on medicine.

[Fuzz]

Well you don't have to look very far to find economists that say the same thing. I'm still not sure how someone who has been reporting for over 20 years and is senior producer at CBC's business unit should have their opinion discounted becuase he was once a firefighter.

Anyway, I was merely sharing an article that made some very good points, before getting sidetracked by this nonsense.