2011 Canadian Election Thread

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So all tax credits are forms of wealth redistribution... Riiight. Under this logic, I'm not sure how you could argue that a national daycare program doesn't achieve the same thing. Tax payer money funds this program, yet it only benefits those with children. So, as I don't have children, my tax dollars would have gone towards funding something that saves parents from having to pay for daycare, thereby saving them more money, which increases their wealth. See, works out the same way and yet I somehow doubt you'd call a national daycare program wealth redistribution.

Actually, I would. See my post above.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So you are saying people of Christian backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to be in politics? Or shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions? Confusing.

Most recently the Liberals passed legislation allowing gay marriage (a policy I happened to agree with) but it was a very divisive policy. It certainly wasn't supported by 'a vast majority' of Canadians at the time. Their policies on Abortion were certainly not supported by a 'vast majority' of anyone either. The Conservative Party under Harper has promised time after time to stay away from these subjects purely because of the split among Canadian opinion.

In the current Lib platform, pushing for a national daycare program is a clear attack on those parents who may choose to stay at home to raise children; another example of a left-leaning social engineering type of policy. Contrast this with the CPC which offers tax cuts for people with children, a much more Libertarian approach allowing all parents to benefit equally.

I only see one party continually trying to shape the social policies of the federal Government, and it's not the Conservatives.

Definitely don't think that Christians should refrain from public life, only that those in governance need to respect majority will regardless of their personal convictions and Ted Morton and that branch of the reformers don't represent anything near that. They're hardline American Conservative Missionaries who think they know better than many of us while their own country is in shambles, which we're seeing way too many of in Canada lately.

Personally as a voter looking for a harmonious, prosperous country I need to know how a leader with close ties to those kind of people is going to use 4 years of basically unchecked power and I'm personally not sure.

If Jim Prentice was the CPC leader, they'd have my vote and a majority IMO because they wouldn't need to run a campaign of reaching out and assuring swing voters a bit creeped out by the hardliners. The type of people around Harper and the way they've run his campaign has been sub-par given his public persona coming in. Majority was there for the taking for the CPC, and they may still have it, but it won't have been because of great political strategy.

Interesting piece coming out of the Toronto Star this morning claiming one senior tory strategist has given up on winning a majority;

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...ach-tories-say

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't disagree with this, and if we must have some kind of parental wealth redistribution plan, I'd rather it be in the form of increased tax credits for low-income parents than the government sending $100 cheques in the mail each month.

Also note that I'm not exactly in favour of a taxpayer-funded national daycare program either. Having children is a lifestyle choice; my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize your lifestyle.

Agree completely, if you can't afford to have children, wrap that #### up.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Actually, I would. See my post above.

Fair enough. I'll also add, that while I don't necessarily agree with the annual $1,200 tax credit per child, it at least serves as a economic stimulant. The national daycare program is something that I can only imagine would become bloated with inefficiency as is the case with most government run programs.

[Shazam]

Look at this fataing list.

http://www.moneysense.ca/wp-content/...eceiptv1-1.pdf

Can't afford health care? Stop getting diseases, will ya?

Can't afford to get old? Where are the death booths?

Can't defend your sovereignty? Better learn how to use a rifle.

Oh yeah, the $100 CCB is income, and therefore taxed.

[Jedi Ninja]

nmsg

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Look at this fataing list.

http://www.moneysense.ca/wp-content/...eceiptv1-1.pdf

Can't afford health care? Stop getting diseases, will ya?

Can't afford to get old? Where are the death booths?

Can't defend your sovereignty? Better learn how to use a rifle.

Oh yeah, the $100 CCB is income, and therefore taxed.

Your examples are things beyond people's control. Having children in this day and age is completely within your control.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Your examples are things beyond people's control. Having children in this day and age is completely within your control.

Really?

Smokers.
People who work with hazardous products.

Of course sovereignty is within your control. We've just asked the gov't to take care of it for us.

All taxes are wealth-redistribution. That's the whole fataing point of taxes, and for someone to bring that up here like they figured it out for the first time in their life is, well, naive.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Definitely don't think that Christians should refrain from public life, only that those in governance need to respect majority will regardless of their personal convictions and Ted Morton and that branch of the reformers don't represent anything near that. They're hardline American Conservative Missionaries who think they know better than many of us while their own country is in shambles, which we're seeing way too many of in Canada lately.

See though, that right there is the issue. There's no proof that there is any hidden agenda, yet, the simple fact that several CPC candidates are Christians that don't believe in gay marriage or abortion is scary for people.

I remember when Obama was running for President, there was all this uproar that he is secretly a Muslim. It got to the point where he had to publicly come out and assure everyone that he is a Christian and that he regularly attends church. For my part, I didn't get it. Who gives a crap if he is Muslim or not? It's not like he was campaigning on the grounds of converting the US to Sharia law. Unless a candidate has indicated that they wish to invoke their personal religious beliefs, not voting for them because they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc. is nothing but pure prejudice.

Interesting piece coming out of the Toronto Star this morning claiming one senior tory strategist has given up on winning a majority;

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...ach-tories-say

I'm wondering if this might be a tactic to appeal to those that would vote against the CPC simply to keep them from getting a majority.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Ark2

See though, that right there is the issue. There's no proof that there is any hidden agenda, yet, the simple fact that several CPC candidates are Christians that don't believe in gay marriage or abortion is scary for people.

I remember when Obama was running for President, there was all this uproar that he is secretly a Muslim. It got to the point where he had to publicly come out and assure everyone that he is a Christian and that he regularly attends church. For my part, I didn't get it. Who gives a crap if he is Muslim or not? It's not like he was campaigning on the grounds of converting the US to Sharia law. Unless a candidate has indicated that they wish to invoke their personal religious beliefs, not voting for them because they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc. is nothing but pure prejudice.

I'm wondering if this might be a tactic to appeal to those that would vote against the CPC simply to keep them from getting a majority.

Fundamentalist Christians don't have some sort of burden of proof prior to getting elected that they will respect the rest of us any more than Scott Brison has a burden of proving he won't legislate against hetero marriage - but this particular leadership group have past political associations with individuals who have spoken about publicly about their desire to invoke their personal religious beliefs.

Even then I'm not demanding anything, I'm just saying that a covert campaign that appeared secretive was not a smart move given that there are voters out there hesitant to come into their tent because of that history. Poor campaigning.

With how tightly managed the tory campaign has been, I bet you're right on the story BTW - I wonder if that was a smart move though when you're dealing with a base (NDP) that traditionally needs to be highly motivated to get a good turnout.

[MarchHare]

Unless a candidate has indicated that they wish to invoke their personal religious beliefs, not voting for them because they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc. is nothing but pure prejudice.

"I think every Christian's under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values."

This quote comes from Darrel Reid, a Reform/CPC candidate in two elections and a former president of Focus on the Family Canada. He accepted the position of Chief of Staff for Rona Ambrose in 2006 and was later appointed by Stephen Harper to the Prime Minister's Office as Deputy Director of Policy and Research.

[CaptainCrunch]

So let me get this straight, cause I might be confused.

Jack Layton is going to impose a cap and trade that will mostly impact energy companies causing their costs to dramatically increase.

Then he's going to put an ombudsman in place and possibly regulate gas prices.

And he doesn't expect that this is going to throw a ton of people out of jobs.

I think the guy honestly got his economics education out of a cracker jack box.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not it at all. Many parents would like to continue working after having children, but the cost of daycare makes it economically impractical, particularly for couples with multiple young children. It's not a question of "the state being able to take better care of children than their parents" but one of parents wanting an affordable option so they can continue working and contributing to the economy after having kids.



The Conservative $1200 per child per year wealth redistribution plan is an absolute travesty and a blatant attempt to buy votes. My parents are close friends with a doctor who has two young children. He makes >$300k per year, yet he's receiving $2,400 from the government that he absolutely doesn't need. I know for a fact that one year he put the money away each month and bought a new HDTV with it at Christmas thanks to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayers.

If the NDP had proposed the exact same policy, CPC supporters would be crying bloody murder over an obvious socialist wealth redistribution scheme, but because Harperbucks came from the party you support, you'll overlook the many flaws of the program.

Does this doctor still pay childcare costs? Or pay for daycare? Does his wife work?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So let me get this straight, cause I might be confused.

Jack Layton is going to impose a cap and trade that will mostly impact energy companies causing their costs to dramatically increase.

Then he's going to put an ombudsman in place and possibly regulate gas prices.

And he doesn't expect that this is going to throw a ton of people out of jobs.

I think the guy honestly got his economics education out of a cracker jack box.

Let me say it again....all three of the parties are in favour of cap and trade. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Let me say it again....all three of the parties are in favour of cap and trade. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

Harper will not implement a cap and trade unless the Americans assume one which at least levels the playing field.

Both Layton and Ignatieff want one whether the American's do it or not.

Harper will selectively implement the cap and trade across all industries.

Layton expects to pull over 7 billion dollars from the energy sector within the next three years, combine that with his plan to rip another 3.2 billion out of the energy sector by canceling the fossil fuel subsidies.

On top of that he's also going to increase the cost of doing business by increasing corporate tax rates, and he's going to do it at the same time.

Even with the conservatives if they did implement a cap and trade, the losses would be off set by leaving the subsidy and allowing the decrease of corporate tax rates at the same time.

Layton is going to pull $10 billion out of the energy sector at the least over the next three years with an unknown loss due to increases in corporate tax rates.

So for the energy or oil companies, the logical thing is to try to recoup some of the losses by passing them on the consumer, but Layton is also talking about regulating gas prices which means that the only way for the Oil companies to cover the losses is to reduce business costs, which means getting rid of people.

[Cowboy89]

Jack Layton also supports Quebec to have a disproprtion of seats by population: as per interview with the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2003979/page6/

Mr. Geiger: We have a couple of questions from readers. I just received a Tweet from Caroline Hayward. She’s asking, Do you support additional seats for Ontario and Western Canada? You favour abolition of the Senate, which is one way in our parliamentary system that regional voices can be aired. If you are going to do that don’t you need to have better representation in the rep by pop chamber, which required reform of the house?
Mr. Layton: Yes we do support more seats for Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia. We also support retaining the current weight of Quebec in the seat calculation and we think it is possible to find our way to both of those objectives.
You mentioned the Senate. Imagine appointing candidates to the Senate, Members of Parliament who were defeated by the people of their region, and then you put them in the Senate. This to me completely undermines any argument that the Senate constitutes regional representation.
I clearly am very unhappy with what is happening with the Senate. The Senate has now become an activist entity. Overruling decisions that have been made by the elected house of commons. Other countries would not tolerate this and yet we somehow find it acceptable.
Mr. Geiger: If you have more seats to western Canada and Ontario, how do you maintain that historic balance with Quebec? They either get proportionally more seats or they don’t. Are you suggesting that all regions get more seats?
Mr. Layton: There would be additional seats allocated in Quebec as well.
Mr. Geiger: Even though it is not justified by population?
Mr. Layton: Well it justified by the historic political weight of Quebec in the federation. There is a solution that can be found here. It’s not an easy thing to do but it is one that we need to work for.
But we absolutely support additional seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. They are under represented at the moment and that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Stackhouse: And more seats for Quebec?
Mr. Layton: There would be an adjustment vis a vis quebec.
Mr. Geiger: So in other words, they wouldn’t have proportionally more seats.
Mr. Layton: Yes they would. Well, they would have more seats. Significantly more.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Jack Layton also supports Quebec to have a disproprtion of seats by population: as per interview with the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2003979/page6/

Yeah, but he also says that BC, Alberta and Ontario are also underrepresented. You might be ignoring some context here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, but he also says that BC, Alberta and Ontario are also underrepresented. You might be ignoring some context here.

Haven't the populations in BC, Alberta and Ontario increased since the last redistribution of seats, while Quebec has shrunk?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, but he also says that BC, Alberta and Ontario are also underrepresented. You might be ignoring some context here.

No the additional seats in Ont, BC, and Ab are justified by population. In Quebec it's just to sooth his newfound support. Read the entire quote, essentially he wants to make sure Quebec has the same proportion of seats going forward regardless of population changes.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, but he also says that BC, Alberta and Ontario are also underrepresented. You might be ignoring some context here.

WHat he's saying is he's going to dilute ontario/bc/ab seats in favour of quebec, effectively having what we have now or worse.