Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

So all of the parties are vote buying.
None of the vote buying applies to me.
None of the economic policies fix major outstanding problems.
No controversial subjects are being tackled.

Whichever party is elected is going to be crap. Is that a statement of fact at this point?

This is why a Bloc Quebecois member should run in Calgary. Protest vote!

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How is saying you'll run deficits during a recession "vote-buying" and not just sound, basic economics?

I think it is sound economics, up to a point.
The best line of the night from the debate was Trudeau's: 'Mr. Harper, you have run deficits in good years, run deficits in bad years. The only time you haven’t run deficits in is in election years.'

I was just answering the poster's question.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Ok, fair enough.
I am pretty sure those were both in the spring budget - which doesn't mean they weren't setting the table for a fall election - but aren't how I think about election spending. I meant more like Trudeau announce last week the $20B for transit spending (not that I'm against it at all) but I'll give you that.

But is that not the opposite of vote buying? That will only please the people who are OK paying the increased taxes necessary to cover the costs, which by most accounts is not a lot of people.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think it is sound economics, up to a point.
The best line of the night from the debate was Trudeau's: 'Mr. Harper, you have run deficits in good years, run deficits in bad years. The only time you haven’t run deficits in is in election years.'

I was just answering the poster's question.

Not really, as the vote buying is pretty subjective depending on what you are personally willing to pay for.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People who can use the extra TSFA room.
Families who just got that big child care cheque.

They are all buying votes if that's how you want to look at it.

They just did it before the election is the only difference

[saillias]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, you definitely read it here. A bunch of ding dongs kept re-posting the same blog-post hosted on Forbes.com (and written by a UKIP supporter and staunch free-market capitalist) and another article written by a right-wing think-tank about how restaurant owners were shutting down because of the new minimum wage. The problem being that those same restaurant owners denied ever saying any of that in an actual piece of journalism written by the Seattle Times, and the other two posts were written well before the implementation of the new minimum wage (which also still hasn't happened yet). Both posts also ignored that there had been an increase in applications for either new business licenses or restaurant licenses, which obviously you can't tie to the minimum wage, but if you're going to make the argument at least get your facts straight.

The unfortunate thing is, if you google "Seattle minimum wage," you get the right-wing propaganda pieces. You actually have to do a bit of digging for the Times article. In conclusion, fact check your sources, people!

Oh wow. I've clearly been bamboozled. Thanks for the clarification

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Not really, as the vote buying is pretty subjective depending on what you are personally willing to pay for.

Not really? I wasn't answering the question?
Is there a list of those who only can respond to questions?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not really? I wasn't answering the question?
Is there a list of those who only can respond to questions?

Well, no of course not. But the question itself is a little odd. Vote buys tend to be things that A) appeal to the party's ingrained voter base, B) things that can possibly bring fence sitters to their side and/or B) Don't cost voters money.

Everything you mentioned as vote buys for the NDP and LPC are things that will cost voters money, even though they may be in line with what their voter base will want. They are hardly things that will pull people that wouldn't tend to vote that party towards them. Conversely, policies that lower taxes and give more tax breaks are things that are appealing to almost anyone, including those that are against such things ideologically. Conceivably, the CPCs could bring people to their side that are fence sitters by making these promises. Hell, I'm pretty against the CPC, but as a young person who owns a home and would like to get top resale value for it, a tax credit on renos is obviously very appealing to me. Ideologically I hate it, but personally it would be very beneficial. To me, that is the definition of a vote buy.

But, as CPC supporters tend to be against more taxes and are usually people in higher tax brackets, they would view such infrastructure and spending promises as "taking" from them and "giving" to everyone else, and thus buying the votes of everyone else.

It depends on how you look at it and where you're coming from personally. Really the only way Harry Lime can actually come to a conclusion is by reviewing the party platforms and coming to a decision on his own. Anything you hear from anyone else will have a slant.

[flamefan74]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well, no of course not. But the question itself is a little odd. Vote buys tend to be things that A) appeal to the party's ingrained voter base, B) things that can possibly bring fence sitters to their side and/or B) Don't cost voters money.

Isn't that exactly what Trudeau is doing though? My cousin is littering Facebook with messages of "Vote Trudeau, he will get us a se lrt, while Harper sits around and does nothing". He was waffling between LPC and NDP. I think most people don't look at what something is going to cost, just how it benefits them. Like your example of the reno tax credit. However, what Trudeau and Mulcair are doing is the exact same as Harper. Just different ways of going about it. And it's all ridiculous.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

Isn't that exactly what Trudeau is doing though? My cousin is littering Facebook with messages of "Vote Trudeau, he will get us a se lrt, while Harper sits around and does nothing". He was waffling between LPC and NDP. I think most people don't look at what something is going to cost, just how it benefits them. Like your example of the reno tax credit. However, what Trudeau and Mulcair are doing is the exact same as Harper. Just different ways of going about it. And it's all ridiculous.

Well that's pretty much exactly what I said. It depends on what you support and how it affects you. You could say the infrastructure policy is a vote buy, but realistically, Trudeau is right when he says that downturns are the time to use deficit spending. The problem is it costs money, which CPC voters tend to not like. So he's obviously not attempting to buy votes from conservative people. As I mentioned, it's the opposite for things like reno credits, as that can benefit literally anyone that owns a home, whether you are left or right, so that IS an attempt to buy votes from people who maybe wouldn't otherwise support you, in my eyes anyways. Someone like your cousin obviously supports infrastructure investment, so they will be attracted to the party looking to do that.

I disagree that it's all ridiculous however. A lot of this stuff is just campaign promises that are rightfully in line with their party's historical stance, there's not much that s earth-shattering about any of it. What is defined as ridiculous, again, depends on your point of view.

[FlameOn]

So Harper's sale of GM share sales, along with a large number of other government properties and dipping into the EI fund, to make it appear there was a surplus last year has actually cost Canadian tax payers at least $3.5 billion in value. As more information is coming out it is becoming clear the CPC initiated a fire sale of government assets in order to create a false single year balanced budget despite the projected deficit.

Market analysts and union leaders say the Harper government may have gotten a bad deal in selling off its remaining shares in General Motors, and one estimate projects a $3.5-billion loss for taxpayers.

The Harper government announced earlier this week it had sold its remaining 73.4 million GM shares in an unregistered trade to Goldman Sachs, essentially ending its investment in the company that began in 2009, when the federal and Ontario governments joined the U.S. in bailing out the struggling automaker.

The share sale was widely seen as an attempt to balance the federal government’s books ahead of this year’s election -- as the Tories had vowed -- despite a drop in oil revenues.

Estimates for how much Ottawa received on the share sale range from $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion.

But according to calculations carried out by the Globe and Mail, this means taxpayers will take a $3.5-billion loss on Ottawa and Ontario’s investment in the automaker, which is a major employer in southern Ontario.

What fantastic stewards of the economy the CPC has become. The $1.9 Billion surplus is really a $1.6 billion loss just from the GM sale and not counting the EI mess. Just insane how they tried to spin that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...n_7024464.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26373964/

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

Isn't that exactly what Trudeau is doing though? My cousin is littering Facebook with messages of "Vote Trudeau, he will get us a se lrt, while Harper sits around and does nothing". He was waffling between LPC and NDP. I think most people don't look at what something is going to cost, just how it benefits them. Like your example of the reno tax credit. However, what Trudeau and Mulcair are doing is the exact same as Harper. Just different ways of going about it. And it's all ridiculous.

Didn't the Conservatives already pledge a bunch of money for that?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So Harper's sale of GM share sales, along with a large number of other government properties and dipping into the EI fund, to make it appear there was a surplus last year has actually cost Canadian tax payers $3.5 billion in value. As more information is coming out it is becoming clear the CPC initiated a fire sale of government assets in order to create a false single year balanced budget despite the projected deficit.




What fantastic stewards of the economy the CPC has become.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...n_7024464.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26373964/

Sound.Fiscal.Managers.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Pledging to make infrastructure investments, like supporting LRT lines, is not vote buying. It's just a campaign promise.

Can people stop referring to anything anyone wants to spend money on as "vote buying"?

This is vote buying: "If I am elected, I will implement the following policy that will result in you receiving money." That is the only thing that is vote buying.

[corporatejay]

I'm not an accountant but how can someone say you aren't "balancing the budget" if you have liquid stock that you could conceivably dump at any time. Shouldn't that be treated like cash on a balance sheet?


Are we talking about being "cash flow positive"?

None of this makes any sense to me, which is why I think statements like "balancing the budget" is nonsense.

[FlameOn]

Just in case anyone was wondering. If you look at the numbers it was $2.7 billion in EI overcollection from taxpayers. So the deficit should have been closer to $4.7 billion. EI should really be off limits for direct injection into budgets. How are we going to deal with EI shortfalls then as more people head into retirement?

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So Harper's sale of GM share sales, along with a large number of other government properties and dipping into the EI fund, to make it appear there was a surplus last year has actually cost Canadian tax payers at least $3.5 billion in value. As more information is coming out it is becoming clear the CPC initiated a fire sale of government assets in order to create a false single year balanced budget despite the projected deficit.




What fantastic stewards of the economy the CPC has become. The $1.9 Billion surplus is really a $1.6 billion loss just from the GM sale and not counting the EI mess. Just insane how they tried to spin that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...n_7024464.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26373964/

Ah yes, I'm sure the union would have preferred for the Canadian government to hold the stock, and use their ownership to bring and secure jobs for them. That's not the role of a government in the free market.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So Harper's sale of GM share sales, along with a large number of other government properties and dipping into the EI fund, to make it appear there was a surplus last year has actually cost Canadian tax payers at least $3.5 billion in value. As more information is coming out it is becoming clear the CPC initiated a fire sale of government assets in order to create a false single year balanced budget despite the projected deficit.

Do you believe the Canadian government has a mandate to play the stock market with taxpayer money outside of specific instances (such as CPP)?

Why would you say that we "invested" money into GM? We bailed them out - the structure of which was an equity purchase which basically gave the money directly to GM. Now that GM has stabilized, it is prudent for the Canadian government to reduce their exposure as much as possible. Consider that the GM sale do not even affect the surplus that you are going on about (note the timings of the sales and the fiscal years they would've been part of), the point is that they have decided that this is the time to get rid of it.

We always knew it was going to probably be a loss. Manufacturing isn't like banks that just bounce back on economic recovery (if you want to compare to how the US government made money on their bank bailouts...and even in that scenario, the US government could've made even more money, but they sold out because it's not part of their mandate). The actual question is whether the 3.5 billion dollar bailout was worth it.

At the same time, it's interesting to think of the money Harper poured into manufacturing, yet is always accused of putting all of his eggs in one basket.

For the EI part of it, every government has done this. Harper has done it every year. Mulcair has incorporated it into his "costed" budget (at the same time promising to not to use it). We could argue that perhaps it isn't the right thing to do, but it's not like he specifically only applied it during election season just to show a surplus.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Ah yes, I'm sure the union would have preferred for the Canadian government to hold the stock, and use their ownership to bring and secure jobs for them. That's not the role of a government in the free market.

Are their jobs projected to increase or be more secure longterm due to this? Serious question.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Do you believe the Canadian government has a mandate to play the stock market with taxpayer money outside of specific instances (such as CPP)?

They don't have a mandate, but they did it. And they should be getting maximum return on it.

Originally Posted by Regorium

Why would you say that we "invested" money into GM? We bailed them out - the structure of which was an equity purchase which basically gave the money directly to GM.

They bailed them out by investing money.

Originally Posted by Regorium

Now that GM has stabilized, it is prudent for the Canadian government to reduce their exposure as much as possible.

I'd agree if there was never any hope in regaining the money. And if it was a "wait to stabilize" issue, they could have done it a year or two ago. I think the priority needs to be ensuring that they get back what they put in.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

So Harper's sale of GM share sales, along with a large number of other government properties and dipping into the EI fund, to make it appear there was a surplus last year has actually cost Canadian tax payers at least $3.5 billion in value. As more information is coming out it is becoming clear the CPC initiated a fire sale of government assets in order to create a false single year balanced budget despite the projected deficit.




What fantastic stewards of the economy the CPC has become. The $1.9 Billion surplus is really a $1.6 billion loss just from the GM sale and not counting the EI mess. Just insane how they tried to spin that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...n_7024464.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26373964/

The GM sale occured in the previous fiscal year, so those numbers aren't related.

All governments (Liberal and Conservative) have raided EI, which is further proof that increasing EI and CPP is just a way for the government to trifle funds from your pocket to theirs.