J
jollyjacktar
Guest
The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either. The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.
Election 2015
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 27,175
- Points
- 1,090
And Rick Mercer weighs in on the big issue in the campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDRg9Ma70xk
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
From ERC's EKOS posting - so with the recent uptick in the CPC returns - does that suggest the rise of the "I'll be dammed if its Anybody But Harper" franchise?
Red Tories were Tories first and foremost - The one thing Hugh Segal could be relied on was that he wasn't voting Liberal. Likewise MacKay.
If it is a choice between Trudeau Jr or Harper my money sez that the Red Tory vote will turn out for Harper.
- Reaction score
- 4,661
- Points
- 1,160
I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.jollyjacktar said:
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
cherry picking polls?Chris Pook said:
From ERC's EKOS posting - so with the recent uptick in the CPC returns - does that suggest the rise of the "I'll be dammed if its Anybody But Harper" franchise?
Red Tories were Tories first and foremost - The one thing Hugh Segal could be relied on was that he wasn't voting Liberal. Likewise MacKay.
If it is a choice between Trudeau Jr or Harper my money sez that the Red Tory vote will turn out for Harper.
Regardless, with one week to go I still expect to see the ndp support bleed away, and the ABC vote to park their vote with the LPC.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,688
- Points
- 1,040
>I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.
They aren't; but another way to approach the question is which of the platforms is more likely to foul things up.
The CPC is basically running on a "steady state" platform. The other two parties promise change. Change does not guarantee improvement.
Canada has done well among the advanced and economically powerful countries of the world since the 2008 recession, placing high on many rankings. All of the countries on those lists have been working on improving their circumstances. Either Team Trudeau and Team Mulcair will outguess all those people and do better, or guess wrong - or simply apply outmoded and mistaken theories - and do worse.
1. We already know that the CPC applied a massive spending program in 2009 - which was lauded by external observers for its success at getting money into the economy quickly and spending it effectively (eg. not much loss to waste, corruption, etc) - which didn't achieve dramatic effects despite the obvious room for improvement from the recessionary trough. The LPC is basically arguing that a smaller program is going to make things better; recent experience/evidence suggests no such thing can happen. What is likely: if implemented, the LPC's program will increase the accumulated deficit (debt) by about 4% over the next 3 years, and the rate of economic growth won't be much different than if the program were never implemented.
2. The Liberal mix of tax measures will make the personal income tax structure more progressive, which makes revenue shortfalls more dramatic during recessions (higher income earners, who pay more of the taxes, tend to take greater income losses). The fiscal structure becomes less resilient.
3. The NDP wants to increase corporate taxes, and the LPC wants to increase personal taxes on high income earners. Those are basically the two groups most capable of mitigating tax exposure. There will be revenue gains for the federal government. However, because provincial tax structures are essentially similar, tax mitigation will reduce provincial revenues (unless provincial governments follow up with their own tax rate increases).
4. Conversely, federal tax rate decreases tend to decrease tax avoidance, which helps - has helped - to increase provincial revenues.
5. Provincial governments undoubtedly pocketed some gains from the federal tax rate reductions of the past couple of decades. A federal-provincial fight I foresee is demands from provinces to make up their losses if federal actions cause provincial revenues to shrink. But the NDP and LPC already have their own ideas for what they will do with any extra money they raise. Harper basically has put more money and tax points on the table and left them there for provinces. The NDP and LPC are going to take some away.
6. The TPP should be ratified. We know that's a given with the CPC, and while I doubt the LPC would reject it, the uncertainty can't be helping things. If we miss this window, it'll be even harder to make the next one.
But none of that really matters, because I doubt many people are really aware of it. Compliant media are not examining the details of the Liberal proposals. Deficits were "bad" right up until the moment the Liberals decided it was the only way to produce a pot of money to buy votes; then all sorts of talking heads jumped in spouting gibberish about "stimulus". There may be uses for deficits, but that's not one of them.
They aren't; but another way to approach the question is which of the platforms is more likely to foul things up.
The CPC is basically running on a "steady state" platform. The other two parties promise change. Change does not guarantee improvement.
Canada has done well among the advanced and economically powerful countries of the world since the 2008 recession, placing high on many rankings. All of the countries on those lists have been working on improving their circumstances. Either Team Trudeau and Team Mulcair will outguess all those people and do better, or guess wrong - or simply apply outmoded and mistaken theories - and do worse.
1. We already know that the CPC applied a massive spending program in 2009 - which was lauded by external observers for its success at getting money into the economy quickly and spending it effectively (eg. not much loss to waste, corruption, etc) - which didn't achieve dramatic effects despite the obvious room for improvement from the recessionary trough. The LPC is basically arguing that a smaller program is going to make things better; recent experience/evidence suggests no such thing can happen. What is likely: if implemented, the LPC's program will increase the accumulated deficit (debt) by about 4% over the next 3 years, and the rate of economic growth won't be much different than if the program were never implemented.
2. The Liberal mix of tax measures will make the personal income tax structure more progressive, which makes revenue shortfalls more dramatic during recessions (higher income earners, who pay more of the taxes, tend to take greater income losses). The fiscal structure becomes less resilient.
3. The NDP wants to increase corporate taxes, and the LPC wants to increase personal taxes on high income earners. Those are basically the two groups most capable of mitigating tax exposure. There will be revenue gains for the federal government. However, because provincial tax structures are essentially similar, tax mitigation will reduce provincial revenues (unless provincial governments follow up with their own tax rate increases).
4. Conversely, federal tax rate decreases tend to decrease tax avoidance, which helps - has helped - to increase provincial revenues.
5. Provincial governments undoubtedly pocketed some gains from the federal tax rate reductions of the past couple of decades. A federal-provincial fight I foresee is demands from provinces to make up their losses if federal actions cause provincial revenues to shrink. But the NDP and LPC already have their own ideas for what they will do with any extra money they raise. Harper basically has put more money and tax points on the table and left them there for provinces. The NDP and LPC are going to take some away.
6. The TPP should be ratified. We know that's a given with the CPC, and while I doubt the LPC would reject it, the uncertainty can't be helping things. If we miss this window, it'll be even harder to make the next one.
But none of that really matters, because I doubt many people are really aware of it. Compliant media are not examining the details of the Liberal proposals. Deficits were "bad" right up until the moment the Liberals decided it was the only way to produce a pot of money to buy votes; then all sorts of talking heads jumped in spouting gibberish about "stimulus". There may be uses for deficits, but that's not one of them.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
Here, from the Globe and Mail is a good pitch by Prime Minister Harper.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
would 30 billion dollars in debt by the feds , 2 percent tax changes either way and some infrastructure spending really make that big of a change in a 2 trillion dollar economy?Brad Sallows said:
I fully expect the liberals will be competent managers of the economy, much like the conservatives.
Where I think the liberals will be far ahead of the conservatives is on social and environmental issues.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
PuckChaser said:
Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked
- Reaction score
- 4,661
- Points
- 1,160
With proper centre left advisors, instead of the Orange Liberals like Gerald Butts, absolutely agree.Colin P said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
The face and the party go hand in hand regardless of flavour as far as I'm concerned.PuckChaser said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Altair said:
They are, to my mind, the devil I know and the best of a bad lot. From my experience with Provincial Dippers, I'm damned if I want them mismanaging the country. The kid will spend my kids into the poor house. We shall have to agree to disagree.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
Colin P said:
Don't forget that M Mulcair was a Liberal ... a minister in the Liberal government of Quebec, in fact. he's a bit of a "Johnny come lately" for the NDP.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
Good news ...
Lisa LaFlamme <@LisaLaFlammeCTV> reports on Twitter that:
Elections Canada reports 767,000 people voted on Sunday. Brings 3 day total to 2.4 million Canadians. Up 16% from advance polls in 2011
Lisa LaFlamme <@LisaLaFlammeCTV> reports on Twitter that:
Elections Canada reports 767,000 people voted on Sunday. Brings 3 day total to 2.4 million Canadians. Up 16% from advance polls in 2011
- Reaction score
- 4,661
- Points
- 1,160
Didn't elections Canada say there was a 34% increase? Or was that data just from the first day of the polls?
Any increase is welcome, however. Lets just hope the voter turnout sees the same (albeit likely more modest) increase.
Any increase is welcome, however. Lets just hope the voter turnout sees the same (albeit likely more modest) increase.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
30 billion more dollars in a 2 trillion dollar economy isn't that significant.jollyjacktar said:
The conservatives (under duress and when they had a majority) added 150 billion dollars to the federal debt so it's not like 30 billion over 4 years would bankrupt the country.
Every country needs political renewal, parties need to spend some time in the political wilderness. The liberals did their time and I am of the belief that the Conservatives need some time to learn how to play nice with others.
- Reaction score
- 4,661
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
Nope, minority government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/stimulus-gamble-how-ottawa-saved-the-economy-and-wasted-billions/article16760149/?page=all
You will also note how hard it is to turn off those stimulus funds, as they turn into entitlements to people.
What's 30 Billion between friends, right? What happens when the richer 1% won't pay more tax? What happens when that $10B for infrastructure grows to $15 or $20B to cover off all their campaign promises? Now you're in deficit for the entire DND budget every year, and you've added $120B to the debt during what's supposed to be an economic upswing.
The Liberals spent time in the wilderness, sure. They also didn't learn anything. They turned their party into a NDP-clone, instead of reinventing as the true Center-Left alternative to the Tories. They took the easy road with a face-without-substance leader in Trudeau, instead of a stable centrist like Garneau so they could get back to power as quick as possible. "Change" should not be their slogan. "We're entitled to run this country, how dare you not believe us" is really what they're selling right now. That's the reason why they're not blowing the Tories out of the water, when they were completely ripe for the taking.
- Status
Similar threads
