EPT2011 Canadian Election - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
On April 14 2011 14:59 Wegandi wrote: Anyone in Canada today resemble Sir Wilfrid Laurier? You guys used to have a decent libertarian movement. No, not really at all. I think it's safe to say that mainstream libertarianism as it looks in the US is dead. There are no doubt libertarians in Canada, but no party can afford to cater to those votes. The closest you'll get is Harper's strong stance keeping the federal and provincial powers separate. He also has that same distaste for taxing corporations. But all parties are for some sort of government intervention- if anyone touches public health care, they'll get lambasted for Americanizing health care to turn it into a two tier health care (see debates between Stockwell Day and Jean Cretien.) Conservatives might not emphasize social welfare as much as the NDP, but even they won't slash costs during a recession for fear of proving that they're the cold-hearted American neo-con bastards that everyone accused the Reform Party of being. See the brilliant fear-mongering by Prime Minister Jean Cretien during the 90's. (The modern Conservative party is a combination of the old Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party.) In essence, the way I see it, it's political suicide to subscribe to libertarianism in mainstream Canadian politics. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
- Sound policies to encourage economic growth - Cutting national debt - Lower taxes (or at least not raising them) I feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues since they've been in power, so I will be voting for them in this election. Of course my riding is a super-safe conservative riding anyway so it hardly matters how I vote. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 15 2011 03:23 ziggurat wrote: - Sound policies to encourage economic growth - Cutting national debt - Lower taxes (or at least not raising them) Those second and third points are in direct opposition. What's your plan, what public services do we cut in? | ||
|
Krytha
Canada140 Posts
On April 15 2011 03:23 ziggurat wrote: The most important issues for me are: - Sound policies to encourage economic growth - Cutting national debt - Lower taxes (or at least not raising them) I feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues since they've been in power, so I will be voting for them in this election. Of course my riding is a super-safe conservative riding anyway so it hardly matters how I vote. Lowering corporate taxes are going to happen under a conservative government down to 15%, which results in a loss of 6 billion dollars of revenue. As the previous poster indicated, either public services are getting cut, personal taxes are getting raised, or the deficit just grows bigger leaving some other party to be the "bad guy" when they have to get the deficit under control again. Not to mention that it has been shown that from the 60s to now, corporations do not reinvest anywhere near that number (we expect around 600 million in reinvestment to the 6 billion dollars they get to keep in tax breaks). Is that the key to a booming economy? Handing CEOs massive bonuses? Creating food service jobs? Unless you were hoping for a career at tim hortons, this government has not been getting it done. | ||
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
And I'd even add, that zigg's other most important issue, sound economic growth policies, is only actually true because of the policies put in place by Paul Martin while he was finance minister during Chretien's PM run, and while he was prime minister after that. We were running a surplus while Paul was around, and now we're running a deficit again. In fact, if you go back and look you can notice a very prominent trend: The last 3 times that a Liberal government was replaced by a conservative government, we went from having a surplus to having a deficit. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On April 15 2011 03:26 Djzapz wrote: Those two are in direct opposition. What's your plan, what public services do we cut in? If I was in charge I would make a lot of people who get a lot of government handouts very unhappy! But my views are probably too extreme to ever come to power in a moderate country like Canada. I know that the Conservatives aren't going to dramatically cut spending. As long as they manage to keep spending at or close to current levels, and the economy continues to grow, significant debt reduction will be possible. I'm really afraid of an explosion of spending if any other party gets into power. Fortunately, that's not a realistic possibility this election. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On April 15 2011 03:36 Albrithe wrote: And I'd even add, that zigg's other most important issue, sound economic growth policies, is only actually true because of the policies put in place by Paul Martin while he was finance minister during Chretien's PM run, and while he was prime minister after that. We were running a surplus while Paul was around, and now we're running a deficit again. In fact, if you go back and look you can notice a very prominent trend: The last 3 times that a Liberal government was replaced by a conservative government, we went from having a surplus to having a deficit. No doubt this is true. I think the libs and the conservatives are actually probably very close on spending and on debt reduction. If the liberals did get into power I doubt that too much would change from a fiscal perspective. But I do "trust" conservatives more on this issue. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues since they've been in power, so I will be voting for them in this election. Of course my riding is a super-safe conservative riding anyway so it hardly matters how I vote. How can you feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues? First, for economic growth, lowering the taxes of the big enterprises might seem like a good idea, but the idea that that extra money they get serves to create more jobs - it does, a little - but the amount of jobs that are created by such cuts doesn't justify the price to Canada. Second, for cutting the national debt. Of course, but we still run a mad deficit which we can't directly blame the cons for, but honestly, it's them too. It would be a lie to say the liberals are much better - they're not - but Harper's government hasn't impressed me. But it's important to point out that I'm from Quebec, I speak French and I really don't like what he's been doing to my province. (Also he was horrible in the French debate - he wasn't just bad, he was disingenuous.) Third, lower taxes are obviously desirable for the individuals, but lower taxes, ceretis paribus, increase the deficit and by extension, increase the debt. So in order to counterbalance that, we would need to cut spending. Cutting spending is very hard when you're in a nation of ignorant people who want lower taxes AND more services at the same time. (no offense... it's that way everywhere) So the conservatives - who BTW have morals that are NOTHING like mine - have been cutting in the wrong programs and have plans to buy a bunch of F35's - but with what money? Also, that corrupt dbag refuses to release the figures - how much are the planes? He used to say 75 millions and now that we know that they won't be 75 millions each, he has become absurdly secretive. Some people estimate 130 to 150 mil per plane. What are they for anyway? All out war with Russia over the north pole? Yeah, let's see how we do against them. The conservatives know nothing about responsible spending, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a party that's unethical, as evidenced by Harper's complete disrespect for our supposedly democratic system. Letting harper get away with the majority would be doing a great disservice to our country, thanks to the weak minded people in western provinces (and I'm not referring to everyone here). Not only would it be less than optimal TODAY, it would severely hinder our progress as a country - which is what conservatives do - it's especially bad in the long term. They "conserve" some good stuff - good values sometimes, but they sure keep us from moving forward too. | ||
|
cronican
Canada424 Posts
I live in Jack Layton's riding. There are literally only 'vote for jack layton' signs up in my neighborhood. Layton will win this riding 100%. This makes my vote mean absolutely nothing. But I still have to suffer through terrible newspaper headlines and terrible attack ads for the next month. I know i should care, but I can't when my riding is already decided and the national vote is not taken into consideration. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
The thing is, I don't believe it was necessarily a 'new' tax when Mulroney created it- they shifted the tax from the producer to the consumer to make it easier for Canadian businesses. | ||
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
It's just not necessary and a colossal waste of tax payers money. We already pay enough to keep an absurd amount of non-violent offenders behind bars, fed, clothed, etc. I don't want to pay even more to get even more people in prison. It just don't understand how this can be a good use of our money. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
It's just not necessary and a colossal waste of tax payers money. We already pay enough to keep an absurd amount of non-violent offenders behind bars, fed, clothed, etc. Especially in the French debate, Harper's opposition didn't hesitate to shove that in his face. Are Canadians really standing for that kind of BS? I mean, it's 2011, you'd think that by now we'd realize that putting little drug dealers behind bars (which costs $80,000/year) just isn't the way to go. Building more prisons to hold more people who shouldn't be in prison - such a waste of my money. Herp derp, marijuana so dangerous! | ||
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
| ||
|
TheButtonmen
Canada1401 Posts
On April 13 2011 08:37 StarStruck wrote: The guys I know in the military make really good money. I know tons of guys involved, but heck you ask any other country and they'll ask, "What military?" We have next to zero presence around the world in terms of arms. I'm okay with this. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
On April 15 2011 04:15 Albrithe wrote: I didn't get to see the French debate. I sort of assumed I wouldn't miss much aside from Jack, Mike, and Steve showing off their lack of linguistic finesse to Quebec. It's only fair. Duceppe yelled at them in English. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On April 15 2011 04:02 Djzapz wrote: Especially in the French debate, Harper's opposition didn't hesitate to shove that in his face. Are Canadians really standing for that kind of BS? I mean, it's 2011, you'd think that by now we'd realize that putting little drug dealers behind bars (which costs $80,000/year) just isn't the way to go. Building more prisons to hold more people who shouldn't be in prison - such a waste of my money. Herp derp, marijuana so dangerous! Virtually nobody goes to jail over marijuana in Canada, even for trafficking. And it's well known that incarcerating violent criminals is one of the best ways to reduce violent crime. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 15 2011 04:15 Albrithe wrote: I didn't get to see the French debate. I sort of assumed I wouldn't miss much aside from Jack, Mike, and Steve showing off their lack of linguistic finesse to Quebec. Kind of funny to see them being referred to by their first name. Took me a second to figure out who Steve was (somehow). But you're right, Duceppe definitely has an edge - an edge which he needed too because he didn't do so well in the English debate... In fact I wasn't very impressed with anybody. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On April 15 2011 04:18 ziggurat wrote: Virtually nobody goes to jail over marijuana in Canada, even for trafficking. And it's well known that incarcerating violent criminals is one of the best ways to reduce violent crime. I wouldn't agree with "virtually nobody" as I've read many headlines of it happening over the years. Also the fact that drugs in general are illegal naturally creates crime. If something is illegal, it's harder to regulate, and that's when organized crime comes in because it becomes exponentially more profitable. Al Capone wouldn't emerge today because illegal alcohol just isn't a good business to get into. In terms of crime, we're not doing too badly lately - but we could do even better if we narrowed down what actions constitute crimes. Now, even though most druggies don't get in real trouble for weed, they still prompt a bunch of judiciary procedures that are completely unnecessary. That's wasted money. | ||
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
Anyone wanna help me out here if you know more about this? | ||
| ||
