Your opinion - Federal Election...

[Guest tr*****e]

mightypen, you are so right. Our defense isn't about WW3, it's about helping, whether that's in our own country or abroad. It's clear that whatever Harper wants th F-35 for, it's an odd train of thought that got him there. That said, the F-35 is one of the coolest aircraft out there right now, almost a fantasy aircraft.

The only thing cooler in my opinion is a Star Destroyer.

 

But back to the topic...

[Suzirider 737]

If I was cruising over the Arctic Ocean, I would feel a little more relaxed knowing I had Two engines in my late model Super Hornet.

And, we could get Two for the price of One F35 !

[Lowdark 5613]

The debate over the necessity of the aircraft aside, the real reason their purchase shas proven to be an angry bees nest is because their true cost has always been lowballed and hidden from Canadians, and by a government that has lectured everyone else on accountability and transparency. The cost should never have been hidden (and I wonder, if the thinking was that people would balk at the true cost, did the governement not think anyone was going to find out?). As for the CBC, if we are going to keep it, we need to rethink it. News and sports and culture only; and stop selling commercials. It isn't fair to private broadcasters to compete for precious advertising dollars when the CBC gets a billion dollar subsidy and its losses are absorbed by the taxpayer. If people are truly worried about its reform (or loss) on Canadian impact may be, divert some of the money to the Canadian Television and Movie Fund and tighten up rules on Canadian content.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Re the Military

 

I would like to see the following;

 

Our troops brought home from Afghanistan. We've done our bit. The Americans are turning it into a never ending war, 2/3 rds of Americans no longer support it. Our guys/girls are worn out and we can't justify the cost anymore.

 

A quick exit from Libya which has the potential to turn into another never ending commitment. That should have been left entirely to the French, British, and especially the Italians (who get most of their oil from Libya).

 

I think the F-35 program was handled improperly and I expected better from a so called "fiscally conservative" government. Having said that I think we're too far down the road to bail out on it now. Its likely will be stuck with these planes a long time to justify the expense, perhaps even beyond their normal service life.

 

I would support more spending for the navy even if funds have to come from the army. Our airspace and sea approaches need first rate protection.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Corporate tax cuts by conservatives has cost our treasury many billions of dollars every year since 2006 and there are more tax cuts for the corporations to come next year if these heartless tories win, especially if they win a majority. Private sector has not created jobs it was anticipated to create. This huge money can be best used to help out our seniors, our students, our health service and that is what Michael Ignatieff has promised to do. He wants to roll back corporate taxes to 2010 levels (and still it will remain one of the lowest among G8 countries) and use the 9 billion money to take care of needy Canadians as well reduce deficit faster. Less fighter jets and more money in the pockets of needy Canadians. Tax the rich and help the poor.That is my opinion.

[d*mm*y 887]

It's ironic we want to bump up corporate taxes when other countries around us are handing out multi-billion dollar bail out packages, we do live in a vacuum.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Private sector has not created jobs it was anticipated to create. .

 

 

This is because supply side economics don't work. Lower Corporate rates in Canada and the US has resulted only in higher corporate profits. New jobs are not being created because we already have excess capacity. Corporations aren't going to invest in new capital spending when they're not even using all the existing capacity.

 

What will create jobs is more demand and that means jobs. When consumers and business are not spending government can step in to fill the void. To their credit the Conservatives did do this, though I suspect we got the stimulus we did largely due to the fact we had a minority government.

 

The Liberals are not being sensible with their program either. Holding the line on the corporate tax rate would have more credibility if the funds were being used to reduce the deficit or more infastructure spending. Direct payments to parents for Tuition assistance will vanish when universities increase their tuition rate to vacum up these funds. Other Liberal programs are similarly shallow and not thought out. Their program is shaping up to be nothing more than a grab bag of assorted goodies....no coherent strategy.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Then I guess, here in Canada, when Tories were in Power, we didn't hand out multi-billion dollar bail out packages (bailing out GM (4 billion dollars) and Banks (many billions of dollars). It was just a passing bad dream lol.

 

Additional Comments:

What will create jobs is more demand and that means jobs. When consumers and business are not spending government can step in to fill the void. To their credit the Conservatives did do this, though I suspect we got the stimulus we did largely due to the fact we had a minority government.

 

The Liberals are not being sensible with their program either. Holding the line on the corporate tax rate would have more credibility if the funds were being used to reduce the deficit or more infastructure spending. Direct payments to parents for Tuition assistance will vanish when universities increase their tuition rate to vacum up these funds. Other Liberal programs are similarly shallow and not thought out. Their program is shaping up to be nothing more than a grab bag of assorted goodies....no coherent strategy.

 

Tories adopted what traditionally is a liberal/NDP strategy to spend their way out of the recession and again thanks to Paul Martin (the LIBERAL finance minister and PM) who produced a surplus, they were in the position to do so without completely bankcrupting the country (though created a 56 billion dollar deficit which means many painful years ahead.

 

Putting money in the pockets of consumers will enhance consumer spending where two-third of Canada's Gross Domestic Product is coming from. It is the best way (economically feasible) and humane way of stimulating growth. The infrastructure program spending doesn't produce as many jobs. That was why we lost so many jobs in 2009. Deficit reduction doesn't produce jobs either but could possibly enhance business investment (no guarantees) and likely stronger dollar and lower interest rates but interest rates can't go any lower lol!!. Canada enjoyed the best economic growth when Paul Martin was around and that was because he cut consumer taxes and put more money in the hands of consumers, stimulating growth and hence lower deficit and eventually multiple years of surplus!!.

 

I may not agree with everything that liberals stand for but for myself like many others it is the less of two evils and conservatives are by far a winner in this evil game. Just see the way they campaign lol. The Prime Minister of Canada (Harper) is acting like the dictators in the banana republics around the world lol. Not to mention all the scandals and deceives and cover ups they have been responsible for. Do we want a Canada like that. My answer is NO. This is NOT my vision of Canada.

[Apex2006 1071]

I think we are going to spen $295,000,000.00 to have the exact same situation that we have now!

 

I think they could have split that money equaly to all canadien citizens and givin it to us!

 

That would be $9,800.00 each!

 

But NO! they needed to have a f__cking election that we have to pay for.

 

:troisdoigts::x:ablow:

[Guest s******ecan****]

Canada enjoyed the best economic growth when Paul Martin was around and that was because he cut consumer taxes and put more money in the hands of consumers, stimulating growth and hence lower deficit and eventually multiple years of surplus!!.

.

 

Martin had nothing to do with our economic growth during this period. I don't recall what consumer taxes he cut, I believe it was the Conservatives that cut the GST but perhaps I'm mistaken. In any event our growth during this time period was due almost entirely to low interest rates. Cheap debt fueled consumer spending not cuts to taxes. So you should be praising Alan Greenspan not Martin. We also benefited from rising commodity prices (especially potash and oil). To his credit Martin more or less knew how to stay out of the way.

 

As for the surplus it was created by keeping taxes artificially high and playing accounting games with the EI and CPP funds. These are essentially payroll taxes and are job killers.

 

Capital Infastructure projects do create a lot of jobs, and those jobs lead to additional jobs because of spending. As well they have lasting economic impact. Far more sensible than the government trying to pick and choose winners through loan guarantees and subsidies. This is the old failed industrial policy of the 1970's. The Liberals seem to be leaning toward resurrecting it. I suspect that even Martin would not be a fan of the current direction that Ignatief is taking.

 

Its not just the Liberals that fall for this type of flawed thinking. I remember when the Conservatives brought in the $100/month per child subsidy for day care, paid directly to parents. The month after it was introduced the daycare that my kids attended raised their fee by $100/month per child. A complete waste.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Martin had nothing to do with our economic growth during this period. I don't recall what consumer taxes he cut, I believe it was the Conservatives that cut the GST but perhaps I'm mistaken. In any event our growth during this time period was due almost entirely to low interest rates. Cheap debt fueled consumer spending not cuts to taxes. So you should be praising Alan Greenspan not Martin. We also benefited from rising commodity prices (especially potash and oil). To his credit Martin more or less knew how to stay out of the way.

 

As for the surplus it was created by keeping taxes artificially high and playing accounting games with the EI and CPP funds. These are essentially payroll taxes and are job killers.

 

Capital Infastructure projects do create a lot of jobs, and those jobs lead to additional jobs because of spending. As well they have lasting economic impact. Far more sensible than the government trying to pick and choose winners through loan guarantees and subsidies. This is the old failed industrial policy of the 1970's. The Liberals seem to be leaning toward resurrecting it. I suspect that even Martin would not be a fan of the current direction that Ignatief is taking.

 

Its not just the Liberals that fall for this type of flawed thinking. I remember when the Conservatives brought in the $100/month per child subsidy for day care, paid directly to parents. The month after it was introduced the daycare that my kids attended raised their fee by $100/month per child. A complete waste.

 

Personal income taxes were cut significantly in late 90's and early 21 century (Paul Martin introduced those fairly huge personal tax cuts in 1998 to take affect gradually over several years) and because of the economic growth, some provincial governments (especially in Ontario) were in a position to cut taxes too (quite substantially I may add) during that period. Interest rates during those years were HIGHER than what they are now, so I don't think that low interest rate alone though a factor being mainly responsible for growth in late 90's and first 6 years of 21 century.

 

Infrastructure spending creates specific jobs (construction) and spin off jobs (other industries) true but not as much as stimulating consumer spending (spread evenly over all industries) by tax cuts and low interest rate and resulting job growth which increases consumer confidence RESPONSIBLE FOR 2/3 OF the entire GDP. Especially wrong to spend on borrowed money.

 

Paul Martin created the environment for the good economy to roll on for years by addressing the deficit head on (something that conservatives failed miserably), therefore bank of Canada was able to lower interest rate, and raising consumer confidence (by cutting personal taxes and lower rates) created spending and jobs and hence the longest and most solid economic growth between 1998 to 2006.

[PistolPete 61421]

Then I guess, here in Canada, when Tories were in Power, we didn't hand out multi-billion dollar bail out packages (bailing out GM (4 billion dollars) .

 

These were not bail out packages, they were loans to Chrysler and GM ,failing to do so would of left many many more job loss in the auto sector or in fact complete closure of plants. I tend to believe past year-2010 GM had already paid over 1.5 billion in loans to the Canadian and Ontario goverment. The gov's loaned a total of 9.5 billion to GM and Chrysler.

 

What was at risk not only in Canada but in the US was over 400,000 jobs in the auto sector.

 

GM is ahead in paying off its loans where Chrysler does not intend to pay back the loan (2.9 billion) early as GM is currently doing.

 

Over 65,000 auto workers were laid off in the US or there was packages offered, hence the reason the US is still in a lot of trouble, and our economy is doing fine right now in comparison.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

So, in other countries billions of dollars were just handed out unconditionally without any return guarantees? May be I should open up business in those countries lol.....

[PistolPete 61421]

I don't follow your statement SA

 

So, in other countries billions of dollars were just handed out unconditionally without any return guarantees? May be I should open up business in those countries lol.....

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I guess what I was asking was if in other countries for which the term bail out was used, billions of dollars were just given as handouts (without any expectations of being paid back at any time) rather than loans to be repaid over a specified period of years.

[rdymango 673]

I feel really strongly that every Canadian should vote. It is the simgle most important thing we do as a free country and it's a real shame that less than half the population actually goes out to vote. The problem is that none of the parties are particularly inspiring; it feels like each one of them holds empty promises; that we're just going to get lied to yet again. I feel like I keep paying more taxes for less Government services. The cost of living continues to increase, while so may people are struggling to find work or haven't seen an increase in pay in many years. $300 million to hold a Federal election = $10 million per Canadian. Each vote is worth $10 million - I sure wish my vote felt that valuable. That being said, I'll keep a close eye on what the parties are promising and I'll pick the lesser of all evils. This country needs to be inspired!

[MightyPen 67414]

$300 million to hold a Federal election = $10 million per Canadian. Each vote is worth $10 million - I sure wish my vote felt that valuable.

What's that -- there are only 30 Canadians!?

 

Boy do I know a lot of foreigners! ;)

 

I think that's really around $10 per Canadian. We were about 30 million in the 2006 census, and estimates are around 35 million now.

[d*mm*y 887]

OK so I have thought long and hard about the military, can they protect us from a foreign attack? I guess if Ireland or Norway launches a fleet towards us we would not be able to do a whole lot, and if Russians decide to march over the North Pole because they decide that beer is better than Vodka we may have a problem. Our military is there to assist in dire emergencies, when things go completely ugly they step in, if anything we should have a battalion of snow plows stationed close to Toronto in case they get snowed in again!

 

Yes everyone please get out and vote, if you don't know why you should vote and have no idea who to vote for just vote conservative!

 

This election is $300,000,000 there is something like 30,000,000 so my math comes out at $10 a person? Am I missing something here? Now the last federal Election had a 59% voter turn out that is the lowest we have had, in a federal election we have never had less than 50% of the population vote.

 

Is this an unnecessary election? definitely

Did any one party cause it? hard to say

Was the proposed budget a bad one? No, it was very neutral

Did Leannavip bring down the reputation of the conservative government? you be the judge on this one!!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

God help us if these guys win a majority.....

 

It was Bruce Carson, Bev Oda...... rather than Leanna (an easy target) that tarnished this conservative government. Not to mention the closed protected manner of campaigning and PM's refusal to answer reporters and kicking out two students, .....among other things. What else remains to be done to convince the nature of this government, to declare a martial law lol!!!!.

 

Lol... The following list was so long it took my PC quite a while to load it lol (list of conservative scandals and misdeeds since they took office in 2006):

 

http://exile.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/scandals-conservative-party-of-canada-2006-2011-always-under-construction/

 

God help us al if they win a majority lol!!!.

[Playinginottawa 165]

I do not see any of the scandals or the contempt of parliament charges taking hold. It seems to me the daily stories of the PM's close fisted campaign style is what is dragging them down. It is very odd and somewhat painful to watch.

 

The Liberals seem to be swinging for the fences as they really having nothing to loose at this stage of the game. And while I do not agree with much of what they are planning it is nice to see them putting up a fight.

 

It is still way too early to draw any conclusions save one. This campaign thus far, is more interesting (at least to me) than the last two combined.

 

PIO

[Apex2006 1071]

These were not bail out packages, they were loans to Chrysler and GM ,failing to do so would of left many many more job loss in the auto sector or in fact complete closure of plants. I tend to believe past year-2010 GM had already paid over 1.5 billion in loans to the Canadian and Ontario goverment. The gov's loaned a total of 9.5 billion to GM and Chrysler.

 

What was at risk not only in Canada but in the US was over 400,000 jobs in the auto sector.

 

GM is ahead in paying off its loans where Chrysler does not intend to pay back the loan (2.9 billion) early as GM is currently doing.

 

Over 65,000 auto workers were laid off in the US or there was packages offered, hence the reason the US is still in a lot of trouble, and our economy is doing fine right now in comparison.

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong Pete, but I think that GM has paid off the loan completly!

 

Chrysler, I don't think they will pull through, however, there are new Chrysler dealers being built around Ottawa!

[PistolPete 61421]

Correct me if I am wrong Pete, but I think that GM has paid off the loan completly!

 

Chrysler, I don't think they will pull through, however, there are new Chrysler dealers being built around Ottawa!

 

You may be correct Apex, I found this article dating last April 2010

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/04/gm_to_announce_it_has_paid_bac.html

[Guest s******ecan****]

Personal income taxes were cut significantly in late 90's and early 21 century (Paul Martin introduced those fairly huge personal tax cuts in 1998

 

 

In your first post you mentioned "consumer taxes" which are normally understood to be consumption taxes, the only one of which we have nationally is the GST. Martin never reduced this.

 

Martin did as you point out bring in reductions in income taxes but I think describing them as "fairly huge" is a bit over the top.

 

These tax decreases while helpful do not account for the growth we experienced from '96 to 2007. During this period of time low interest rates led to at first normal, and then eventually excessive borrowing by consumers. Canadians spent like there was no tomorrow and that the party would keep on keepin on. Our crappy dollar also gave our exporters, (particularly commodities) and advantage, despite the costs the low dollar imposed on consumers (imports for consumer items etc more expensive) the Martin government was content to pursue a "low dollar" strategy for lack of more imagination.

 

It may not be fun to acknowledge, but again Alan Greenspan (head of the US federal Reserve during this period) had more influence over Canadian GDP than Paul Martin. Had Greenspan raised rates the Bank of Canada would have had to comply to support the dollar to prevent a freefall. This would have cut into the massive consumer debt financed spending spree and also made the dollar more attractive vis avis the Euro and other currencies thus hurting exports.

 

As well Martin's income tax reductions pale in comparison to the job killing payroll taxes (EI/CPP deductions) that were in desperate need of reform. Martin preferred instead to build up this phony "surplus" that existed for no good reason other than to hauled out for PR purposes.

 

I'm am curious as to why you are so against Conservative economic policies when you seem to constantly praise Martin's tax cut and deficit reduction program? You should be more sympathetic to Harper as they are the tax cutting party in this election.

[Lou 9208]

I am overwhelmed that a majority of men who hang out on a review board are voting conservative. Not only the politician are hypocrites I guess!

 

Did Leanna VIP provoked a new election... No, franchement.

 

What did it?:

 

1. Limited access to information to journalists and public;

2. The Cons refusing to share important numbers with the elected members of Parlement;

3. The Cons wanting to make it a 'free market" the American style so that next time there is an economic crash, we really fall into a black whole with our neighbour down south.

 

 

Why the Conservatives should not be elected:

1. For all of the above

2. For their crazy relationship with the Evangelist movement

3. For their wish to abolish gay equality

4. For their wish to limit abortion rights

5. For their wish to criminalize clients of sex workers

6. For their wish to lock up more and more citizens for minor crimes like drug possession and prostitution with your taxe money

7. For the G20 and all the crazy spendings and the powers that were giving to the police

8. Because Harper is an idiot - such as his team - seriously who wishes to be rule by people like Maxime Bernier, Bev Oda, Cops, Cops and more Cops, André Arthur and Gary Goodyear....

9. Because before being a federal politician, Harper got to Supreme court of Canada to fight against public health, which he lost -thanks.

10. Because they have been found guilty of plenty of corruption and electoral fraud since they are in power

11. Because against police department wish all over Canada, they want to abolish the gun registry.

12. Because they like to create a bigger gap between the terrible big cities and a the real people living in the villages.

13. Because of their obsession over military. It is true that when some member of a party believe that gay equality is like terrorism for society, anything justify more and more money to defend yourself from all serious threats..................

 

I have an idea. Since I can't wait to be govern by a gang that will take us back to middle age, I will practice this weekend. Wou hou, i am so excited, !!!

 

I will dress up like a Middle Age lady, I will invite all the neighborhood kids to act as if they were mine, I will play it submissive and dumb (you know, as if i had no education and could hardly read), I will go to the Church on Sunday than I will fake my death due to an abortion gone bad because you know, I had to do it myself cause it is not legal to do so.

[Cato 160314]

I've tried to avoid being drawn into this discussion, but I can't resist. There are so many issues, about tarsands, pipelines, and other environmental questions; about the dangers of social conservatism; about the contempt of Parliament, and about governmental irresponsibility; and on and on. The last straw was the CBC report about students being excluded from Con rallies because of the contents of their facebook pages. That degree of oversight and control terrifies me, for one.

No thanks to the Cons.