Canada votes 2011 [Archive] - REVscene Automotive Forum

taylor192

03-31-2011, 10:42 AM

I have no issue with these two (even though I no longer benefit from either).
Given the number of students and people of age to soon have young children we have it's a perk for most of you.

The $1000 to each student is dumb. Why?
- It gives money to students who may not need it
- It directs money away from students who may need it
- The money may be wasted, not spent on tuition or supplies
- It does not identify which institutions would qualify for the $1000, which will be frustrating for students who pursue education beyond the normal college/university route.
- It falsely encourages high school students to attend post secondary school. School is not for everyone, we shouldn't be dangling $1000 carrots infront of people.
- It will increase the percentage of people getting an education, making degrees more and more worthless as more people have them.

There are much better ways to support students than giving them cheques.

mb_

03-31-2011, 10:48 AM

Closest to Liberal, furthest from NDP

Edit: Same with Liquid_o2, Conservatives aren't that far off.

Liquid_o2

03-31-2011, 10:52 AM

I'm closest to Liberals, although Conservatives are right on their heels.

NDP is barely on the radar.

I disagree with a lot of what the Liberals are preaching though, and Ignatieff is the least person I would trust running the economics of the country.

bloodmack

03-31-2011, 11:27 AM

closest to lib furthest from NDP..

... 2nd closest to bloc.. WTF? LOL

gars

03-31-2011, 11:39 AM

i think the chart is skewed. The Conservatives of Canada aren't that far right.

I'm closest to Liberals - but still voting Conservatives.

Mizter

03-31-2011, 11:41 AM

Closest to Liberals furthest from Conservatives...Can't say I'm really shocked.

Razor Ramon HG

03-31-2011, 12:20 PM

:lol

Closest to Green, furthest from Conservatives.

cho

03-31-2011, 12:30 PM

closest to liberals furthest from conserv

Great68

03-31-2011, 12:33 PM

Closest to Liberals.

I'd be closest to Conservatives if I wasn't completely opposite to their views on the Abortion, Same-Sex marriage and Marijuana legalization questions. Because of that, I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives even on a cold day in hell.

LiquidTurbo

03-31-2011, 12:37 PM

Closest to Liberals and farthest away from the NDP. I must admit, the NDP is the party I know the least about too. Anyone want to Coles notes me on their ideologies?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

dbaz

03-31-2011, 12:47 PM

closest to liberal farthest from conservatives but id still vote for conservatives

TheNewGirl

03-31-2011, 12:57 PM

Is that on top of or instead of the Child Tax Credit?

Instead of the what ever it is a month people with children under 5 get right now (regardless of if they need it or not). The Libs suggest instead giving the money directly to the childcare centers to lower the over all cost of child care and open up more spots for children (which currently is the real problem even more so than cost imo).

As for the $ to students, the details will of course be ironed out if it gets legislated, but $1000 isn't going to make more people go to school. You still have to meet the entry requirements to get in. I would hope it would only go to students in public institutions (UBC, Kwantlan yes, Private College of Teaching People Nothing Useful, No).

$1000 a year is $4-5000 (which turns into to like $5-8000 with interest depending how fast they can pay it off) less in student loans that the average BA/BSc student will have to carry. It may elevate the need for student loans completely for some people. This means they get out there, paying taxes and putting money back into the economy sooner when they're out of school and employed which is a good thing. And it means young people getting into the housing market earlier as well which is an even better thing and helps to preserve the rapidly shrinking middle class.

I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

I wish we could financially afford to run like other countries where Uni is completely free but the standards to get in are considerably higher but sadly that's not doable (for now).

gars

03-31-2011, 01:06 PM

TheNewGirl

03-31-2011, 01:08 PM

I'm just interested to see where they plan on getting the money from. Announcing spending of 1+ Billion is nice because you can see where it benefits people - but that's either going to just put us further into debt, or they're going to cut it from other departments (read: Military)

That is the most important question IMO for sure. And I would like to see ALL of the party leaders explain where they intent to get their $$ from.

vitaminG

03-31-2011, 01:34 PM

weird that im closest to liberals but if i compare my responses the conservatives are closest on each question and im just ont he economic right and social conservative. at this point the liberals couldnt bribe me enough to vote for them.

dutch

03-31-2011, 03:42 PM

To the people that came out closest to liberals but would still vote conservative...

Why? Why would you vote against your best interest/principles?

Just wondering.

Manic!

03-31-2011, 03:49 PM

Instead of the what ever it is a month people with children under 5 get right now (regardless of if they need it or not). The Libs suggest instead giving the money directly to the childcare centers to lower the over all cost of child care and open up more spots for children (which currently is the real problem even more so than cost imo).

The conservatives make it sound like it will be extra spending when in reality it will just taking existing money and focusing it on day care.

HansonBoy

03-31-2011, 04:37 PM

Closest to Liberals and furthest from Conservative, which is fairly accurate. If it weren't for my distrust in Ingatieff, this election would be a no-brainer for me.

carisear

03-31-2011, 04:42 PM

Closest to Liberal, Furthest from Conservative.... is anyone surprised?

yes, i am.

why? because reading through some of your responses from the gender equity thread and the other political thread, you sound like you are a true orange NDP.

Bouncing Bettys

03-31-2011, 05:18 PM

is a repost http://www.revscene.net/forums/government-struck-down-t641040p4.html

anyways, it was slow as hell when i took it the first day it came out.

I thought I'd line up somewhere between NDP and Liberal but I ended up Green

I won't be voting green.

taylor192

03-31-2011, 05:28 PM

The conservatives make it sound like it will be extra spending when in reality it will just taking existing money and focusing it on day care.
What existing money? The government is running a deficit - there's no money.

Blinky

03-31-2011, 05:35 PM

To the people that came out closest to liberals but would still vote conservative...

Why? Why would you vote against your best interest/principles?

Just wondering.

This is an interesting thread; the original concept is based on the political compass ( http://politicalcompass.org/ ), except that Canadian political parties have been pasted in.

I'm not one of those liberal leaners con-voters, but there is more to voting than just ideology. Platform matters.

For instance, someone in this thread has already stated that they'd vote Conservative except for the fact that they are (or are at least perceived as) socially conservative. In the past, that has been something that has affected my views of them as well.

Manic!

03-31-2011, 07:28 PM

What existing money? The government is running a deficit - there's no money.

So were did Harper get the money for the child tax credit, the F-35's and the fake lake?

SkinnyPupp

03-31-2011, 07:37 PM

Great68

03-31-2011, 07:41 PM

We need someone in the upper right quadrant to vote for. Someone who is smart when it comes to business, but also not a bunch of religious fuckups.

Wholeheartedly agree.

LiquidTurbo

03-31-2011, 07:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXywZ7ycXTI

lol.

Gilgamesh

03-31-2011, 07:47 PM

i think the chart is skewed. The Conservatives of Canada aren't that far right.

I'm closest to Liberals - but still voting Conservatives.

I had the same thing! I'm definitely not voting for Liberals either.

darkfroggy

03-31-2011, 08:09 PM

To the people that came out closest to liberals but would still vote conservative...

Why? Why would you vote against your best interest/principles?

Just wondering.

Because an online, one-size-fits-all, 5 minute quiz should dictate our voting preferences.

SkinnyPupp

03-31-2011, 08:18 PM

Because an online, one-size-fits-all, 5 minute quiz should dictate our voting preferences.
If you click around in the quiz, it is actually very detailed. The quiz itself gives you an idea on where you stand, and from there you can read about all the platforms, leaders, etc. It is probably a more useful tool than listening to propaganda and phony debates.

But I agree it shouldn't be the ONLY method of choosing who to vote for.

LiquidTurbo

04-01-2011, 02:59 AM

Because an online, one-size-fits-all, 5 minute quiz should dictate our voting preferences.

Actually, for 99% of the general population, it probably does.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Culverin

04-01-2011, 08:57 AM

Here's the problem with Canadian politics: The only party with decent economic platform are conservatives, and the only ones with a decent social platform are fucken communists :troll:

We need someone in the upper right quadrant to vote for. Someone who is smart when it comes to business, but also not a bunch of religious fuckups.

Mine was about 1cm below yours. And I totally agree with you, I think the conservatives are the only ones that can seem to handle money decently.

My trust for them is like peeing into a strong wind, it doesn't go very far, and I'm just courting :fuuuuu:

taylor192

04-01-2011, 09:08 AM

So were did Harper get the money for the child tax credit, the F-35's and the fake lake?
The F35s were started by.... thus might surprise you... the Liberals. Ask them where the money was supposed to come from.

The fake lake and other spending I have a problem with too. That was a huge waste.

The child tax credit and other social spending has been part of ensuring the opposition passes the budget. So blame them for the deficit.

the_law82

04-01-2011, 09:51 AM

I am closest to the Liberals and furthest from the Green.

I have to agree that the Conservatives are not that far right and it's their strong views on abortion, marijuana and the like that pushes them that far.

As for voting, I am undecided at this point. It is between the Liberals and Conservatives. However, regardless of who I vote for, my riding will be won by the NDP (Hastings-Sunrise)....

I will be moving to a different riding in about two weeks, do you know if I can vote in my new riding by election time?

Culverin

04-01-2011, 10:05 AM

I think you just need something to prove that you've moved, like having bills or something sent there?

taylor192

04-01-2011, 10:30 AM

This is why you do not want to vote Liberal/NDP, it'll give more power to Quebexico.

http://www.theprovince.com/Quebec+denounces+Stephen+Harper+Newfoundland+hydro +plan/4542805/story.html

I'd rather give a province a loan to get a project going than just hand out $8B to Quebexico.

alex.w *//

04-01-2011, 10:48 AM

is everyone closest to the liberals?

is it only me that cannot stand the face of michael ignatieff

highfive

04-01-2011, 10:55 AM

I still remember Harper getting David Emerson to cross over to the Conservatives. That's when I started to accept the Conservatives. I realize it was such a good move for BC and Canada. He made Emerson the immigration minister and looked after the gateway project. To me it was putting an experienced MP in both business and politics to look after Canada's role in the pacific rim trade route. Too bad the people in the riding was voting for the party and not for who that person is and what he'll be doing for you.

bloodmack

04-01-2011, 11:16 AM

is everyone closest to the liberals?

is it only me that cannot stand the face of michael ignatieff

I think its more based on the party's beliefs rather than the leaders.

Closest to Liberals and farthest away from the NDP. I must admit, the NDP is the party I know the least about too. Anyone want to Coles notes me on their ideologies?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

failure. pretty much sums up their reputation in BC.

bloodmack

04-01-2011, 11:21 AM

Accidental double post

gars

04-01-2011, 11:56 AM

is everyone closest to the liberals?

It's also because the Liberals are closest to the centre. Socially - I lean left, but the economy is the thing that is most important to me right now.

And I know that the conservatives wouldn't do anything stupidly right wing (socially speaking - ie, gay marriage, etc) - because they can't know that would piss off half the country.

dutch

04-01-2011, 01:34 PM

Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece

Great68

04-01-2011, 02:23 PM

Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece

As SkinnyPupp put it:

Religious Fuckups.

Lomac

04-01-2011, 02:36 PM

Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece

Just because you might be religious, it doesn't mean you don't believe the Earth is round or that gravity isn't God's foot keeping you on the ground. I know plenty of scientists (or at least people who have a science background) who are also religious. The two of them aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

dutch

04-01-2011, 03:16 PM

Mr.HappySilp

04-01-2011, 04:03 PM

LOL closest to Conversative and furtherest from NDP

Meowjin

04-01-2011, 04:23 PM

Conservaitcves also cockblock scientists from doing research and won't fund them if it has to do with anything that might contradict christian values.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Meowjin

04-01-2011, 04:27 PM

jeffh

04-01-2011, 04:34 PM

^ sauce? or jsut something retarded some NDP guy told you?

BBMme

04-01-2011, 04:35 PM

conservative!

Meowjin

04-01-2011, 04:58 PM

^ sauce? or jsut something retarded some NDP guy told you?

Source = http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/is_the_canadian_government_muz.html

Or just google "conservative, muzzle, scientist, research". I'm sure you can find a plethora of sources.

Also "some ndp guy".

Does it matter what we even vote? We have less members in the senate than pei and we have what? 20 times the population?

We get fucked over in the west. Either way I'm voting liberal.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Meowjin

04-01-2011, 05:09 PM

Conservative science minister (aka our science minister) told reporters it would be unfair to ask him as a christian if he believed in science. Our fucking science minister!!!!!

Stop voting these idiots in!!!!!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Bouncing Bettys

04-01-2011, 05:32 PM

darkfroggy

04-01-2011, 05:56 PM

Its too bad the Progressive Conservative party was duped into merging with old Reformers. Most of these Conservative-voting Liberals would likely be voting PC instead of voting for these religious dipshits.

???????????

The merging was the best thing that happened to the parties.

Look how fast Stephen Harper became Prime Minister after assuming the helm.

darkfroggy

04-01-2011, 06:00 PM

Quebec doesn't really want to split. They just want to mooch more money off Canadians.

If Quebec wants to split, they could easily do so. The only problem is that winning seats in Quebec is almost a prerequisite to form government. If Harper could win more seats in BC and Ontario, we would be seeing less pandering to Quebec separatists.

Bouncing Bettys

04-01-2011, 06:09 PM

???????????

The merging was the best thing that happened to the parties.

Look how fast Stephen Harper became Prime Minister after assuming the helm.

The loss of the PC party to a merged Conservative party means there are less options for voters. Its a move towards a dysfunctional 2-party system like they have in the US. The more parties you have, the more likely you will find one that aligns with most of your ideologies

LiquidTurbo

04-01-2011, 06:28 PM

http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/31/17829856.html

lol.

carisear

04-01-2011, 06:41 PM

Sorry, if you are the SCIENCE MINISTER and don't subscribe to the theory evolution, or don't want to say if you do, you should be fired.

What he is saying is like not confirming his belief in that the world is round. It is that basic.

The theory of evolution is extremely well accepted by scientists world wide. I should not be controversial at all. I would even say that being Christan AND being the science minister is a conflict of interest.

And whats even more fucked is that he is a chiropractor, one of the worst, most unscientific medical practices there is. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40315.php)

a thousand years ago it was common knowledge the world was flat. it's that basic.

creationism was extremely accepted by scientists world wide at that time too.

see what i did there?

just because something is widely accepted by people doesn't necessarily mean its true.

K-Dub

04-01-2011, 06:51 PM

hm.

SkinnyPupp

04-01-2011, 06:53 PM

And ontop of that all research reports have to be approved by the Govermnet or face persucution if they don't before releasing it to the public.

Seriously how can you people vote for a party that might be "economicly better" when the believe that the earth is 6000 years old and hates homosexuals.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
True, but to me personally, I think the economy is a more important issue than gay marriage and the like. Since the Tories are the only ones on the right side economically, my vote has to go that way.

Ronin

04-01-2011, 07:21 PM

The English and French questions are rather ambiguous.

Well, that's not really the right way to say it either.

What I'm trying to say is...fuck the French. Decisions should be made in English.

LiquidTurbo

04-01-2011, 07:26 PM

a thousand years ago it was common knowledge the world was flat. it's that basic.

creationism was extremely accepted by scientists world wide at that time too.

see what i did there?

just because something is widely accepted by people doesn't necessarily mean its true.

:failed:

Matthew 4:8, "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...."

The only plausible reason for the "very high mountain" was that the altitude would make it possible to see to the ends of the earth. Only on a flat earth would this be remotely possible, so the New Testament writers were as ignorant as the Old.

Yea, people widely think the Earth was flat.... I wonder why...:whistle:

Evolution is not a 'belief'. It's a straight up FACT. People widely believed in flat earth, but they didn't have the evidence to back it up as a fact.

Anyway, getting back on topic.
Fuck this science minister. SP makes a good point about economic recovery vs religious idiocy...

Ronin

04-01-2011, 07:28 PM

I'm quite torn.

My values are mostly Liberal. I'm all about the economy. I could care less about welfare cases, immigrants, moral values and such. I'll support environmental reforms that won't cause me much of an inconvenience.

But Ignatieff seems like a douche. He hasn't done anything to convince me he's fit to lead the country. I'm slightly more convinced with him than Dion but still.

And I don't want to vote Conservative, Green, or NDP.

Ronin

04-01-2011, 07:33 PM

Yea, people widely think the Earth was flat.... I wonder why...:whistle:

Evolution is not a 'belief'. It's a straight up FACT. People widely believed in flat earth, but they didn't have the evidence to back it up as a fact.

Anyway, getting back on topic.
Fuck this science minister. SP makes a good point about economic recovery vs religious idiocy...

During years and years of various chemistry, biology and anthropology classes at UBC, I've learned to never accept anything that isn't proven to be fact.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. Unless something similar can be replicated or it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is not a fact. No one with brains is ever going to tell you evolution is a fact. Studies and experiments have supported the theory of evolution but that isn't proof. No one was there and no one can tell us for sure what happened.

I'm not saying evolution is true. I'm not saying creationism is true. Neither has been proven and therefore, neither is fact.

SkinnyPupp

04-01-2011, 07:35 PM

Evolution is indeed a theory, but it must be the theory we live by until we know better. Not some fucking story book.

Ronin

04-01-2011, 07:36 PM

True, but to me personally, I think the economy is a more important issue than gay marriage and the like. Since the Tories are the only ones on the right side economically, my vote has to go that way.

I think the Liberals might actually have a better economic plan than the Conservatives...but I can see the Conservatives working it out as well.

Anything with moral issues such as drugs or gay marriage are just noise to me. The government shouldn't be responsible for stuff like this. The only lazy parents that think Marilyn Manson is responsible for Columbine give a shit.

Ronin

04-01-2011, 07:42 PM

Evolution is indeed a theory, but it must be the theory we live by until we know better. Not some fucking story book.

Not disagreeing. But I hate when people state evolution is a fact like they were there to watch the Big Bang. It's a theory just like the theory of intelligent design.

Anyone that dismisses creationism simply because of it's religion connotation is basically as moronic as religion nuts that won't listen to science. I'm rather sure I have all the information about both.

SkinnyPupp

04-01-2011, 07:49 PM

Anyone that dismisses creationism is an intelligent human being who hasn't been brainwashed.

If you do anything but dismiss the "facts" they go by, and not be religious yourself, then you're just dumb.

Evolutionism is a theory. Creationism is a goofy story people have been telling for a few years.

darkfroggy

04-01-2011, 08:05 PM

The loss of the PC party to a merged Conservative party means there are less options for voters. Its a move towards a dysfunctional 2-party system like they have in the US. The more parties you have, the more likely you will find one that aligns with most of your ideologies

Like how the Liberals won back to back majorities when the PC/Reform vote was split?

The merger saved conservatism in Canada.

dutch

04-01-2011, 08:56 PM

Not disagreeing. But I hate when people state evolution is a fact like they were there to watch the Big Bang. It's a theory just like the theory of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is as much a theory as the flying spaghetti monster is. Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's valid.

The theory of evolution is infinitely more valid and is heavily supported by empirical data.

I understand your point, but it is completely moot.

LiquidTurbo

04-01-2011, 08:59 PM

During years and years of various chemistry, biology and anthropology classes at UBC, I've learned to never accept anything that isn't proven to be fact.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory. Unless something similar can be replicated or it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is not a fact. No one with brains is ever going to tell you evolution is a fact. Studies and experiments have supported the theory of evolution but that isn't proof. No one was there and no one can tell us for sure what happened.

I'm not saying evolution is true. I'm not saying creationism is true. Neither has been proven and therefore, neither is fact.

This is wrong, and means you have not looked into the evidence into Evolution enough.

You can call Evolution a Theory if you want, but it's really a fact.
Are you really going to say the same thing about "Germ Theory", "Kinetic Molecular Theory", "Big Bang Theory", "Quantum Theory"?

Aren't they just theories too?? How is evolutionary theory any different? Are you telling me you don't know the previous theories I listed to be true, either?

"Theory" is a bit of a misnomer. Evolutionary Theory is everything we know in evolution in facts (like, allele crossing, gene pools), unified together in a harmonizing theory.

The fact that evolution occurs is absolutely true, documented by PLENTY of evidence.

This is going further off-topic, but I felt it needed to be address.

Meowjin

04-01-2011, 09:17 PM

Like how the Liberals won back to back majorities when the PC/Reform vote was split?

The merger saved conservatism in Canada.

Think about what your saying. If you are saying majority it doesn't mean shit if the cons had one party.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Bouncing Bettys

04-01-2011, 11:47 PM

Like how the Liberals won back to back majorities when the PC/Reform vote was split?

The merger saved conservatism in Canada.

saved it from what? The Liberals were winning majorities while the left had more than one party to choose from and they were getting votes in Quebec as well. The main idea I was getting at was its important to have a multiple party system so voters have less to compromise on when choosing a candidate. This was reflected by some of the responses to this quiz ie. Liberal-leaning conservatives who don't support the social conservatism.

Manic!

04-01-2011, 11:54 PM

darkfroggy

04-02-2011, 12:05 AM

Think about what your saying. If you are saying majority it doesn't mean shit if the cons had one party.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Think about what you're saying.

I'll illustrate with an example.

Liberal Party: 18000 votes
Reform Party: 14000 votes
Progressive Conservative: 10000 votes

"Conservative" votes: 24000
Liberal votes: 18000

A majority of the population is Conservative, yet the riding goes to the Liberals. Now, repeat this across numerous ridings. See how vote-splitting can give parties majority governments?

If they were both united under one party, then the "Conservatives" would have easily taken this riding.

Also see: strategic voting.

Culverin

04-02-2011, 05:54 AM

:failed:

Matthew 4:8, "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...."

The only plausible reason for the "very high mountain" was that the altitude would make it possible to see to the ends of the earth. Only on a flat earth would this be remotely possible, so the New Testament writers were as ignorant as the Old.

Wow, you're taking that literally and making a really bad assumption there. :failed:
Why are you thinking that it's "the only plausible reason for the very high mountain" There's a lot of imagery and emotion that is brought to you seeing the world from up above. If I told you you could be king of Vancouver, wouldn't it help just a little if I took you to the top of Grouse? You're trying to tell me that the view there wouldn't move you emotionally at all?

You don't have the believe the bible. Nobody is making you.
But please don't jump to asinine assumptions thinking everything written down is wrong. I think your fellow atheists are just a little ashamed of you.
Think a little with basic logic before you speak?

Anyways, back on topic. You know how people say that Middle canada has all the vote, and here in the west, our voices are never heard? What is that that we want here in the west that they don't want in the east? I'd assume it's all the same thing?

baggdis300

04-02-2011, 03:24 PM

im pretty disappointed with who we have to vote for...

they all pretty much suck, but the one party thats against MORE gun control are the converses..
so it comes down to who doesn't want to take my guns away.

Meowjin

04-02-2011, 04:07 PM

Think about what you're saying.

I'll illustrate with an example.

Liberal Party: 18000 votes
Reform Party: 14000 votes
Progressive Conservative: 10000 votes

"Conservative" votes: 24000
Liberal votes: 18000

A majority of the population is Conservative, yet the riding goes to the Liberals. Now, repeat this across numerous ridings. See how vote-splitting can give parties majority governments?

If they were both united under one party, then the "Conservatives" would have easily taken this riding.

Also see: strategic voting.

Irrelevent again. Just because someone voted cons pre merger doesn't mean they would vote them pro, especially during a different time of politics.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Meowjin

04-02-2011, 04:08 PM

culverin: economic resources. And more voice in the senate.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Also how do you think alberta feels, picking up economic fail provinces.

alwaysideways

04-02-2011, 05:43 PM

Love how a political thread turned into a religious debate...LOL

In the end it doesn't matter which party you vote for, whos right and whos wrong...what really matters is that people actually get out and do it. I would love to see how many people on here leaning hard one way or the other find some excuse to get out to the polls in May.....It makes me very sad inside to think of all those that gave their lives willingly to protect the democratic process through the ages and for the majority to not give 2 shits about voting :(

Meowjin

04-02-2011, 06:30 PM

^or vote conservative :troll:

Bouncing Bettys

04-02-2011, 07:04 PM

darkfroggy

04-02-2011, 08:27 PM

For people voting conservative because of the economy:

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/51006304.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDE4CCEC7BD61C9164 9C1D8965ACA52CD95A4D9D73AF2597ACF06BF04B24B4128C

This, this, and this.

Remember that Harper wanted to LOOSEN the controls on banking. now he's saying we have to best banking world in the system, etc.

Harper did NOT do a lot for the economy, as Canada was already doing well to begin with. You can thank the Liberals for not deregulating the banks a-la the US system.

That being said, a lot of things have changed. You shouldn't vote Liberal just because Martin managed it well.

Ronin

04-03-2011, 09:01 AM

LOL my friend just sent me a picture of Alice Wong, Richmond's conservative MP, sleeping in church. Just full on slumped over from boredom
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

LiquidTurbo

04-03-2011, 09:03 AM

^ post :D

baggdis300

04-03-2011, 10:46 AM

x2

your buddy should leak it to the media and PROFIT!

SFUguy

04-03-2011, 03:29 PM

Thought I might leave this here. It makes a great propaganda piece :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BielG84wYk

MoBettah

04-03-2011, 03:44 PM

Well the election just came to my front door. My local NDP candidate just came by. He was well informed of the Water Treatment industry I am currently a student of which impressed me. Beats all the junk mail I've been getting from the Conservative MP over the last couple years including a real gem of a Canadian flag print with her name on it.

Great. Good to know your making an informed decision based on the fact that your NDP candidate made a good impression with their knowledge of your specific specialty area of study. He must be trustworthy!

Hell if any candidate could engage me in a 5 minute conversation about my life, I'd give them the right to represent my money, my decisions AND possibly the whole country!

Manic!

04-03-2011, 03:50 PM

Harpers scared to debate Ignatieff 1 on 1

Harper come on and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1pobj6RLI

and do it.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada/Ignatieff+says+debate+Harper+Mercer+hosts/4549890/story.html

OTTAWA — Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told the country through Twitter on Saturday that he's up for a one-on-one debate with Conservative leader Stephen Harper moderated by comedian Rick Mercer.

Last week, Harper proposed the two leaders face off in a two-person debate, since, he said, come election day the only real choice Canadians will have is between a Conservative government or a Liberal-led coalition.

Ignatieff responded: "Any time, any place."

But Harper backed down the next day, saying the Conservatives aren't interested in extra debates, and would rather focus on touring the country.

Mercer weighed in this weekend, saying via Twitter that he'd step in to host a showdown between Harper and Ignatieff.

"I'min," Ignatieff replied online.

Harper hadn't responded.

Liberal staff said Ignatieff writes his own tweets.

The one for-certain English-debate will be broadcast live on April 14, followed two nights later by the French-language debate.

Green party leader Elizabeth May is not invited to the event, although she has been fighting to be included, as was the case when she was eventually allowed to participate in 2008.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Comedian Rick Mercer offered on Twitter to host a debate between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff — and the Liberal leader said he be game.
Photograph by: Bruce Stotesbury, The Victoria Times Colonist

Bouncing Bettys

04-03-2011, 04:11 PM

Great. Good to know your making an informed decision based on the fact that your NDP candidate made a good impression with their knowledge of your specific specialty area of study. He must be trustworthy!

Hell if any candidate could engage me in a 5 minute conversation about my life, I'd give them the right to represent my money, my decisions AND possibly the whole country!

Did I state I was voting on a personal appearance alone or suggest I was voting for one party over another? No, I was simply saying I appreciate the appearance more than the massive amounts of junk mail and a waste of paper I've received from the Conservative candidate. It is your behaviour in responding to my post which seems more likely that of someone who would make brash, hasty decisions.

drunkrussian

04-03-2011, 06:33 PM

those into politics:

can someone, in an unbiased, concise way, break down for me in point form liberals vs. conservatives, in terms of their stances on taxes and credits for middle income?

LiquidTurbo

04-03-2011, 07:14 PM

I'd really like to see a debate between Harper and Ignatieff.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

taylor192

04-03-2011, 09:18 PM

those into politics:

can someone, in an unbiased, concise way, break down for me in point form liberals vs. conservatives, in terms of their stances on taxes and credits for middle income?
That's a very hard thing to do, yet here are some highlights:

Taxes:
Liberals will roll back the corporate tax decrease scheduled. They need to to pay for their campaign promises. They opposed the GST reduction, and may need to pursue something like this to fund their campaign promises that total $8B (corporate tax cuts are ~$4B).

Conservatives started the corporate tax cuts, and now we have one of the lowest corporate taxes in the first world. The reasoning is that businesses invest more in tax advantaged places. If it works, we end up with more business, more jobs, thus more corporate and income tax, and the tax cuts are offset by new income.

Credits:
Liberals are giving out all kinds of money in the $8B family values spending. Students, those who stay home to care for a sick relative, those performing home renovations, ... will all get extra $$$.

Conservatives are not really promising anything. We're running deficits for the next 4 years, so what promises they are making are for when the budget is balanced, ie no deficit. They have some interesting promises, yet it remains to be seen if the deficit can be eliminated, especially if they do not get a majority and have to continue spending to satisfy the opposition.

Yet please don't take just my word, do your own research. I am biased to the Conservatives, yet tried to give an unbiased view - yet it will have some bias :)

drunkrussian

04-03-2011, 09:37 PM

taylor192

04-03-2011, 10:06 PM

^thanks man! what about for individual, rather than corporate taxation??

also can anyone recommend an unbiased website which breaks down each pqrty's stances? i wish tv ads were informative rather than attacking ppl for personal shit i dont care about
My post highlights both corporate and income taxes. Summed up, all the parties except the Conservatives are offering some sort of incentive that will have to be paid for. That either means higher deficits, or higher taxes. The Conservatives are offering tax incentives to individuals, yet only once the budget is balanced, and they need a majority to do that sooner.

The fitness tax credit for adults offered by the Conservatives is interesting to me, since I have more than $500 of fitness spending each year. The income splitting even more interesting for me and other high earners - yet actually doesn't benefit much of the middle class.

The NDP have so far not offered a lot, and people are criticizing Layton for it, saying his health is affecting the campaign. The CC rate issue has already been covered in this thread.

As for places to get info without bias - stay tuned to this. So far much of the campaign material has been posted, with bias both for and against. Its hard not to get any bias, especially from the media, so it is important to balance the bias for and against. The Globe and Mail and CBC are both left leaning, while the National Post is right leaning. I tend to read them all so I get a balance of opinions.

Meowjin

04-03-2011, 10:27 PM

I might vote NDP

http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-plan-to-scrap-senate

Meowjin

04-03-2011, 10:28 PM

a big reason why you shouldn't vote conservative

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/01/cv-election-harper-economy-1029.html

Meowjin

04-03-2011, 10:32 PM

Essentially everything that I feel is stated here from another website

I'll give you a reason, and I'll type it slowly as you don't seem to read to fast.

Between the time Chretien took over from Mulroney, and the time Harper took over from Martin, were Canada and Canadians better off

Now from the time Harper took over from Martin until this election, are Canada and Canadians better off?

We have a massive deficit, coming off of a surplus and having paid down over 10% of the national debt, and the Conservatives are putting out ads about how they are the best to manage fiscal issues? Flaheraty is on the news right now speaking incredibly stupid rhetoric. He's claiming the Liberals, who brought us out of a $45 billion dollar deficit are fiscally irresponsible and only want to tax and spend. He's taking credit for Canada's mortgage crisis not being a bad as the US.

I don't care if you agree with the legalization of abortions or personal use of marijuana. These are moral issues and you need to vote on what you believe in. What I'm talking fiscal policy, the actual running of the government, and fiscal responsibility. If you actually believe the Conservatives have been better than the Liberals you've got your head in the sand and need to look at the facts and read your history books.

As for leaders, I can't comment on what Ignatieff or Layton have done as a PM as they haven't been in that position. I can comment on Harper, and the man has prorogued parliament twice, been found in contempt, been in a bubble with regards to openness, been all over the map with regards to policy, and worst of all, has had his thumb on his employees so that they are inneficient and can't do their job.

If you want to talk about other areas, such as Harper's senate reform, that would be fine. I'm even willing to talk about how most of this people on this board pretty much despise religion, yet many want an evangelical to be our PM.

taylor192

04-03-2011, 10:57 PM

a big reason why you shouldn't vote conservative

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/01/cv-election-harper-economy-1029.html
A big reason why you SHOULD vote Conservative.

1. The Conservatives have a huge donation money making machine.
2. The Liberals are a close second.
3. Who cares about the PQ.
4. The vote subsidy benefits the Green party the most - yet last election when May was bounced from the debate, guess what happened? The Green party averaged > $100K/day in donations, generating more than the vote subsidy.
5. The NDP I don't care about, so someone will have to look it up and post it. My guess is they have a mix of wealthy hippy/yuppy people willing to donate, and a bunch of poor people incapable of donating.

Thus for 3 of 5 parties, the vote subsidy doesn't really matter, and none of us care if the PQ benefits.

The reasons to end it are:
1. The parties that lose the election can essentially remain in campaign mode cause they get money right after the election. This means if we end up with another minority - guess what? The opposition can gear up for another untimely election sooner than later.
2. It is your tax dollars and we're in a deficit.
3. Most of the parties have no issue raising funds without the subsidy.

taylor192

04-03-2011, 11:00 PM

I might vote NDP

http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-plan-to-scrap-senate

What a load of crap. The NDP have had their chance to vote for Senate term limits that the Conservatives introduced, which would make the upper chamber more fair as it would turn over more often. The Conservatives also support an elected Senate, rather than the appointed Senate of today.

All the NDP has to do is support the Conservatives on these measures and they'd be done already - so they can go to hell for being hypocrites.

taylor192

04-03-2011, 11:04 PM

Essentially everything that I feel is stated here from another website

We have a massive deficit, coming off of a surplus and having paid down over 10% of the national debt, and the Conservatives are putting out ads about how they are the best to manage fiscal issues? Flaheraty is on the news right now speaking incredibly stupid rhetoric. He's claiming the Liberals, who brought us out of a $45 billion dollar deficit are fiscally irresponsible and only want to tax and spend.

Please do your research instead of reading crap that is wrong. The deficit spending is to appease the opposition and avoid elections. Go back to each year and see how the opposition hated the budget unless it included spending.

The Conservatives have promised no new spending until the deficit is gone - while the Liberals have promised to spend $8B of money we do not have, or at least $4B if corporate tax rates are rolled back. The Conservatives are the sound fiscal choice right now... sadly followed by the NDP. The Liberals are as bad as the PQ right now.

gars

04-03-2011, 11:14 PM

We have a massive deficit, coming off of a surplus and having paid down over 10% of the national debt, and the Conservatives are putting out ads about how they are the best to manage fiscal issues? Flaheraty is on the news right now speaking incredibly stupid rhetoric. He's claiming the Liberals, who brought us out of a $45 billion dollar deficit are fiscally irresponsible and only want to tax and spend. He's taking credit for Canada's mortgage crisis not being a bad as the US.

You can't look at numbers like that. The entire western world went into a huge recession - are you expecting us to still be in the black? We weathered through the recession quite well - but now is the time to bounce back.

I personally don't think the Liberals with their plans to spend money, and put corporate taxes back up will help anybody. We want companies to open up here... There's a reason why a lot of people move to the states for work...

Meowjin

04-04-2011, 12:59 AM

right right. You mean companies like GE who made something like 20 billion in the USA but paid 0 tax to the USA?

Give me a break.

orange7

04-04-2011, 01:02 AM

green ftw.

study high, take exam high, get high marks

taylor192

04-04-2011, 07:20 AM

right right. You mean companies like GE who made something like 20 billion in the USA but paid 0 tax to the USA?

Give me a break.

Do you think they would move anywhere else if they have to pay taxes?
There's a reason many US companies are headquartered in Delaware, and why many companies funnel profit through Iceland/Ireland/... low taxes.

Welcome to a global world, stop thinking small potatoes.

tool001

04-04-2011, 07:31 AM

harper govt time line. goes to nov 2010 only.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-highs-and-lows-a-timeline-of-the-conservative-government/article1880078/

March 13, 2006: During a speech in Kandahar, Harper pledges Canada won't “cut and run” from Afghanistan. (isn't this is what canada doing now??

May 17, 2006: House of Commons votes to extend Afghanistan military mission for two years.

July 1, 2006: Conservatives lower GST by one percentage point, to six per cent, fulfilling a campaign promise.

Nov. 22, 2006: Quebecois formally declared a nation.

Dec. 12, 2006: Commons passes Conservatives' Federal Accountability Act, which tightens political donation rules, provides for a parliamentary budget officer, and offers more protection for whistleblowers.

May 3, 2007: Commons passes Conservatives' Fixed Election Dates Act, which provides for elections every four years unless a government is defeated in the Commons. Harper would ignore the law the following year.

Nov. 13, 2007: Harper announces that the government will call a public inquiry into dealings between former prime minister Brian Mulroney and disgraced businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

Jan. 1, 2008: Conservatives move up second GST reduction and cut the tax by another percentage point, to five per cent.

Jan. 16, 2008: Government creates controversy by firing Linda Keen, head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Keen refused to bend to political pressure and approve a restart of the nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ont., which had been deemed unsafe.

Jan. 22, 2008: Commission led by John Manley recommends Canada stay on in Afghanistan under certain conditions, including a gradual switch to a training mission and the purchase of new equipment, including transport helicopters.

March 13, 2008: Commons extends Afghan mission to July 2011.

April 15, 2008: Elections Canada and RCMP raid Conservative party headquarters seeking documents on Tory election spending. It's part of a long, legal battle between the party and the elections agency over interpretations of campaign financing rules.

June 11, 2008: Harper offers formal apology to natives for abuse in residential schools.

Sept. 7, 2008: Harper ignores his own fixed election date law and calls a vote for Oct. 14, saying Parliament has become dysfunctional.

Oct. 10, 2008: In a prediction that would soon come back to haunt him, Harper says: “This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries.” The country promptly plunged into recession.

Oct. 14, 2008: Conservatives returned to office with a stronger minority of 143 seats. Liberals take 77, Bloc 49, NDP 37, and independents two.

Nov. 27, 2008: Fiscal update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposes an end to per-vote subsidies for political parties, sparking opposition outrage. In the next few days, Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc agree to defeat the government in the Commons and replace it with a Liberal-NDP coalition, propped up by the Bloc.

Dec. 4, 2008: With a potentially fatal non-confidence vote looming, Harper asks the Governor General for permission to prorogue Parliament until Jan. 26, 2009. Permission is granted. (sneaky..lol)

Jan. 27, 2009: New budget offers billions in stimulus money to fight recession, forecasts deficit of $33.7 billion, leaves political party subsidies untouched.

Sept. 9, 2009: In a fiscal update, Flaherty revises budget deficit to $55.9 billion.

Dec. 30, 2009: Harper again prorogues Parliament, saying the government wants to “recalibrate,” and consult people on the next stage of its economic plan.

April 9, 2010: Helena Guergis fired from her cabinet job as minister of state for the status of women and kicked from Tory caucus amid murky allegations about her husband's business dealings. The RCMP subsequently finds no evidence of wrongdoing but Harper does not reinstate Guergis.

June 17, 2010: Government replaces mandatory long-census form with voluntary survey, provoking protests from opposition parties, economists, social agencies, religious bodies, municipalities and provinces.

June 26-27, 2010: Canada hosts G8 summit in Huntsville, Ont., and G20 summit in Toronto. Controversy rages over the huge cost of the weekend summits — more than $1 billion — and an indiscriminate police crackdown on peaceful protesters.

July 21, 2010: Munir Sheikh, head of Statistics Canada, resigns over the decision to kill the mandatory long-form census.

Oct. 12, 2010: Canada abandons its bid to win a seat on the UN Security Council after one round of voting. It's the first time in 50 years Canada fails to win such an election.

Nov. 16, 2010: Harper says Canadian troops will stay on in Afghanistan past the 2011 deadline, but in a non-combat role.

taylor192

04-04-2011, 07:38 AM

Tool, you may care about what you bolded, yet most Canadians do not - you don't even hear these issues being brought up by the opposition cause they know it too.

taylor192

04-04-2011, 07:39 AM

Layton's latest promise: doubling CPP.

This means doubling what we pay into it, and now finding twice the means to keep it solvent. Good thing they will never win.

Great68

04-04-2011, 07:41 AM

Jan. 16, 2008: Government creates controversy by firing Linda Keen, head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Keen refused to bend to political pressure and approve a restart of the nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ont., which had been deemed unsafe.

Did anyone else feel bothered by the fact the Conservatives simply ordered the restart of a nuclear reactor despite reports that it was old and unsafe???

Why do they even bother with safety reports on things like this?

TheNewGirl

04-04-2011, 07:49 AM

If anyone wants to know the details of the liberal platform, and the costing sheet for paying it, it's all available now online.

http://www.liberal.ca/platform/

I know the Green's fully costed platform is also available. I wish to heck that Elizabeth Mae would join the liberals, despite her being in a tiny party she's still the most credible and intelligent of the party leaders.

Not sure about the Conservatives and NDP as of yet.

As for CPP - The Con's increased what we pay into CPP and what ever party comes into power will have to do the same. As increasingly Canadians are pushed out of the housing market, they're going into retirement with out and tangible equity and fewer RRSPs and on top of all that, living longer, meaning more and more people are relying on their CPP and the further income top ups to survive in old age. The rates we're paying now are more to sustain us from 65 to 70-75, not into our 90s.

Layton's actually being surprisingly reasonable and honest with his assessment.

Adds Correction - NDP went up this morning

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

Still no Conservative Platform.

TheNewGirl

04-04-2011, 08:10 AM

You can't look at numbers like that. The entire western world went into a huge recession - are you expecting us to still be in the black? We weathered through the recession quite well - but now is the time to bounce back.

I personally don't think the Liberals with their plans to spend money, and put corporate taxes back up will help anybody. We want companies to open up here... There's a reason why a lot of people move to the states for work...

Excuse me. The Con's increased our debt PRIOR to the recession.

dutch

04-04-2011, 09:15 AM

Astroturfing for Harper

http://i.imgur.com/QAcJm.jpg

gars

04-04-2011, 09:29 AM

Excuse me. The Con's increased our debt PRIOR to the recession.

due to spending to appease other parties because of a minority gov't.

taylor192

04-04-2011, 12:14 PM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110403/tory-staffer-facebook-110403/20110403?s_name=election2011

LOL this is one of my Fraternity brothers who I think is a douche canoe. He's made so many dumb comments on Facebook, thankfully the media didn't get the rest of them - especially the ones about loving Sarah Palin. I still cannot believe he works on the hill, the only reason he's there is cause he's such a fucking brown noser. I hope his career is done.

SkinnyPupp

04-04-2011, 06:24 PM

Astroturfing for Harper

http://i.imgur.com/QAcJm.jpg
Yeah that looks totally legit, not put up by some anti-right winger to make them look bad. Totally.

goo3

04-05-2011, 01:47 AM

They all do that shit. Even China does it.

Meowjin

04-05-2011, 01:52 AM

harper wants to get rid of the 2$ a vote. I will not support american style politics. You shouldn't either.

goo3

04-05-2011, 02:29 AM

^ You sound like you're getting paid to post shit.

Meowjin

04-05-2011, 02:48 AM

^ You sound like you're getting paid to post shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110401/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_politics_subsidies

sounds like you pay yourself to stick your fingers in your ears.

taylor192

04-05-2011, 07:37 AM

harper wants to get rid of the 2$ a vote. I will not support american style politics. You shouldn't either.
We have rules against certain types of donations preventing American style big donations buying votes - yet you knew this, right? :whistle:

:banghead:

dangonay

04-05-2011, 09:37 AM

Gun Registry. ;)

SFUguy

04-05-2011, 10:42 AM

paying for the olympic village

taylor192

04-05-2011, 11:21 AM

paying for the olympic village
:failed:

Federal, not Municipal. That's in Nov.

dutch

04-05-2011, 06:49 PM

How two teenagers got kicked out of a Conservative party rally

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=4564787

Manic!

04-05-2011, 08:00 PM

How two teenagers got kicked out of a Conservative party rally

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=4564787

Oh snap!!!! my dads got pictures with both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper and he's a liberal party member.

All hail King Harper. :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

baggdis300

04-05-2011, 08:01 PM

wow...

thats just further tarnishing the rep of the conservies....

taylor192

04-05-2011, 08:39 PM

wow...

thats just further tarnishing the rep of the conservies....

Oh well. People that make the effort to attend rallies often have their mind already made up, they are either there to support or to cause shit. Either way, they are not the voter the Conservatives hope to sway. Their campaign is very locked down to come across as calm, cool, collected to sway the people who don't care about all the political nonsense and just want a sensible government not making waves. Thus these people won't even pay attention to this, so it is a non issue the opposition is trying to run with.

Meowjin

04-05-2011, 11:24 PM

We have rules against certain types of donations preventing American style big donations buying votes - yet you knew this, right? :whistle:

:banghead:

what would stop a conservative majority from changing the rules if they control the house?

carisear

04-05-2011, 11:41 PM

what would stop a conservative majority from changing the rules if they control the house?

do you even know who put the federal accountability act into place was?

darkfroggy

04-06-2011, 12:18 AM

do you even know who put the federal accountability act into place was?

I also know who broke his own election law.

carisear

04-06-2011, 01:01 PM

touche. he did indeed do that. i was actually mildly surprised that canadians as a whole didn't care at all about that, and gave him more seats when he called that election.

just like this contempt thing -- canadians don't care one bit at all. it's a non-issue in this election.

Meowjin

04-06-2011, 02:17 PM

We have rules against certain types of donations preventing American style big donations buying votes - yet you knew this, right? :whistle:

:banghead:

touche. he did indeed do that. i was actually mildly surprised that canadians as a whole didn't care at all about that, and gave him more seats when he called that election.

just like this contempt thing -- canadians don't care one bit at all. it's a non-issue in this election.

Or maybe they don't understand and too uneducated to understand. Don't mistake the lazyness of vancouverites who live in a bubble with the rest of Canada.

TheNewGirl

04-06-2011, 02:28 PM

I think it's more likely they've all blindly bought into the whole 'The Conservatives will save us with their economic magic!' hysteria.

goo3

04-07-2011, 02:01 AM

This is possibly the lowest IQ thread on RS.

taylor192

04-10-2011, 10:13 AM

Manic!

04-11-2011, 08:15 AM

TheNewGirl

04-11-2011, 08:30 AM

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Layton+unveils+affordable+platform+aimed+families+ seniors+small+businesses/4591267/story.html

The NDP platform is out, and judging by all the promises taxes will be going up, corporate taxes specifically. We only need to look slightly south for an example of what happens when corporate taxes are increased. Illinois state increased taxes while neighboring states lowered corporate taxes - I'll let you guess what businesses have decided to do. Its actually gotten so bad that corporations in Illinois get phone calls from the Governor offices of other states to encourage them to move to a tax advantages state.

Thus it is nice that Layton thinks he can increase taxes and create jobs, yet reality says otherwise.

Then there is his cuts to small business tax and incentives to hire. No small business is going to hire permanently just cause a few month's salary is paid for via a tax credit. They need to be doing more business to hire more people - which just isn't happening right now. Look around Vancouver at the number of empty commercial buildings.

Actually, as someone in charge of hiring and firing for a small business, yes. Yes they will. But more importantly it might mean the difference between more layoffs this year and not having to lay anyone off.

I don't think most people understand the two business tax rates and how that works. Our General Business Tax rate has come down multiple times over the last several years and are already the lowest in North America. They do their job already to attract businesses and don't need further reduction. This is like saying 'lets give the rich people who already heavily utilize many write offs and tax shelters more tax breaks and charge the little guys instead'.

Small Business taxes on the other hand haven't gone down at the same rate as the General rate has fallen, furthermore this is the area that has been hardest hit by the current economic climate and is where the jobs loss we have seen actually increasing in the last couple of months is coming from.

The Economists that I've been reading actually (and I thought hell froze over) applauded the fact that Layton's been very up front about his plans as to where we need to increase money coming in (CPP and the General Business Taxes) and where the decreases are most needed.

I'm not an NDP supporter by any stretch, but I'll give them credit where it's due, this is a more realistic plan then the Cons are presenting.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 09:58 AM

Actually, as someone in charge of hiring and firing for a small business, yes. Yes they will. But more importantly it might mean the difference between more layoffs this year and not having to lay anyone off.
Please tell me how a tax credit for hiring will prevent layoffs? or why a company considering layoffs would hire for a tax credit?

My parents have run small businesses since I was 8yo, I've seen the ins and outs. They have hired when there have been tax reasons to do so, yet the hiring was rarely permanent.

I do agree on the rest. Small business actually creates the most jobs, big business tends to lose jobs over time. Thus any platform that targets small business will be the leading generator of job growth.

Yet the corporate tax cuts aren't to entice existing corporations hire more, its to entice corporations to move here, or not leave here. When a corporation leaves, the jobs are gone for a very long time. Ontario manufacturing is the best example, those jobs are gone, possibly for good due to bad Ontario taxation policies at the provincial level.

So I agree with both the Cons and the NDP, less business taxation. Afterall, it is the end consumer that pays 100% of all taxes, as business just wraps any taxation into the final price. Thus tax the consumer directly, not the business, and remove layers of administration, waste and red tape.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 10:02 AM

:failed:

your talking about one state raising taxes not a whole country. If all the states raised taxes what do you think would have happened?

Harper is just copying Bush, from his campaign tactics to his policies.
:failed:

You forget that Canada has the population of a US state, and that we live in a global world.

dutch

04-11-2011, 10:28 AM

Tories misinformed Parliament on G8 fund, may have broken law: auditor general

Among the questionable projects funded were:
— $274,000 on public toilets 20 km from the summit site.
— $100,000 on a gazebo an hour's drive away.
— $1.1 million for sidewalk and tree upgrades 100 km away.
— $194,000 for a park 100 km away.
— $745,000 on downtown improvements for three towns nearly 70 km away.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/tories-misinformed-parliament-on-g8-fund-may-have-broken-law-auditor-general-119595104.html

iEatClams

04-11-2011, 10:32 AM

Please tell me how a tax credit for hiring will prevent layoffs? or why a company considering layoffs would hire for a tax credit?

My parents have run small businesses since I was 8yo, I've seen the ins and outs. They have hired when there have been tax reasons to do so, yet the hiring was rarely permanent.

I do agree on the rest. Small business actually creates the most jobs, big business tends to lose jobs over time. Thus any platform that targets small business will be the leading generator of job growth.

Yet the corporate tax cuts aren't to entice existing corporations hire more, its to entice corporations to move here, or not leave here. When a corporation leaves, the jobs are gone for a very long time. Ontario manufacturing is the best example, those jobs are gone, possibly for good due to bad Ontario taxation policies at the provincial level.

So I agree with both the Cons and the NDP, less business taxation. Afterall, it is the end consumer that pays 100% of all taxes, as business just wraps any taxation into the final price. Thus tax the consumer directly, not the business, and remove layers of administration, waste and red tape.

I do agree with you on consumer base taxes (hence, I'm pro HST).

but personally, I think corporate taxes (not small business) need to be increase, that's right, increase.

Here are my reaons:

Corporations are just hording cash (T-bills treasuries etc), and doing so in an ever increasing amount. The extra tax savings are not going to what the tax cuts are intended to do and thats to create more jobs, increase production, investment on new technologies that increase productivity.

Many corporations just find ways to reduce their main cost, which is LABOUR. The shareholders and Board wants executives to increase profits, and the best way of doing that is to reduce staffing costs, since employees are generally the largest costs to an organization.

When you say the point of tax cuts is to prevent companies from shipping overseas to China or the states etc. Many of these companies are shipping because there is a competitive advantage there that BC/CANADA can not compete with. We can't compete with cheap textile china companies or manufacturing of certain goods. Ontario should not have manufacturing in industries that they do not have a competitive advantage, you can't compete with cheap labour and inputs, no matter how low the taxes are.

Now I'm not saying we should be dramatically increasing the corporate tax rates, I'm just saying that it should be slightly higher than what it currently is, given that we are at one of the lowest rates of all developed countries ( I believe Britain recently moved to lowest).

All I know is the gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing, and that can't be good for all of us.

iEatClams

04-11-2011, 10:36 AM

on a side note, heres a study on corporate tax cuts, however the reasons may be due to some other factor(s):

http://www.financialpost.com/Corporate+cuts+fail+boost+jobs+study/4567343/story.html

Corporate tax cuts fail to boost jobs: study
CommentsTwitterLinkedInEmail.Mike Barber, Postmedia News · Apr. 6, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 6, 2011 8:24 AM ET

A decade’s worth of corporate tax cuts have padded the bottom lines of Canada’s largest corporations, but those same companies have created jobs at a somewhat slower rate than the economy as a whole, according to the results of a study released Wednesday.

The study, produced by the Ottawa-based think tank Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, concluded that 198 of Canada’s largest publicly traded corporations made 52% more in profit in 2009 than in 2000 while paying 20% less in taxes. Between 2005 and 2009, when employment in Canada grew by 6% despite a global recession, the largest companies created 5% more jobs.

“Despite their growing profits and massive tax savings, the number of jobs created by Canada’s largest corporations was lower than the average employment growth across all sectors of the economy,” said David Macdonald, the study’s author and a researcher with CCPA. “In essence, the largest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are dragging down Canadian employment growth.”

The federal corporate tax rate, which applies to companies’ profits and not gross revenue like personal income tax, has been trimmed by successive Liberal and Conservative governments from 29% in 2000 to 19% in 2009, the years reviewed in the study. Provincial tax rates, which vary between 10% and 16%, have also trended downward since 2000.

Legislation passed by the Conservative government would have the rate bottom out at 15% in 2012, a move that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has pledged to reverse should his party form the next government.

Mr. Macdonald wrote that had the rate stayed the same between 2000-09, federal and provincial coffers would have had $12-billion more at their disposal in the 2009 budget.

“As deficit pressures put both federal and provincial government spending under increased scrutiny, it’s hard to find so expensive a program with so few tangible benefits as corporate tax cuts,” said Mr. Macdonald, adding that investing in infrastructure projects and social programs is better suited to immediate job growth.

Jack Mintz, director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said the gains of an “internationally competitive” corporate tax rate don’t necessarily translate into increased employment overnight, but they do position Canadian companies for long-term growth and attract foreign investment, both of which foster sustained job creation.

“To me, it’s a slam dunk in terms of good policy,” said Mr. Mintz, who co-authored a study earlier this year that concluded the three-point reduction passed by the Conservative government would yield 100,000 more jobs in seven years’ time and $50-billion more in capital investments.

“When you raise the effective tax rate on capital, you are going to squeeze out some projects that [these corporations] have planned, and we will lose those,” said Mr. Mintz.

The combined federal-provincial marginal corporate tax rate, which in 2010 was 29%, was four points higher than the OECD average of 25%. “Certainly, where we’re going is within the bounds of an internationally competitive rate,” said Mr. Mintz, adding that going any lower — as Ireland did in the 1990s in a bid to stimulate job growth which led to systemic deficits — isn’t in the country’s best interest, either.

Mr. Mintz cautioned against judging the rate cuts’ immediate effect on employment given the global economic turbulence of the past few years.

“We have to remember we went through a very bad recession, and companies weren’t going to invest when they weren’t sure there was going to be any demand,” said Mr. Mintz. “There’s a lag. Capital does take time to adjust.”

iEatClams

04-11-2011, 10:45 AM

Please tell me how a tax credit for hiring will prevent layoffs? or why a company considering layoffs would hire for a tax credit?

I agree on this comment. Tax Credits do not prevent layoffs or cause businesses to hire.

It's like how we get tax credits on transit passes. If i dont ride the bus or dont have any money/income, its means nothing to me.

Manic!

04-11-2011, 11:25 AM

:failed:

You forget that Canada has the population of a US state, and that we live in a global world.

If the only reason companies are staying here is our tax rate our country is :failed:. Lowering tax rates is just a race to the bottom. One place lowers its rates another place to compete lowers there's even further. It goes back and forth until the tax rate is zero and then we are going have to start paying companies to stay here. We have to provide something more than lower tax rates to to keep and attract companies here.

TheNewGirl

04-11-2011, 12:12 PM

Please tell me how a tax credit for hiring will prevent layoffs? or why a company considering layoffs would hire for a tax credit?

My parents have run small businesses since I was 8yo, I've seen the ins and outs. They have hired when there have been tax reasons to do so, yet the hiring was rarely permanent.

I do agree on the rest. Small business actually creates the most jobs, big business tends to lose jobs over time. Thus any platform that targets small business will be the leading generator of job growth.

Yet the corporate tax cuts aren't to entice existing corporations hire more, its to entice corporations to move here, or not leave here. When a corporation leaves, the jobs are gone for a very long time. Ontario manufacturing is the best example, those jobs are gone, possibly for good due to bad Ontario taxation policies at the provincial level.

So I agree with both the Cons and the NDP, less business taxation. Afterall, it is the end consumer that pays 100% of all taxes, as business just wraps any taxation into the final price. Thus tax the consumer directly, not the business, and remove layers of administration, waste and red tape.

I think your definition of what a 'small business' is is a lot smaller then it is in reality. To get the Small Business tax rate, we're talking about companies that make less than 3 million / year.

That's not that small. If my business does just under that in business a year, a 2% cut in the Small Business Tax rate saves nearly 60,000 a year which is one or two full time jobs that are protected if they're not made.

A lot of people see 'small business' and think one or two person shows out of a home office, but that's not the case. Those companies that fall into that category are a great deal larger and many of them have MANY employees. Many are francises of companies so you might mistake them for big business (Tim Hortons, Telus and McDonalds come to mind quickly), or they're private and highly specialized retail places. Many of the places that you all deal with for your car stuff probably fall in this category as well or any other place where there's labor intensive work that's not managed by a large corp.

Adds note:

azndude69> I would agree, I think the general rate needs to go up. The large corps have WAY too many tax shelters and while they theoretically pay 12% taxes, they in reality pay WAY WAY less then that.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 12:22 PM

If the only reason companies are staying here is our tax rate our country is :failed:. Lowering tax rates is just a race to the bottom. One place lowers its rates another place to compete lowers there's even further. It goes back and forth until the tax rate is zero and then we are going have to start paying companies to stay here. We have to provide something more than lower tax rates to to keep and attract companies here.
In the global economy it is a competition, look at how much tourism Vancouver has lost to Seattle in recent years as its cheaper to do business there. Look at how much film industry has come back to BC after being enticed south by our strong dollar, or to Ontario for tax incentives.

If you don't compete, then you cannot win.

As for providing more: what pray tell would you suggest our economy provide? we have low productivity and high costs of living. Tax incentives are the best means for us to compete.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 12:27 PM

I think your definition of what a 'small business' is is a lot smaller then it is in reality. To get the Small Business tax rate, we're talking about companies that make less than 3 million / year.
I keep referencing the employee tax credit, you keep referencing the business tax decrease. That's the issue.

Small business is 0-100 employees. That's small enough that no tax credit is going to encourage hiring. A tax cut may help, yet if you notice the many empty commercial spaces you'll realize that even a tax cut isn't the answer - the economy needs to improve.

The economy will only improve when people have more $$$ in their pockets to spend - and this means less wasted by government since we're not going to inflate our way out of this mess.

TheNewGirl

04-11-2011, 12:32 PM

Ah I don't think the hiring tax credit is worth while. Small business needs the $$ but they don't get it. It's only another tax shelter for larger businesses.

I totally agree with you that economic stimulus is what we need most right now.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 12:39 PM

Corporations are just hording cash (T-bills treasuries etc), and doing so in an ever increasing amount. The extra tax savings are not going to what the tax cuts are intended to do and thats to create more jobs, increase production, investment on new technologies that increase productivity.
You have to look at why corporations are hoarding cash - its no different than why many of my investments are in cash currently. The financial markets basically suck right now, the risk isn't worth the reward, so many are sitting on the fence waiting.

The biggest problem with corporate taxes are the loopholes that allow them to go to zero. Close the loopholes, institute a flat tax.

When you say the point of tax cuts is to prevent companies from shipping overseas to China or the states etc. Many of these companies are shipping because there is a competitive advantage there that BC/CANADA can not compete with. We can't compete with cheap textile china companies or manufacturing of certain goods. Ontario should not have manufacturing in industries that they do not have a competitive advantage, you can't compete with cheap labour and inputs, no matter how low the taxes are.
As I pointed out in a post above we're uncompetitive right now, low productivity and high costs, so tax incentives are the best way for us to compete. Tax incentives allow us to compete financially, and allow companies to spend $$$ to become competitive (new equipment, more employees, ...)

All I know is the gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing, and that can't be good for all of us.
I agree on this. Its loopholes that cause this. Warren Buffet has said this before, that his effective tax rate is less than his secretary's.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 12:42 PM

I totally agree with you that economic stimulus is what we need most right now.

As long as that stimulus comes from freeing up wasted $$$. Borrowing against our future doesn't work unless we can inflate our way out of it, which doesn't seem likely since our main trading partner has been in the dumps for 5 years with no end in site, and Chinese growth is slowing down.

TheNewGirl

04-11-2011, 12:44 PM

As long as that stimulus comes from freeing up wasted $$$. Borrowing against our future doesn't work unless we can inflate our way out of it, which doesn't seem likely since our main trading partner has been in the dumps for 5 years with no end in site, and Chinese growth is slowing down.

I agree.

And I believe that increasing the General Corp tax rate IS a good way to generate that money. Because it DOES have to come from some where.

Meowjin

04-11-2011, 12:49 PM

oh dear.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-weston-ag-fraser.html

The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits.

The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”

But in her letter addressed to members of a Commons committee on Friday, which was received by the clerk and members on Monday, Fraser said the quote had nothing to do with the summits.

Instead, she said, the Conservatives recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.

“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter.

“I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”
result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUvFSS25jo&feature=player_embedded

Tories misinformed Parliament on G8 fund, may have broken law: auditor general

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/tories-misinformed-parliament-on-g8-fund-may-have-broken-law-auditor-general-119595104.html

Among the questionable projects funded were:
— $274,000 on public toilets 20 km from the summit site.
— $100,000 on a gazebo an hour's drive away.
— $1.1 million for sidewalk and tree upgrades 100 km away.
— $194,000 for a park 100 km away.
— $745,000 on downtown improvements for three towns nearly 70 km away.

dutch

04-11-2011, 01:50 PM

Was just about to come post that. Thanks.

After all this shit has come out, you'd have to be nuts to vote for the conservatives.

Manic!

04-11-2011, 02:35 PM

Was just about to come post that. Thanks.

After all this shit has come out, you'd have to be nuts to vote for the conservatives.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/4281836.bin?size=620x400s

"I'm not listening"

taylor192

04-11-2011, 02:37 PM

I'm not listening
Canadians do NOT care.

Latest stats show it too. Harper's scores keep going up, while the other leaders stay flat.

deaner999

04-11-2011, 02:41 PM

BC marijuana Party

Manic!

04-11-2011, 03:40 PM

Canadians do NOT care.

http://www.sturm.to/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/broken_record_big.jpg

Meowjin

04-11-2011, 05:17 PM

deep87

04-11-2011, 05:50 PM

Canadians do NOT care what taylor192 thinks.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 06:15 PM

I'm canadian and I care.

Ffs taylor can you stop saying "canadians don't care". You sure as hell don't represent my views and a majority of canadians.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
No.

The Conservatives are still polling high despite the political controversies and the opposition parties not harping on the political controversies.

Need further evidence? You may care, yet your vote will be lost amongst the overwhelming majority that do not care.

taylor192

04-11-2011, 06:20 PM

A quote from Iggy:

"This is not me telling you this. This is the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, a respected public servant."

A quote from Fraser:

"I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund has been tabled in Parliament and made public," Fraser said. "Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention."

If you cannot read between the lines, she's not taking credit for the leaked report, meanwhile the Liberals are already jumping on it... makes you wonder who leaked it, and if its actually real.

For those who care, they may wish to consider that, especially since the strong caution from from the AG herself. Remember, she also exposed the Liberal sponsorship scandal so I trust her word over Iggy jumping on it. Yet the rest of us will continue not caring.

Bouncing Bettys

04-11-2011, 06:50 PM

taylor192

04-11-2011, 08:16 PM

on Real Time with Bill Maher over a week ago Randy Cohen made a very good point about corporate taxes/government regulations.

"Our corporate taxation policy sends one message, and it's 'Leave!'" - Doug Heye

"It only says 'Leave' if you have no identification with yourself as a citizen of this country and you feel you have no obligation to pay your fair share" - Randy Cohen
What is "fair"?
- Should we buy $500K of meds every year for someone who's going to die soon anyways? while the rest of us struggle to find a doctor?
- Should we give tax breaks to seniors who are living in homes worth more than any 30yo can afford?
- Should we subsidize arts programs that generate crap no-one wants to see?
- Should we pay teachers to work 25 years then live 30 years in gold plated retirement?
- Should we allow immigrants to bring their parents who will ever work, learn our language/culture, or contribute in any positive way to our society yet becomes a drain on our social and health services?
- ...

If government provided just the basic rights and freedoms I'd have no problem paying my fair share. Unfortunate "fair share" and taxes cannot be used in the same sentence. This is why tea party members push for less government - let citizens decide where their dollars go, that's fair.

Manic!

04-11-2011, 09:20 PM

What is "fair"?
- Should we buy $500K of meds every year for someone who's going to die soon anyways? while the rest of us struggle to find a doctor?
- Should we give tax breaks to seniors who are living in homes worth more than any 30yo can afford?
- Should we subsidize arts programs that generate crap no-one wants to see?
- Should we pay teachers to work 25 years then live 30 years in gold plated retirement?
- Should we allow immigrants to bring their parents who will ever work, learn our language/culture, or contribute in any positive way to our society yet becomes a drain on our social and health services?
- ...

If government provided just the basic rights and freedoms I'd have no problem paying my fair share. Unfortunate "fair share" and taxes cannot be used in the same sentence. This is why tea party members push for less government - let citizens decide where their dollars go, that's fair.

Why not just kill anyone that's non productive. Child has a mental deficiency end his life. A senior works hard all his life buys a nice house increase his taxes or force him to live in a shit hole. They give large corporations huge tax breaks. Let artist be poor like Vincent van Gogh then after they die sell there works for big money. Your parents live in another country and your father dies leaving he alone. Good she can fend for herself.

the Tea party is just a bunch of slack jawed yokels being controlled by big business with out them knowing it. Who leads or speaks for the tea party? tea Party answer: no one so if some one says something offensive they claim he doesn't speak for the Tea party and they kick the person out and that person joins another group like the: Tea Party patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party nation or some other tea Party.

Heard a new talking point on CNN today when the asked a republican about GE paying no taxes "decrease the rate widen the base" Code word for decrease taxes for the rich and increase taxes for the poor. America is messed they give tax breaks to the rich and then borrow money to pay for the tax breaks.

Harper's polices are the same as Bushes.

Meowjin

04-12-2011, 12:06 AM

Jack layton is making alot of sense lately.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 08:09 AM

Why not just kill anyone that's non productive. Child has a mental deficiency end his life. A senior works hard all his life buys a nice house increase his taxes or force him to live in a shit hole. They give large corporations huge tax breaks. Let artist be poor like Vincent van Gogh then after they die sell there works for big money. Your parents live in another country and your father dies leaving he alone. Good she can fend for herself.
I'm not saying kill everyone drama queen - I'm saying $500K to keep 1 person alive is a waste compared to how much good it can do for many others. Those are the tough decisions that have to be made - and lot, a lefty drama queen cannot make the tough decision of what's more beneficial - surprise surprise.

My grandparents moved to Canada from England and Poland, my great grand parents stayed in Europe. Its what families did to live better lives, before they started turning to government with their hand out.

No-one is forcing a senior to live in a shithole. Stop being a drama queen. There's plenty of seniors in Vancouver living in $1M homes would could easily downscale to a condo for $400K and pocket the $600K to live off of - yet that doesn't fit the image you have of seniors, despite them being the highest salary group in Canada, as well as sitting on the most assets. Yet that doesn't add up in your silly moral world where no-one should ever have to sell their house and actually use the money invested in it.

Artists should be treated like any other profession - if you cannot make it it means you suck and you should find other work. There's so many struggling artists asking for funding - cause the reality is that they suck. No-one wants to buy their crap.

m!chael

04-12-2011, 10:52 AM

Why not just kill anyone that's non productive. Child has a mental deficiency end his life. A senior works hard all his life buys a nice house increase his taxes or force him to live in a shit hole. They give large corporations huge tax breaks. Let artist be poor like Vincent van Gogh then after they die sell there works for big money. Your parents live in another country and your father dies leaving he alone. Good she can fend for herself.

the Tea party is just a bunch of slack jawed yokels being controlled by big business with out them knowing it. Who leads or speaks for the tea party? tea Party answer: no one so if some one says something offensive they claim he doesn't speak for the Tea party and they kick the person out and that person joins another group like the: Tea Party patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party nation or some other tea Party.

Heard a new talking point on CNN today when the asked a republican about GE paying no taxes "decrease the rate widen the base" Code word for decrease taxes for the rich and increase taxes for the poor. America is messed they give tax breaks to the rich and then borrow money to pay for the tax breaks.

Harper's polices are the same as Bushes.

You bring up some good points, I just want to point out something. If I purchase a company's stocks, I become a shareholder. That means I'm one of many owners of that company. Corporations have the incentive to decrease their costs and become more efficient in order to maximize shareholder value. When taxes are higher, there's more incentive for corporations to use debt for the tax shield it provides. That means more financing through debt and less through equity. I rather the tax rate decrease so more equity is issued AND that there would be more after tax profit to be distributed as dividends. These dividends are a supplemental income for me in a sense. Also, if the value of the stock goes up, that means the value of my retirement savings go up. I win all around.

I know I simplified the explanation quite a bit but it still stands.

Corporations = shareholders.
Shareholders = us and our parents.

Manic!

04-12-2011, 12:45 PM

I'm not saying kill everyone drama queen - I'm saying $500K to keep 1 person alive is a waste compared to how much good it can do for many others. Those are the tough decisions that have to be made - and lot, a lefty drama queen cannot make the tough decision of what's more beneficial - surprise surprise.

My grandparents moved to Canada from England and Poland, my great grand parents stayed in Europe. Its what families did to live better lives, before they started turning to government with their hand out.

No-one is forcing a senior to live in a shithole. Stop being a drama queen. There's plenty of seniors in Vancouver living in $1M homes would could easily downscale to a condo for $400K and pocket the $600K to live off of - yet that doesn't fit the image you have of seniors, despite them being the highest salary group in Canada, as well as sitting on the most assets. Yet that doesn't add up in your silly moral world where no-one should ever have to sell their house and actually use the money invested in it.

Artists should be treated like any other profession - if you cannot make it it means you suck and you should find other work. There's so many struggling artists asking for funding - cause the reality is that they suck. No-one wants to buy their crap.

I was just a matter of time before the true dark side of the conservative party came. Harper can control only so many people.

So you want to set up death panels that deny care if it cost to much. It won't mater to the rich because they will be able to afford private care leaving the ones with out means to die or sell everything they have and beg for enough money so they can afford care. I wonder how the pro life conservatives would feel about that.

Forcing seniors to sell the house they have lived in for 30 plus years and then give tax cuts to the rich and large corporations, good one.

TheNewGirl

04-12-2011, 12:58 PM

I was just a matter of time before the true dark side of the conservative party came. Harper can control only so many people.

So you want to set up death panels that deny care if it cost to much. It won't mater to the rich because they will be able to afford private care leaving the ones with out means to die or sell everything they have and beg for enough money so they can afford care. I wonder how the pro life conservatives would feel about that.

Forcing seniors to sell the house they have lived in for 30 plus years and then give tax cuts to the rich and large corporations, good one.

Seniors SHOULD liquidate their assets if they're lacking the cash to support themselves. That's the point in investing in a home, so you can turn it into $$ when you need it. Other wise you might as well just rent because you're really not ever going to get an advantage out of it.

I am totally up for spending money to save people, and giving money to low income seniors but the ones who have the money in assets should have to use that money before they get government hand outs, other wise there will NEVER be enough to go around.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 01:03 PM

I was just a matter of time before the true dark side of the conservative party came. Harper can control only so many people.
He's done a great job so far. Keep up the fear mongering... oh wait, didn't you criticize the Conservatives for fear mongering? PKB

So you want to set up death panels that deny care if it cost to much. It won't mater to the rich because they will be able to afford private care leaving the ones with out means to die or sell everything they have and beg for enough money so they can afford care. I wonder how the pro life conservatives would feel about that.
Since you haven't caught on, how about you read the local news. I'm referencing a particular case of a 22yo being denied drugs that cost $500K/yr. Thus these "death panels" are already setup. There was also a case in Ontario where parents wanted treatment to extended their terminal baby's life - yet it was decided against cause it would be a waste.

Thus these hard decisions already happen - yet look at the silly lefties that don't think they do, nor want to make them. This is why you'll never be trusted with my money.

Forcing seniors to sell the house they have lived in for 30 plus years and then give tax cuts to the rich and large corporations, good one.
That's your morals, not mine. I see it as creating jobs for struggling unemployed people, while cutting off the outstretched hand of someone sitting on tons of $$$.

People are such hypocrites, especially Vancouverites. On one hand real estate is an "investment", makes everyone rich, separates the rich from the poor - until they are forced to sell in which case real estate becomes a "home" that the poor should subsidize them to afford.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 01:06 PM

Seniors SHOULD liquidate their assets if they're lacking the cash to support themselves. That's the point in investing in a home, so you can turn it into $$ when you need it. Other wise you might as well just rent because you're really not ever going to get an advantage out of it.

I am totally up for spending money to save people, and giving money to low income seniors but the ones who have the money in assets should have to use that money before they get government hand outs, other wise there will NEVER be enough to go around.
That's the problem with GIS and tax credits, it only takes into account income, not assets.

There's lots of "poor" seniors in Vancouver that take advantage of a program to defer paying property tax, although they live in SFH worth on average > $1M as of today. Why should my taxes subsidize them to stay in their million dollar homes?

Looking forward to hearing how that's "fair". TheNewGirl, that's not a shot at you, its towards the others who know who they are :)

Meowjin

04-12-2011, 01:09 PM

there is alot of seniors that liquidate when they retire. Just look at the greek migration out of kits.

xyz123

04-12-2011, 01:15 PM

Thanks Revscene, This thread got me even more interested in Canadian Politics, in addition, got me researching what the issues are and how each party will respond to it. Just got my Election Card, this will be my first federal election :thumbsup: Anyone going to watch the political debate today? Starts at 4:00pm.

Link to live streaming
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/#

Anyone see the somewhat fail hand written signs; heading North on Knight Street between King Ed and Broadway regarding direct attacks to Harper?

TheNewGirl

04-12-2011, 01:26 PM

That's the problem with GIS and tax credits, it only takes into account income, not assets.

There's lots of "poor" seniors in Vancouver that take advantage of a program to defer paying property tax, although they live in SFH worth on average > $1M as of today. Why should my taxes subsidize them to stay in their million dollar homes?

Looking forward to hearing how that's "fair". TheNewGirl, that's not a shot at you, its towards the others who know who they are :)

Well everyone who pays into CPP gets CPP but for the 'top up' it SHOULD be more like when you apply for welfare and EI where they make you list not only all your income but all your assets and savings.

I'm SOOO against giving money out to those who don't need it (like the current and ridiculious child care benefit that sends $100/month or what ever it is to all parents of kids under 5 regardless of if they are rich or poor or even have their kids in childcare). I'm very pro social intervention personally but these need to be targeted and efficent or they're wasting everyone's money.

Taylor I know we don't agree on much but it burns me too if someone is living in a million dollar property and yet MY hard earned money are supporting them while I pay for my rental apartment and we can agree on that.

ANOTHER thing is, that allowing older people to hold their property longer than they should is part of the reason for rapidly inflating housing costs. If we had all our seniors liquidating their homes when they needed to for the $$ (rather then taking loans out against their homes) we would have a far higher turn over in the market and a healthier, more buyer oriented climate.

carisear

04-12-2011, 01:43 PM

I'm SOOO against giving money out to those who don't need it (like the current and ridiculious child care benefit that sends $100/month or what ever it is to all parents of kids under 5 regardless of if they are rich or poor or even have their kids in childcare). I'm very pro social intervention personally but these need to be targeted and efficent or they're wasting everyone's money.

Once again this falls unto peoples different meanings of 'fair'

I *MASSIVELY APPLAUD* everyone getting a child care benefit. Personally speaking, my mother was a stay-at-home mother, and not once did she ever get any 'benefit'. I'm glad that future generations of parents will all get it.

And you can't say that the rich are getting all the breaks. What do they compromise, like 1% of the population? so 99% of the population benefits as well. seems fair to me.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 01:54 PM

Thanks Revscene, This thread got me even more interested in Canadian Politics, in addition, got me researching what the issues are and how each party will respond to it.
Awesome! :thumbsup:

As much as we razz each other in this thread, the important part is that we want to discuss politics. Maybe some of it will be wrong, will be biased, ... yet anything that gets more Canadians interested in politics is great!

TheNewGirl

04-12-2011, 01:55 PM

Your mother got a child tax benefit if your family's income dictated that she needed it.

The problem with the current 'child care' program is that $100/month is NOTHING in offsetting the costs of childcare for those who need and use it (Childcare for a child under 5 in the GVRD is between $600 and $1200/month. For a child under 3 it's more in the $1000 - $2000/month range).

For those families that are truly poor, you can get a provincial subsidy, but I have to be clear when I was making $12.15/hour and the only income in my household I was making too much to qualify for it except for a couple months a year (and then I got a petty $35/month).

For the families that are above the poverty line but not by much, the fact that the government believes $100/month solves all their problems is well... insulting. Mean while they waste hundreds of thousands of dollars a year giving this same benefit to families that are high income and not in need of it.

The government could instead, redistribute the money, by adding it as a $200 additional to the child tax benefit for families under a designated income threshold (I would even be generous and say something like 80k).

It's not money that's meant to pay stay at home moms (though I applaud them and believe they totally deserve some sort of financial reward). But the money is SPECIFICALLY to offset the high costs of childcare.

This is clearly one of those 'someone who's never had the problem invented a band-aide solution that didn't help anyone' situations. There are MANY of these when rich white guy politicians try and tackle poverty issues.

Meowjin

04-12-2011, 02:14 PM

I receive pension till I'm 25. Not going to lie. That 220 dollars a month actually helps.

Manic!

04-12-2011, 02:49 PM

I wish they would have a real debate instead of getting a question and then repeating one of the speeches they have memorized.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 03:01 PM

I wish they would have a real debate instead of getting a question and then repeating one of the speeches they have memorized.

They are so prepped that a real debate is not possible. If you want to hear a real debate, watch what happens in Parliament, its awesome when they start bickering with each other across the room.

Manic!

04-12-2011, 03:16 PM

Jets, Jails and Corporate Taxes

LiquidTurbo

04-12-2011, 04:23 PM

Anyone watching the debate??

http://www.facebook.com/newscbc?sk=app_210790438933545

Manic!

04-12-2011, 04:45 PM

I'm watching.

LiquidTurbo

04-12-2011, 05:00 PM

Jack Layton got some SWEET punches in tonight!

TheNewGirl

04-12-2011, 05:26 PM

I'm watching.

I only caught the tail end of it. I was less then thrilled.

I think Layton was the only one who was engaging or really on the ball.

iEatClams

04-12-2011, 08:16 PM

There's plenty of seniors in Vancouver living in $1M homes would could easily downscale to a condo for $400K and pocket the $600K to live off of - yet that doesn't fit the image you have of seniors, despite them being the highest salary group in Canada, as well as sitting on the most assets. Yet that doesn't add up in your silly moral world where no-one should ever have to sell their house and actually use the money invested in it.

+ 1

I'm sick of hearing old people complain about how they are "taxed" out of their properties that they bought 10-20 years ago.

These seniors basically hit the lottery. They basically own a home that's worth $1 million ++. Even if they don't want to buy that 400K condo, they can just rent a home nearby. They can easily live off that cash and GIS/ OAS payments for the rest of their LIVES plus have room for inheritence to give to their kids.

If I made $50,000 after taxes, it would take me 20 years to save up $1million. thats assuming I don't spend ANYTHING at all!

These seniors basically hit the lottery.

iEatClams

04-12-2011, 08:47 PM

This is clearly one of those 'someone who's never had the problem invented a band-aide solution that didn't help anyone' situations. There are MANY of these when rich white guy politicians try and tackle poverty issues.

+ 1

As someone whose family use to be on welfare at one point in my life. It's hard to get out of poverty. Some of my friends and I that grew up in poverty and were lucky enough to get out of it all really dislike rich guys that don't understand how it's like to be poor yet criticize the poor for being broke.

I'm sure many here that were from less fortunate families understand the struggles and how hard it is to get out of it.

On a policy level. IMHO, I personally think that we should increase the basic personal tax amount to about $15,000 . The lowest 10% of income earners contribute such a small amount to the total tax collected anyways.

This will result in more money in poor peoples pockets because they will pay ~ $950 less in taxes per year. Most of this money will be used on consumer goods anyways such as food, rent,education etc and will just go back into the economy. It will at least give poor people a chance to improve themselves.

But the problem with this policy is that the average person would not understand how taxes work or how these basic federal/provincial amounts effect them and that taxes are calculated MARGINALLY.

I remember working in my last year of highschool and how many guys in their young 20s don't want to earn more because they will be afraid they will be put in a higher tax bracket, not understanding that taxes are taxed on the next dollar you make.

Politicians would rather say "reduced tax rates" or "more spending on so and so program" instead cuase they would rather win votes than have good public policy.

Just my humble opinion.

taylor192

04-12-2011, 08:54 PM

Watching the debate on demand now, comments below:

I love how Harper kept harping (pun intended) on the fact the opposition forced the election that Canadians do not want. So true.

I love how Layton hit on the Conservatives got people in trouble financially... yes cause they forced Canadians to spend too much and not save enough. Layton has been watching too many Disney movies, maybe he should have read the book where the Grasshopper dies.

I love how Iggy focuses on the learning passport without mentioning the unemployment is highest amongst young people who cannot find jobs to justify the high cost of their degrees.

I love how Harper keeps mentioning 200K jobs and $40B, while the opposition keeps asking for facts and figures without providing any of how not cutting corporate taxes will affect the economy.

Layton just said something compelling to Iggy: You supported Harper 100 times without getting anything in return. That's disgusting politics, I expect more from Layton.

I love how Layton keeps digging Iggy about supporting the corporate tax cuts and HST. That should help dig the Liberals a bigger hole!

I was glad Harper mentioned Haiti.

Iggy, no-one cares about the UN seat.

Why does Iggy focus on the G8/G20 spending more than any of the others? Despite Shelia Fraser herself, the most respected woman on the hill, saying to wait, not rely on the leaked report, and she's furious about the leak. Give it up dude, going against her, who exposed the Liberal sponsorship scandal, does not make a Liberal leader look good.

Best yet! In response to the questions about minority government working together Iggy criticizing corporate taxes cuts he voted for, jets his party initiated, ... as details the Conservatives hide from parties. You have to wonder why he's being a hypocrite saying Conservatives are hiding details when these details the Liberals voted on or initiated.

Layton was awesome: "You're seeing an example of what is broken in Parliament" after Iggy and Harper were trading barbs. :)

cressydrift

04-12-2011, 08:56 PM

Canadian debate is such a joke.

Jack Layton was whoring with his smug smile and memorized campaign slogans. They all suck.

Nightwalker

04-12-2011, 09:02 PM

Again, happy for another chance to vote against Harper.

Carl Johnson

04-12-2011, 09:46 PM

The whole G8/G20 debate was pretty funny. On one hand Harper gets criticized for spending taxpayer money for holding that conference in Toronto. Yet the Liberals and NDP said Canada has lost its prestige on the World stage. Hang on a second, isn't the whole point to these conferences here in Canada is to ensure we solidify our standing in the world? Many countries would love to have the chance to hold this important meeting.

Another point Harper said I thought was also very true is that, at this moment in our economic recovery we should be focusing on job creation and the economy, instead of this election non-sense and all the political bickering. I watched the whole 2 hour debate and to no surprise Harper was just cool as usual despite all the finger-pointing and balking.

CP.AR

04-12-2011, 10:45 PM

Watched it at the gym.

Man i've seen grade 7 classroom debates more civilized than this.
Layton just yelling over Harper when he was speaking was just plain rude and disgusting.

JD¹³

04-13-2011, 01:09 AM

Is Gilles Duceppe serious? Yes, let's vote him in as PM so he can break up the country and then run both sides. The Bloc are a joke and should be banned from Federal politics. Gilles, I'm embarrassed to have you representing Canada (that includes Quebec) on the international stage in any way shape or form. If you dislike Canada so much please leave.

I only saw the highlights but actually liked how Layton was sticking it to the Liberals on their flip-flopping. He seemed like a more stand-up guy than in previous debates I've seen. BUT, if he was truly shouting over people and being rude then that negates everything I just said.

Iggy is representing the Liberals very poorly and in trying to lean left is going to fail to capture those votes from the NDP while alienating his right which may swing Conservative. Layton did make him look bad today.

My prediction is a Conservative majority with the Liberals losing seats to the NDP.

CP.AR

04-13-2011, 09:40 AM

^ yeah Layton was pretty much doing the following:

when Harper made his statements/answers to questions, Layton doesn't wait until he is done to give his comments (while Ignatieff and Duceppe does patiently wait until harper is done). Layton just goes OH BUT YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, harper would kind of still and ignore him, and layton does his OH DON'T IGNORE THE FACT BLAH BLAH BLAH to the point where I think the sound mixer turned his mic volume down.

I had good hopes in Layton, moreso the Liberals this election, but Layton's rude behaviour absolutely disgusted me, and pretty much took away all the credibility he had in my mind

just my 2 cents

highfive

04-13-2011, 09:53 AM

I only started watching the part when they were all talking multiculturalism and Layton was blah blah blah on families/temporary workers...then Ducieppe came in and started asking Layton about Bill 101 whether he agrees or not. Layton just avoided the question and Ducieppe kept forcing on him to answer it. haha it was so stupid, you can tell he wanted to tell Ducieppe and his French party to fuck off.

Meowjin

04-13-2011, 01:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OteMcbZ13L8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbPz6hMa1c&feature=player_embedded

yep

I await taylor's defense.

Meowjin

04-13-2011, 01:45 PM

JD¹³

04-13-2011, 01:49 PM

yep
Same-sex marriage is legal. Harper has said that even if he gets a majority he would not reopen debate or attempt to push through any new legislation. He'd never get it reversed anyway, it's a dead issue.

Manic!

04-13-2011, 01:54 PM

Same-sex marriage is legal. Harper has said that even if he gets a majority he would not reopen debate or attempt to push through any new legislation. He'd never get it reversed anyway, it's a dead issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative government motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years.

In politics never say never.

Manic!

04-13-2011, 01:55 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OteMcbZ13L8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbPz6hMa1c&feature=player_embedded

yep

I await taylor's defense.

I think Harpers Bi-confused.

taylor192

04-13-2011, 01:58 PM

I await taylor's defense.
As JD13 points out Harper has already made a public statement on the Conservative party's stance on gay marriage and abortion.

If you were paying attention and not looking for material for attack ads you'd know this. Its funny how the left hates the Conservative attack ads, yet almost every online forum/blog is filled with lefties digging up attack material, and Iggy spends the entire debate attacking Harper rather than presenting the Liberal platform.

Besides, like any team winning, I'll just point to the scoreboard. Conservatives are far ahead in the latest poll as the Liberals slip, so no need for a defense.

Meowjin

04-13-2011, 02:02 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc-C8aZXz4Y&feature=related

taylor192

04-13-2011, 02:03 PM

Are we going to reward contempt of Parliament?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Gardner+going+reward+contempt+Parliament/4564215/story.html

Taylor's Defense: It doesn't matter if he wouldn't tell canadians where our money is being spent, I mean if someone came to my house in a car wrapped in gold and fixed my plumbing then gave me a 25,000 dollar bill, it doesn't matter because my plumber is the most honest man alive.
Harper stated the reason if you watched the debate. The House voted on contempt, and the opposition has more votes. He's not the first PM to not disclose the costs of something, he's just the first one to do it with a minority and have the opposition call him on it.

I know that's a subtle difference that you'd incapable of picking up - yet thankfully most Canadians do not care.

If my plumber hands me a bill for $200, I don't ask him how much plumbing tape he used and try to itemize it into the costs. Then again, I'm not a drama queen lefty.

Have you noticed that you can only make a point by being over the top, out of context, or dig into old history? You might try being relevant, and tell that to Iggy at the same time or else the Conservatives may very well get a majority.

Meowjin

04-13-2011, 02:04 PM

So what's your opinion on gays and gay marriage?

Jesus dude. You are something else. This is our money. The tax payers money. I want to know the costs. The government should never hide it.

Meowjin

04-13-2011, 02:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKF7Vw1uf4&feature=related

JD¹³

04-13-2011, 02:26 PM

In politics never say never.
Nev....
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/7133/unled2copyd.jpg

taylor192

04-13-2011, 02:57 PM

So what's your opinion on gays and gay marriage?

Jesus dude. You are something else. This is our money. The tax payers money. I want to know the costs. The government should never hide it.
Does it matter what my opinion is?

The government should never hide money. This is why the Liberals lost their majority thanks to Shelia Fraser. Ironic how she won't even support the leaked document that the Liberals are harping on.

I am something else you're not: educated and informed.

Here's an awesome quote from your article:
“The licence to govern in Canada is the confidence of the House of Commons,” Russell says. “Period. Full stop.”

No minority government has the confidence of the house. None. Zero. Full stop. Tolerance would be a far better word. They tolerate each other until one sees an opportunity to gain some seats, then an election is forced.

The proof is in how many minority governments have run the full term without an election being forced. Care to guess how many ran a full term? I'll help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_minority_governments_in_Canada

taylor192

04-13-2011, 05:25 PM

How to start each day with a positive outlook:

1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it "Michael Ignatieff".
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: 'Do you really want to get rid of "Michael Ignatieff?"
6. Firmly click 'Yes.'
7. Feel better?

LiquidTurbo

04-13-2011, 05:43 PM

^ lol?

SFUguy

04-13-2011, 08:48 PM

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/2300/2312312.png

Is it just me or does this guy look drunk? No racial

TheKingdom2000

04-13-2011, 09:50 PM

is there a website that compares all the parties promises?

I have no idea what's going on really. I don't know what they are promising or not etc.

goo3

04-14-2011, 12:54 AM

is there a website that compares all the parties promises?

I have no idea what's going on really. I don't know what they are promising or not etc.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/compare-the-party-platforms/article1964156/?from=1984748

Sid Vicious

04-14-2011, 12:17 PM

is there a website that compares all the parties promises?

I have no idea what's going on really. I don't know what they are promising or not etc.

here you go, ive helped you out a bit
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_shZA1M4KR90/S-5o0wd_f4I/AAAAAAAAAWU/_odd12ASy9k/s1600/CoinFlip39.jpg

EDIT: after actually reading the link posted above, i can only rant at how stupidly retarded some of these policies are.
"Establish "National Food Policy," which includes measures such as: new food labeling regulations; stronger regulation on transfats and salt; $40-million over four years for Healthy Start program" 40 million dollars wasted

TheNewGirl

04-14-2011, 12:57 PM

LiquidTurbo

04-14-2011, 02:34 PM

In case anyone missed the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYE2d4LJ5M&feature=feedlik

TheNewGirl

04-14-2011, 03:30 PM

here you go, ive helped you out a bit
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_shZA1M4KR90/S-5o0wd_f4I/AAAAAAAAAWU/_odd12ASy9k/s1600/CoinFlip39.jpg

EDIT: after actually reading the link posted above, i can only rant at how stupidly retarded some of these policies are.
"Establish "National Food Policy," which includes measures such as: new food labeling regulations; stronger regulation on transfats and salt; $40-million over four years for Healthy Start program" 40 million dollars wasted

Actually the food labeling policy is fantastic, and about fucking time. We all have a right to know what's in our food and as someone with a serious allergy, I can assure you, the current system doesn't work. The number of times I've had a reaction to something that wasn't on a label is astounding and if that one ingredient that I react to can be unwittingly contaminating so many items, think of all the other ones that can be.

I don't care so much about regulating salt and fats, that's for people to look at the label and choose if they want to ingest something but I demand that those labels be accurate so people CAN make informed choices about what they're eating and you should to.

LiquidTurbo

04-14-2011, 09:15 PM

http://www.leadnow.ca/en/hands-off-our-ballots

LOL

Meowjin

04-14-2011, 10:43 PM

http://www.leadnow.ca/en/hands-off-our-ballots

LOL

Taylor mode on:

Good for the conservatives, who wants to let those greedy fuckers who are the generation of tomorrow have any power in how a bunch of old fucks run the coutnry.

orange7

04-14-2011, 11:49 PM

There needs to be a RS party. :fullofwin:

goo3

04-15-2011, 12:03 AM

The CBC Did a fact check on their debate discussion at least. And has a running tally of the true/false on various public statements and promises.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/

So far a whole whopping... 4 pass, 26 fail and 17 50/50s

In case anyone missed the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYE2d4LJ5M&feature=feedlik

LOL and the point of watching that would be what? You might as well go watch porn instead before voting.

If somebody did a fact check for the stuff posted in this thread, I think you'd get similar numbers.

goo3

04-15-2011, 03:53 AM

Taylor mode on:

Good for the conservatives, who wants to let those greedy fuckers who are the generation of tomorrow have any power in how a bunch of old fucks run the coutnry.

If the students did it legit, then Elections Canada will count the votes. If not, then they'll have to do it again. We don't run ghetto ballot boxes in Canada. What's the point of the website? An online petition's not gonna change the integrity of the ballots.

taylor192

04-15-2011, 06:43 AM

Taylor mode on:

Good for the conservatives, who wants to let those greedy fuckers who are the generation of tomorrow have any power in how a bunch of old fucks run the coutnry.

You're a fucking idiot, I have not once said anything remotely like that. I know name calling is frowned upon, yet if you're going to make asinine statements I reserve the right to call you an idiot.

I would have a problem with this style of voting regardless of party affiliation. A vote is a personal thing, thus why you vote in a single booth and no campaigning is allowed even close to the site. Watch the UVic Vote Mob video, there's students depending respect yet holding up signs with basically campaign party policies on them. Since you don't like how the Conservatives disrespect the political process I am very surprised you're supporting a movement which essentially does the same.

Here are the rules for Special Ballots: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90540&lang=e

Once an elector's application to vote by special ballot is approved, that is the only way he or she can vote. The elector cannot vote at the ordinary or advance polls.

Elections Canada will comment today on what happened. I'm willing to bet those 700 students don't meet the criteria for a Special Vote and were not approved - yet I am willing to wait for an official announcement before condemning what happened.

Update:

Elections Canada issued a statement on Friday that said the special ballots were not pre-authorized but they will still be counted in the May 2 election.

The Conservatives had a right to challenge the votes as even Elections Canada admits the proper process was not followed.

My concern is this sets a bad standard. Anyone could organize a huge partisan following, aka mob, then head to the voting station. We all know how mob mentality works, people often get involved who otherwise would not - thus this would be akin to dragging voters to the ballot boxes which is against our election process.

Could you imagine me going into a seniors home, getting the old folks all riled up, then heading down to the nearest ballot box? Do you think anyone would accuse me of vote tampering?

Meowjin

04-15-2011, 12:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-TEGzstjg8

LiquidTurbo

04-18-2011, 06:57 AM

Does Jack Layton and the NDP have any realistic chance of winning? If they did win, what would it mean for Canada?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

TheNewGirl

04-18-2011, 07:32 AM

Does Jack Layton and the NDP have any realistic chance of winning? If they did win, what would it mean for Canada?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Not for winning, the do have a realistic chance of becoming the opposition though which really I think is the ring Layton's after at the moment.

LiquidTurbo

04-18-2011, 11:49 AM

carisear

04-18-2011, 12:00 PM

I kinda like Jack Layton after the debate. He had some really good points and hurt Ignatief big time when he mentioned his shitty attendance record. Iggy's just a bit too cocky.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

you have to realize everything that is said in ads are all half truths.

iggy didn't attend votes because he agreed to prop up the gov't. that is actually a GOOD thing because we've had a semi-stable minority gov't for the past couple years.

it's not because he was lazy, as was implied. i don't like his policies at all, but i'm not going to slam him for something he isn't.

m!chael

04-18-2011, 12:30 PM

Serious question to those who are voting for the NDP.

Where do you see Canada in 2-4 years? Economically, socially, on the world stage, etc.

TheNewGirl

04-18-2011, 12:35 PM

Serious question to those who are voting for the NDP.

Where do you see Canada in 2-4 years? Economically, socially, on the world stage, etc.

Shouldn't be that a question for EVERYONE regardless of who they're voting for?

Meowjin

04-18-2011, 12:45 PM

Serious question to those who are voting for the NDP.

Where do you see Canada in 2-4 years? Economically, socially, on the world stage, etc.

I will support any party that moves the state of israel to nunavet or to the oblast lands and stop this whole middle east bullshit with israel.

m!chael

04-18-2011, 12:59 PM

Shouldn't be that a question for EVERYONE regardless of who they're voting for?

True, if people who are going to vote for the conservatives and liberals want to chime in as well that would be great. My question comes from personal curiosity towards the NDP, especially seeing how Jack Layton is experiencing a surge in popularity following the debate.

m!chael

04-18-2011, 01:21 PM

I will support any party that moves the state of israel to nunavet or to the oblast lands and stop this whole middle east bullshit with israel.

But then who will the uneducated rednecks hate on?

Lets be real here Majin. Looking at your posts on this site, you're one confused person. Hating others is probably the only thing keeping you away from hating yourself. Go finish school and get a real job with real people (not being surrounded by drunk people in a night club). Then, when you've developed a mature thought process, come back and give your opinion.

belka

04-18-2011, 02:15 PM

I will support any party that moves the state of israel to nunavet or to the oblast lands and stop this whole middle east bullshit with israel.

Wow, so much hate towards a country that has absolutely zero direct impact on your life. Pathetic.

Meowjin

04-18-2011, 02:23 PM

But then who will the uneducated rednecks hate on?

Lets be real here Majin. Looking at your posts on this site, you're one confused person. Hating others is probably the only thing keeping you away from hating yourself. Go finish school and get a real job with real people (not being surrounded by drunk people in a night club). Then, when you've developed a mature thought process, come back and give your opinion.

I was trolling :rolleyes:

TheNewGirl

04-18-2011, 02:28 PM

True, if people who are going to vote for the conservatives and liberals want to chime in as well that would be great. My question comes from personal curiosity towards the NDP, especially seeing how Jack Layton is experiencing a surge in popularity following the debate.

I'm not an NDP supporter but I will tell you that when you look at the hard numbers, the NDP being irresponsible with $ idea is largely right wing rhetoric that's well... done it's job very well.

For example here in BC, while the BCNDP ran our province, they dealt with the collapse of the Asian markets but still increased our GDP by 3.3% and change. The Liberals? 2.8%. The NDP increased the deficit provincially by 19 billion. The Liberals, a government who made a law saying they would never run a deficit budget, rang the tab up by 28 billion. Under the NDP the unemployment rate was in the neighborhood of 6%, under the liberals it's still hovering around 8%.

Most of you would feel that it is "common knowledge" that the NDP (federal or provincial) is fiscally less responsible and a worse choice for our province, but I don't know... when I look at the #s that doesn't seem to be the case.

The same holds true on a federal front. I think the Conservatives have done a very good job as branding themselves as the "Fiscally responsible choice" but when you look at the raw data, that's doesn't materialize, and in fact, I would (and have) argue(d) that the financial stability of our country is the legacy of stable, long term Liberal leadership.

As far as Layton himself, you know what? He's growing on me a great deal. He is a charismatic and engaging leader (which is one up on everyone else) who isn't afraid to speak up about issues that need to be addressed. He's also the only national party leader who's own party is internally stable, which goes a long way to showing his leadership skills. And I don't think he would bankrupt the country any more or less than any of the other parties will.

I DO have concerns about his lack of skills dealing with International politics, not so much with Asia, as he has strong ties and experience there, but with the US and the Middle East. I feel that both Harper and Ignatiff have a better understanding of these issues, and I would argue Ignatiff's single largest benefit is he has a full appreciation of our position internationally (which is sinking, rapidly), and an awareness of the mistakes being made by our partners down south (rather then blindly following them as Harper seems to want to do).

To me, I'm more concerned about what's going on on the home front, but I do think some international savy is important, because building new ties and trade partnerships that don't center on the US is vital to our success as a country in this next decade.

Personally? I think Layton would be one fantastic opposition leader, better at being one then a PM (and I still think that's what he's shooting for in this election). Unfortunately I think people would hate him, because he would be loud and vocal, but most people don't really seem to understand that that is the job an opposition leader is elected to do.

If he gains some seats in this election, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that by the next one we could all be so sick of the Liberals and Tories, tell them both to fuck off and elect an NDP government... they'd just have to find a way to gain some traction in Quebec.

As for Liberal party leadership, in all honesty, everyone is a place holder until Justin Trudaeu takes the reigns of the party (which he's stated he's not ready to do as of yet). And besides Layton, really he's one of the few people in Canadian politics that I think could (and does) actively engage the youth vote. I think things will change for the Liberal party in about 6-8 years and I doubt we'll see a Liberal lead government (barring wacky coalitions) until then.