[godwin]

We are off!

Whichever party that promises to reinstate long form census and especially better data collecting in real estate field.. will get my preferred consideration. We need data to make good decisions, we don't need any more good politicking.

Which candidate is "ready" or not.. doesn't really matter to me.. as in life circumstances usually shape people..



Stephen Harper asks governor general to dissolve parliament and kick off long federal election campaign (http://www.theprovince.com/news/national/Stephen+Harper+asks+governor+general+dissolve+parl iament/11261578/story.html)

By The Canadian Press August 2, 2015 8:17 AM

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has asked Governor General David Johnston to dissolve Parliament, touching off an 11-week campaign in advance of an election Oct. 19.

Harper made the announcement today outside Rideau Hall, square in the middle of the August holiday weekend, ending months of speculation and conjecture about when the campaign would begin.

He was quickly peppered with media questions about why he was subjecting Canadians to a campaign that promises to be the longest in more than a century and the costliest in the country’s political history.

Simple, Harper replied: Conservative rivals are already campaigning, and they’re doing it on the public dime.

“If we’re going to begin our campaigns and run our campaigns, that those campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law, that the money come from the parties themselves, not from the government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources,” he said.

“In terms of the advantages this party has, in terms of the fact that we are a better financed political party, a better organized political party and better supported by Canadians, those advantages exist whether we call this campaign or not.

“What we do by calling this campaign is making sure we are all operating within the rules and not using taxpayers’ money directly.”

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair was scheduled to launch his party’s campaign moments after Harper’s event; Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is scheduled to make a statement later in Vancouver, where he is attending that city’s Pride parade.

Harper stands to become the first prime minister since Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1908 to win four consecutive elections.

The very rarity of that feat goes a long way towards explaining his real reasons for choosing to formally call Canada’s 42nd election in the middle of a holiday weekend in the dead of summer, triggering a gruelling, 11-week marathon rather than the five-week sprint that’s typified federal campaigns in recent times.

The unusually long campaign activates an obscure provision in the Harper government’s overhaul of election laws last year, allowing parties and their candidates to spend more than double the spending limits of $25 million and $100,000, respectively, that would have applied for a minimum 37-day campaign.

Having amassed vastly more money than any other party, the increased spending limits give the Conservative party and its candidates a huge advantage over their more impoverished rivals.

It’s been clear for weeks how the ruling party intends to use its financial advantage: to carpet bomb the air waves with attack ads.

Conservative ads trashing Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau as “just not ready” to be prime minister have been ever-present on radio and television for more than two months already. Liberal insiders admit they’ve been effective, contributing to the Liberals’ slow decline in the polls to third place from their front-running status over the previous two years.

“A national election is not a popularity contest,” Harper said. “This election will determine who is in the best position to make the right decisions to ensure the safety and security of this country.”

What we do by calling this campaign is making sure we are all operating within the rules and not using taxpayers’ money directly

Late Friday, the Conservatives suddenly turned their sights on NDP Leader Tom Mulcair with similar attack ads depicting him as an unethical, opportunistic “career politician.” Having helped drive Liberal support to the NDP, they’ve now evidently decided they need to blunt Mulcair’s momentum at the outset of the campaign.

The shifting targets of the Tory ads reflect the tricky two-front war facing the governing party.

At a time when the economy has tanked and polls suggest two-thirds of the electorate are looking for a change, the Conservatives risk driving change seekers to coalesce behind the NDP if they attack the Liberals too hard, and vice versa. They’ll attempt to strike a balance, attacking both and warning that the economy is too fragile to risk putting it in the spendthrift hands of either Mulcair or Trudeau.

But Mulcair and Trudeau also face two-front wars — with each other as much as with Harper. Each will be attempting to prove that his party is the vehicle that can defeat the Conservatives and provide real change. And in doing so, they’ll be fighting not just to win the election but, potentially, for the very survival of their respective parties.

Should Harper win a minority, the two opposition parties will come under pressure to form a coalition to snatch power from him. Should he win another majority, they’ll come under pressure to merge outright and stop splitting the progressive vote.

In either scenario, the opposition party that emerges strongest on Oct. 19 will have the upper hand; the weaker party could face possible extinction.
Original source article: Stephen Harper asks governor general to dissolve parliament and kick off long federal election campaign

[Tapioca]

I don't see any party winning a majority this time around, but will the NDP have enough steam over a long campaign? The Conservatives have lots of money and will spare no expense throwing mud about Mulcair against the wall.

In an era where voter turnout is approaching 50%, will the Conservatives have enough of the 25-30% who do vote to win?

[CRS]

One thing that I absolutely hate about the Conservatives is their smear campaigns. Politics should be about the issues - not personal attacks.

All the Trudeau hate ads on all the time on TV and radio are ludicrous. Talking about "budget balancing itself" and "looks like he has some growing up to do".

http://replygif.net/i/114.gif

The budget issue is like the pot calling the kettle black. The Conservatives have been in power for 3 terms where they've promised to bring Canada on budget and to a surplus. Where are we today? Well, the Bank of Canada has cut interest rates for the second time in 6 months.

[Jmac]

I wasn't considering voting for the Conservatives, but if I were, those ads would definitely make me second guess myself. Any party that's that insecure doesn't deserve to be in charge of the country.

[68style]

Shocking that anyone is even considering voting for Conservatives given what a fucktard Harper has turned into at nearly every juncture between encroaching on civil liberties, failing to uphold protection for climate change and sliding legislation through to force Provinces to follow whatever Ottawa does (ie: redefinition of parkland in BC)...

Never mind the sorry state of our economy and the Senate boondoggles.

That all said, I was in England when they recently had their elections (May 7) and everyone was lit the fuck up over there because the Tories beat out Labour so handily (I guess all the Labour supporters forgot to go vote?) and working out in the gym with the BBC coverage on made me laugh that they've been around a couple thousand years longer than we have as a country and they've got exactly the same fucking problems we do hahaha... my point being is that it apparently doesn't matter very much and that our elected government has very little actual impact on our daily lives regardless what their ideology is. They're all horrible and none of them represent any of us anymore.

TLDR: "Meh?"

[tonyzoomzoom]

the biggest impact will be on the each party's political supporters. They are the ones that stand to gain (or lose) a lot. The citizens are just there to pick up the tab.

[CharlesInCharge]

http://www.illuminatiagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/illuminati-llusion-of-choice.png

[Galactic_Phantom]

Those Trudeau bashing ads on the radio has been going on forever, way more than two months. Slandering and propaganda should not exist in an election...and coming from people are supposed to represent this country....

[Yodamaster]

The conservatives are the only ones who aren't anti gun, so it makes my choice pretty obvious.

Mulcair has said time after time that he's going to bring back the long gun registry, despite it being a failure.

[Culverin]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/4b/74/844b74bc1f44cc9d18d4aa17a2a7a172.jpg

[jasonturbo]

I love how the cons were so focused on balanced budget or surplus for 2015.

Im sure it's no coincidence that it's during an election year... grabbing at straws liquidating assets to prop the numbers up. (Most notably the sale of GM shares worth approx. 3.4B CAD)

That's hardly balancing a budget, smoke and mirrors is all that is.

Having said that, they are all clowns IMO, voting is almost pointless, you're better off spending that time you would have spent voting on self improvement. One hour of self improvement will have more of a beneficial impact on your life than electing any of these goons will.

[westopher]

The conservatives are the only ones who aren't anti gun, so it makes my choice pretty obvious.

Mulcair has said time after time that he's going to bring back the long gun registry, despite it being a failure.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you are basing your vote for control of the Canadian economy, laws and tax system on having a party that won't make you register a rifle?

[murd0c]

I can't wait to help vote Harper out!!

[carisear]

if that's the issue that matters to him, then great for him.

People have voted for candidates based on looks ... at least that's an actual issue.

[westopher]

if that's the issue that matters to him, then great for him.

People have voted for candidates based on looks ... at least that's an actual issue.
An uninformed voter is worse than a non voter. (not lumping him in with that, more agreeing with your second sentence.)
A genuine question though, what are the negatives to having your gun registered?

[tiger_handheld]

is there some site that shows where these people stand on "issues" -- economy, family, war, policies, etc.?

like we have for comparison shopping?

[carisear]

I don't see anything wrong with a gun registry, but I don't see much value in one either. ESPECIALLY at what it cost. I'm neutral on the gun registry debate.

[Bouncing Bettys]

People like Harper for scrapping the Long Gun Registry as they feel it infringed on personal rights and freedoms but they aren't bothered by Bill C-51 which actually infringes on personal rights and freedoms?

[Jmac]

is there some site that shows where these people stand on "issues" -- economy, family, war, policies, etc.?

like we have for comparison shopping?
CBC had a pretty good layout of where each party/leader stands on key topics last election.

[bcrdukes]

An uninformed voter is worse than a non voter. (not lumping him in with that, more agreeing with your second sentence.)
A genuine question though, what are the negatives to having your gun registered?

I am letting Revscene determine my vote. :accepted:

[westopher]

K please don't vote for harper dukes.

[Klondike]

Yeah, I'm not going to listen to the radio 'till the end of the election.

Any good podcasts worth downloading?

[StylinRed]

A 3 Month election campaign....and the Conservatives are allowing an expenditure increase after the typical 37 day campaign....what a bunch of conmen...do you know how much this extended campaign is going to cost us taxpayers?

Fucking hell, I hope people are smart enough this time, but I highly doubt it

[GS8]

International group to monitor Canada?s federal election | Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/international-group-to-monitor-canadas-federal-election)


---------


I can't believe it's been 10 fucking years since people voted this party in. What have I done with my life? :okay:

I feel like we're heading toward USA '08 with Greece '15 not too far away :heckno:

[CRS]

An uninformed voter is worse than a non voter. (not lumping him in with that, more agreeing with your second sentence.)
A genuine question though, what are the negatives to having your gun registered?

The negative is that it becomes a pretty big hassle for law abiding firearm users.

The original concept of the gun registry was to track down criminals who use guns while committing crimes. However, the big problem with it is that the vast majority of gun users are law-abiding citizens. So you basically cast a giant net for a very small subset of the population.

Now, you might be thinking, well, if it makes Canada safer, I'm for it. You would be wrong. The gun registry had helped solve ZERO gun related crimes.

If you're a criminal, chances are that if you're not going to follow one law, you're not likely going to follow another. So if you're going to murder someone, you're not going to register your firearm so that police can track you down. You'd probably avoid doing it just for the amount of paperwork you need to put in.

All in all, the gun registry has been a colossal failure that has used millions of tax dollar money solving absolutely nothing. It has not solved gun violence, hell, it has not even solved a single case tracing the gun used back to the owner.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Doesn't matter who gets voted in the ones to pay are us taxpayers and the middle class.

[wreck]

I don't mind people disliking Harper, what bothers me is people disliking Harper without knowing why.

[Lomac]

I don't mind people disliking Harper, what bothers me is people disliking Harper without knowing why.

What's to know?

:troll:

[Lomac]

Personally I intensely dislike mudslinging ads. Why can't adverts be focused on the positives of what you and your party are planning on doing instead of trying to cut down your opponent? Conservatives, Liberals, NDP... they're all guilty of doing it and I hate it. Don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other person; convince me of why you're the best candidate for the job.

[StylinRed]

Personally I intensely dislike mudslinging ads. Why can't adverts be focused on the positives of what you and your party are planning on doing instead of trying to cut down your opponent? Conservatives, Liberals, NDP... they're all guilty of doing it and I hate it. Don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other person; convince me of why you're the best candidate for the job.

I agree, the problem is mudslinging works, our recent provincial election is testament to that. Dix didn't play that game, Clark did

[Ronin]

The conservative ads confirm that they're still stuck in old school politics: attacking the other candidates character, attacking specific policies with no solid response as to how they'd handle the situation, and trying for catchy, subliminal messaging slogans.

I vote based entirely on economics. Whoever has the best economic policy for me personally usually gets my vote.

[tiger_handheld]

Personally I intensely dislike mudslinging ads. Why can't adverts be focused on the positives of what you and your party are planning on doing instead of trying to cut down your opponent? Conservatives, Liberals, NDP... they're all guilty of doing it and I hate it. Don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other person; convince me of why you're the best candidate for the job.

Justin has good hair...that's all I've gotten so far.

[Selanne_200]

It's been said that as voters in Canada, we tend to vote people out of office rather than into office. That said, I can't stand Harper for another term, his view on climate changes, environmental protection and especially his antics of trying to simply "buy" votes.

[CRS]

People like Harper for scrapping the Long Gun Registry as they feel it infringed on personal rights and freedoms but they aren't bothered by Bill C-51 which actually infringes on personal rights and freedoms?

I don't think this is accurate.

A lot of people that I know that are conservative supporters have all spoken out against Bill C-51.

[Traum]

A lot of people that I know that are conservative supporters have all spoken out against Bill C-51.
To me at least, the important question is -- are these Conservative supporters still going to vote for the Tories despite their preference against Bill C51? It's exactly the same issue as everyone that says they hate Christy Clark / BC Liberals, and then they still voted them back in for a subsequent term in office. :rukidding:

I have voted for the Conservatives in the past, but this time around, it is definitely going to be anyone other than the Conservatives. This is a very difficult choice because neither the Liberals nor the NDP are promising even in the most remote manner. In many ways, it is almost coming down to me voting for the part that has a higher likelihood of displacing the Conservatives in office. Currently, it seems like NDP has a much higher chance of doing that than Mr. Pretty Face.

[Mr.HappySilp]

I vote based entirely on economics. Whoever has the best economic policy for me personally usually gets my vote.

Good luck on that. All parties so far doesn't seem have know or how to fix our economy. The only thing Harper is good at is sell the country to foreign investors, let them buy our business, companies, land, houses etc etc might as well as start selling our cities and province.

The Liberals and NDP all they know is keep giving to the low incomes, the unions, while putting the burden on the middle class or hard working individuals trying to make more money. But instead we will be tax to death.

[hchang]

The conservative ads confirm that they're still stuck in old school politics: attacking the other candidates character, attacking specific policies with no solid response as to how they'd handle the situation, and trying for catchy, subliminal messaging slogans.

I vote based entirely on economics. Whoever has the best economic policy for me personally usually gets my vote.

You guys know there's slam ads on the Conservatives as well right?

It's just the way politics work

[yray]

I am willing to donate to the conservatives if they can have some variety in their ads.

I am so fucking tired of the report card to hair to budget will balance itself.

[StylinRed]

this early election campaign is expected to cost well over $1/2 Billion for taxpayers instead of the usual 1/10th of a billion... and knowing the govt it will probably end up over $1 Billion -_-

fucking cons

[multicartual]

http://i.imgur.com/aiJDrcg.png


I'm not going to vote in the upcoming election because democracy is broken

A guy who wipes his boogers on the Skytrain handrails has the same voting power as someone far more intelligent

Pandering to anyone looking, politicians will say or do anything for a vote

[cressydrift]

I'm not going to vote in the upcoming election because democracy is broken

A guy who wipes his boogers on the Skytrain handrails has the same voting power as someone far more intelligent

Pandering to anyone looking, politicians will say or do anything for a vote

Would you agree that our highway system is broken here in Vancouver?

I bet you still drive.

Would you agree that our heath care system is broken?

I bet you would take what ever health care you could get if your life depended on it.

Yes the political system is fucked. But we need to hold onto every ounce of democratic power we have.

We can't let the people who do vote (that are the minority) be so easily swayed by what the politicians say (lies). If you know they are lying why don't you do something about it? Like vote...

[multicartual]

If you know they are lying why don't you do something about it? Like vote...


No.


The only thing you can do to make your own life better is to make more money. If you want to influence others and make the world better, do art. Unfortunately, people do not pay attention to art with a message, they are too busy watching banal shit fed to them by mainstream media sources. Your options to "make a difference" are extremely limited!


Fuck voting, voting is useless and used as an illusion to keep the 9-5 proles believing that they have a voice and a choice. It is all complete bullshit and in no way do you or I have any real power to change anything through a vote. Too many stupid people exist and 99.99% of all politicians do their job of lying simply to hold office and feel important.


Our society is full of retards who have no idea of the concepts of right and wrong but instead are acutely aware of popular and unpopular. This destroys people's ability to critically think, instead motivation comes from emotions which further leads to the road to hell paved with the best intentions.


I feel little loyalty to my fellow Canadians, besides, didn't we steal this land from the natives? The CBC would love me to feel white guilt.


Art is the only way you can make a difference in this world. Voting does nothing.

[murd0c]

If you are not going to vote you don't have a say in what happens and don't deserve to post in this thread

[noclue]

I have to side with multicartual, after seeing how the "average" voter voted against the HST even though it was an excellent tax system to get "revenge" on the liberals, I don't really have confidence in the average person voting, just look at the crazies posting in News article comments.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

[Verdasco]

http://i.imgur.com/aiJDrcg.png


I'm not going to vote in the upcoming election because democracy is broken

A guy who wipes his boogers on the Skytrain handrails has the same voting power as someone far more intelligent

Pandering to anyone looking, politicians will say or do anything for a vote

a guy wiping boogers in the skytrain and you (for example) are canadian citizens with equal rights...

:rukidding:

[Verdasco]

anyways, my first time voting and I will be UNPLEASED if harper comes back.

[CRS]

You guys know there's slam ads on the Conservatives as well right?

It's just the way politics work

Provide some for this current campaign.

If you're referring to the Engage Canada ads, I wouldn't call them slam ads or attack ads. They're more stating facts than attacking the leader of the party.

There's a difference between saying "he has great hair but being PM isn't an entry level position" vs. providing facts and sources followed by an opinion.

Some ads from Engage are here:
Engage Canada's anti-Harper ad run could get cut short - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-harper-ad-run-could-get-cut-short-1.3175822)

[Bouncing Bettys]

Multi won't vote, yet he grandstands on RS more than anyone else in recent memory. If you wish to effect policy, you must participate.

[bcrdukes]

anyways, my first time voting and I will be UNPLEASED if harper comes back.

You better do what Revscene tells you to do! :accepted:

[urrh]

i knew harper was full of himself when he renamed the canadian government to the harper government.
fuck that guy

[carisear]

Provide some for this current campaign.

If you're referring to the Engage Canada ads, I wouldn't call them slam ads or attack ads. They're more stating facts than attacking the leader of the party.

There's a difference between saying "he has great hair but being PM isn't an entry level position" vs. providing facts and sources followed by an opinion.

Some ads from Engage are here:
Engage Canada's anti-Harper ad run could get cut short - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-harper-ad-run-could-get-cut-short-1.3175822)


either you are extremely biased, or extremely blind. You can call harpers 'attacks' on trudeau as stating facts as well. They take a video clip of trudeau talking about what his policy will be (providing fact and source), which is why they say he's not ready (follow with an opinion). That fits 100% of your very own criteria as being informational.

You want an attack ad? here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmmSV1jtK3s

advertising works. that's why its there. power to whomever can convince the most sheep to vote for them.

[Verdasco]

You better do what Revscene tells you to do! :accepted:

more like I tell myself what to do. I have had enough of this bullshit the past couple years. Canada isn't looking too good the past years. a

[bcrdukes]

more like I tell myself what to do. I have had enough of this bullshit the past couple years. Canada isn't looking too good the past years. a

You already make poor decisions and judgement on your culinary adventures.

I can't help but doubt your decision making abilities on the political arena. You're really going to need Revscene spoon feed you on this one.

[falcon]

Just like last election I'll be voting NDP again.

I like the fact C51 will be scrapped, and income sharing removed as well.

[CRX SiR]

is there some site that shows where these people stand on "issues" -- economy, family, war, policies, etc.?

like we have for comparison shopping?

Everything you need to know about the parties? platforms, from taxes and terrorism to the environment | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-parties-platforms)

Just found this. Hope it is somewhat what you were looking for

[Tone Loc]

I feel little loyalty to my fellow Canadians, besides, didn't we steal this land from the natives?

Gululu, is that you?

[godwin]

I think the OP was thinking about Vote Compass

Vote Compass (http://votecompass.com/)

The federal election compass is not up yet.

Everything you need to know about the parties? platforms, from taxes and terrorism to the environment | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-parties-platforms)

Just found this. Hope it is somewhat what you were looking for

[7seven]

I'm probably one of the few on RS who will be voting conservatives, its no secret I lean fairly right on some issues. The issues that are at the top of my priority list are security/military and finances. Being involved as a PMC whos been boots down overseas and seen some of the things going on behind the scenes that most don't, I see the practical value and application of Bill C-51 for the most part. I also support the increase in TFSA contribution limits, low corporate and small business rates, and Nothern Gateway and other pipelines.

Liberals would be the only other party I would consider voting for but their platform is has a few items going against what I'd personally like and Justin Trudeau just annoys me to no end.

NDP, I'm pretty much against the majority of their platform, so no way I would ever vote for them.

[multicartual]

a guy wiping boogers in the skytrain and you (for example) are canadian citizens with equal rights...

:rukidding:


One of the last times I rode the Skytrain I grabbed the handrail and there was a fresh booger on it that got onto my hand.


It was so disgusting. If anyone ever sees someone do that, please beat the living shit out of them.

[multicartual]

Gululu, is that you?


Should I feel guilty for what happened with the aboriginals?


Or are they merely savages that were conquered?

[multicartual]

Multi won't vote, yet he grandstands on RS more than anyone else in recent memory. If you wish to effect policy, you must participate.


My individual vote is completely fucking equal to the mouthbreather who wipes boogers on Skytrain handrails.


Voting is useless.

[westopher]

Should I feel guilty for what happened with the aboriginals?


Or are they merely savages that were conquered?
Both of those are probably the wrong answer.
My individual vote is completely fucking equal to the mouthbreather who wipes boogers on Skytrain handrails.


Voting is useless.
If you don't vote then you are actually worth less. Zero influence is less than one.

[multicartual]

My friends are giving me mega shit for saying I won't vote.


Honestly I do not feel that government can do anything good, and that the world is about to get a lot shittier and there is no way to stop it.

[CRS]

either you are extremely biased, or extremely blind. You can call harpers 'attacks' on trudeau as stating facts as well. They take a video clip of trudeau talking about what his policy will be (providing fact and source), which is why they say he's not ready (follow with an opinion). That fits 100% of your very own criteria as being informational.

You want an attack ad? here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmmSV1jtK3s

advertising works. that's why its there. power to whomever can convince the most sheep to vote for them.

To be completely honest, I haven't seen this ad run on TV or on radio.

But props on showing it to me. I was wrong.

[westopher]

My friends are giving me mega shit for saying I won't vote.


Honestly I do not feel that government can do anything good, and that the world is about to get a lot shittier and there is no way to stop it.
Multi, I can appreciate your negativity. The world is fucked. Canada is fucked. Our systems are fucked. Modern democracy is anything but democracy. Its convincing the lowest common denominator through repetition and being recognizable similar to the diarrhoea that is pop music. Make some stupid hook that every fucking moron remembers and they can sing along to it and feel a part of something. Thats why in North America we can only muster up candidates that share a last name with former notable politicians or celebrities. We are a society made up of fucking idiots. That said, to not vote is to simply concede defeat. To lie down and say, let the idiots have their way. Use your voice, read, learn, then share your knowledge. Being charismatic is the strongest weapon you can have. When people are given the access to knowledge, even most of the absolute dumbest will still want to absorb it. If you want positive change, make it your responsibility to hand feed the info to the ignorant. Show your friends that things aren't what they seem. As stupid as many people are, they still have the ability to learn and make better decisions when given easier access to the information. Be the vehicle that delivers the information to make a positive change. Sway your friends votes. Discuss what matters, try and make this fucking shithole a better place. If you don't, you can't complain. Everyone has the power to change the world, albeit in a fucking minuscule way. When you assemble, all of a sudden that way becomes exponentially larger.

[Yodamaster]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you are basing your vote for control of the Canadian economy, laws and tax system on having a party that won't make you register a rifle?

The long gun registry was a giant money sink that was a blatant waste of time for everybody involved. It failed to accomplish it's goal because the justification for it was based on flawed logic. If Mulcair insists that he intends to bring such a monumental failure back for the sake of an interest group that has little to no real knowledge of firearms or what drives gun violence in general, what reason would I have to vote such a man back into office?

If the conservatives wanted to guarantee a vote from firearms owners, they did it with bill C-42, along with minister Blaney making good on his promise to reverse the RCMP prohibition of CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles.

I would rather not vote for a party that prides itself in attempting to destroy one of the only hobbies that I enjoy. The razing wouldn't stop at the long gun registry, I can guarantee you.

[EmperorIS]

But guys, the most important agenda is ofcourse legalizing weed.

[CharlesInCharge]

Multi, I can appreciate your negativity. The world is fucked.....What if rather then a Zionist\Mason proxy run country... in history Hitler had powered his way into a monolithic banking powerhouse and through debt owed, was controlling Canada's affairs this way.

Hitlers Canada would play the role of a "peace keeper" but in reality was;
1 shipping billions in weapons to the Saudi's... who are indiscriminately dropping bombs on Yemen, killing over 5k in several months.

2 Sending supplies and military experts to train the new (U.S.A. 5 billion dollar created gov) Ukrainian army....which is still to this day indiscriminately shelling civilians.

3 locally, through our mp providing moral support for isreal which also bombs people indiscriminately (still waiting for the footage of Hamas rockets being fired next to hospitals, schools and U.N. shelters)

Wouldnt we be disillusioned cogs if we knew Hitler was controlling Canada yet we still kept voting the politicians provided and thus giving this system credibility?

[AstulzerRZD]

I'm probably one of the few on RS who will be voting conservatives, its no secret I lean fairly right on some issues. The issues that are at the top of my priority list are security/military and finances. Being involved as a PMC whos been boots down overseas and seen some of the things going on behind the scenes that most don't, I see the practical value and application of Bill C-51 for the most part. I also support the increase in TFSA contribution limits, low corporate and small business rates, and Nothern Gateway and other pipelines.

Liberals would be the only other party I would consider voting for but their platform is has a few items going against what I'd personally like and Justin Trudeau just annoys me to no end.

NDP, I'm pretty much against the majority of their platform, so no way I would ever vote for them.

In practical application, shouldn't most people be maxing out their RRSP before touching their TFSA? Even as a student who pays limited taxes, the higher TFSA contribution limits isn't too valuable of a tool to me.

As well, with regards to their economic record, they've had some trouble balancing budgets - the last 7, and perhaps this year's budget as well given the bleak outlook. After June results are out, it also looks like we'll be headed into a technical recession.

I personally like to see actual meaningful results, and am a bit jaded towards distracting gimmicks. I can understand the value of the Conservative platform, but they really haven't delivered on their promises.

[godwin]

It depends on what you are investing in.. RRSPs have taxes deferred until you withdraw but you don't need to pay US Cap gain (30%) because of tax treaty.

TFSA you don't need to pay any Canadian taxes but you need to pay US Cap gain. I rather max out my TFSA over maxing RRSP if I am fiscally limited. Also TFSA doesnt have time limit when you need to draw down and all that bs. I personally find the increase limit a nice bonus.

Remember even as a student you might not max out the TFSA.. the TFSA contribution limit increases every year and is retroactive so say if you earn 150k per year when you graduate, you can easily back fill.

If leveraged well, people can make a good deal of money tax free using tfsa.. especially this year with market like gang busters you can get an easy 20% gain. As long as you don't take the S too literally and don't fall into the 1.75% bonus savings like most banks are hawking.

We are in a recession.. see the other thread.

In practical application, shouldn't most people be maxing out their RRSP before touching their TFSA? Even as a student who pays limited taxes, the higher TFSA contribution limits isn't too valuable of a tool to me.

[bakasam]

Here's a decent summary:

Everything you need to know about the parties’ platforms, from taxes and terrorism to the environment (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-parties-platforms)

[RRxtar]

The problem for me is that Im very right leaning, I am strongly pro-firearms, I own a small business, and am very anti-union, and I very strongly believe against socialist handouts and I believe in working hard to get ahead.

But I don't like the idea of career politicians, or one party being in power for well over a decade, as no matter the party, favors are made, and corruption happens.

[Jmac]

I made 1.2% on my TFSA last month alone. Hoping to close the year with a 10% return.

[godwin]

Also note in Gov and rating agencies' eyes... personal debt ratio is a societal aggregate.. TFSA might only benefit higher income Canadians.. but it provides enough incentive for the aggregate personal debt to decrease to a saner level.. Yes, there are side effects, but for its primary purpose (ie to make our personal debt level looks less tragic), I think it is pretty effective.

I made 1.2% on my TFSA last month alone. Hoping to close the year with a 10% return.

[Gilgamesh]

Based on the site above and a quick skim, it seems the liberals and ndp are adopting similar measures. They seem to be on the same page regarding the TFSA, bill c-51 in some aspects, pension. The trend seems that the liberals want to add committees to overlook other departments. Not sure if I enjoy the idea of expanding the bureaucracy. The Liberals seem really bold in wanting to legalize pot, which (just my opinion) will scare voters away from the liberals (older generations who grew up/programmed to oppose marijuana as well as misinformed citizens about that drug).

[Everymans]

I have yet to see a reasonable argument for people not to vote. It truly baffles me how ignorant people can be to that power they hold. If you don't vote then you are basically saying you don't care about how your country is run and you don't see the difference in one group making decisions for the country over another group. Imagine if you worked at a place and your boss was making all sorts of dipshit plans and ideas and running your work into the ground and making your life a living hell. If you had a vote to take him out of the leaders chair, would you take that vote? Or live in ignorance that everything will get better because that dipshit probably knows what he is doing? I'd go with the vote. If we didn't have it we would all be sheep listening to the men upstairs for direction.

It could also be argued that no matter who you choose the problems will still be there. But no matter what there's gonna be problems in the world. You can't make everyone happy, the idea is to make everyone a little bit happy in some way or another. And i seriously doubt that the problems we face today aren't as serious as the problems we faced back in the day. I've seen it said a few times in this thread that Canada is "Going downhill". what the hell does that even mean? How is it going downhill? What's worse now then before? The only thing I can think of are the things we weren't aware of or willing to give a damn before. Global warming and water levels come to mind.

If you really truly hate something then right a letter to your MLA about it. I did that on 3 occasions now and all 3 occasions I seen change(Liquor in movie theaters, extended patio laws and removing some stupid trees back in my home town).

[CharlesInCharge]

@Everymans
Which Canadian political party is planning to re-investigate 911 or rather change its stance on its perpetrators? None.
What youre saying is that Canada should accept false flag bloodletting and to keep the status quo? How about bloodletting of our soldiers... are you okay with that? Whats the goal of this bloodletting from what you understand and why should I embrace it?


http://i0.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/HarperIsrael.jpg?resize=320%2C277

[jasonturbo]

http://investorsfriend.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GDP-se1.gif

:facepalm:

[Traum]

If you really truly hate something then right a letter to your MLA about it. I did that on 3 occasions now and all 3 occasions I seen change(Liquor in movie theaters, extended patio laws and removing some stupid trees back in my home town).
As I get older, increasingly I feel like democracy isn't working. Perhaps it has always been that way -- maybe it was just me being young and naive that thought things were better back then.

I have written to my MLA and MP on numerous occasions. But you know what the responses are? On "less significant" issues that have very little political implications, their PR guy / deputy would likely write back some generic bs that merely "explains" their rationale for doing precisely the thing that I complained about. It never addresses the issue that is brought up, and they just carry on doing whatever dafuq they were doing. When the complain is directly at odds with their party line, most of the time the MLA / MP doesn't even bother replying, and I am not suprised either. Generally, my letters in this case mixes a lot of harsh mockery into the complain. When someone clearly lays out some cold, hard facts regarding how ridiculous, stupid, or incompetent you are, what else can the MLA / MP staff and office say?

The one time that I was actually most impressed was when one of the police forces was involved in some sort of scandal. I can't remember which PD it was (though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the VPD nor RCMP), although I think it likely had something to deal with an officer physically assaulting a civilian. As is generally the case, I included some harsh criticism in my letter to the police chief. Much to my surprise, the municipal police chief actually took the time to call me at home. (As a rule, I always leave my home address and phone number when I write these letters.) I was at work when the police chief called, so he just left a message on the answering machine to assure me that the scandal will be dealt with in a fair and open manner, and that I should contact him personally if I have any further concerns. He definitely earned my respect that time. When it comes to our municipal, provincial, and federal politicians, Jack Layton is the only person that I have some level of respect towards.

[jasonturbo]

Today is the day I convinced myself to vote conservative.

It's really not that hard to justify, the reality is this, under the current Gov. you can basically be as successful as you want to be.

People sit back and shit all over Harper and blame him for everything they aren't happy about... well, get the fuck off your lazy ass, work two part time jobs, become a dentist, and then see if you still feel like Stephen Harper is responsible for your pain and suffering while banking 500k/year.

There is a quote I like; "Capitalism is the only system that rewards virtue and punishes vice" - obviously this is a shot at socialism. When I look at the options, there is basically two far left leaning parties that will push a socialist agenda, and then the cons who will just maintain the status quo if anything.

I would like to shit on Harper for a number of things, namely;
- Interest rates, which pumped up housing
- Non existing regulation on foreign ownership of Canadian property
- Immigration policies and TFW program

But, at the same time, can I blame Harper that people think it's a good idea to lock themselves into a mortgage they can't actually afford just because the bank is willing to loan them money (not assuming any risk of course, thanks CMHC)?

So for me, while I don't think the cons are doing a good job (at all), I also don't feel like Canada needs more socialism. I feel like Canadians need to be more accountable for the choices they make, stop expecting the Gov to make things right, just get off your ass and make it right on your own.

I grew up a screw up, eventually identified opportunity, worked my bag off, got educated, got trained, continued to work my bag off and make sacrifices, and for that I get nice things like GT3's and don't live paycheque to paycheque. I didn't need, nor do I want any more help from the Gov.

I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I don't spend tons of money on stupid fucking clothes that cost too much, I don't assume any debt that I can't easily handle, and I'm always working towards further career advancement and long term stability.

I guess the point of this rant is simply to say that I don't believe that the other parties will make my life better, I think they will just result in a bigger Gov., more taxes, and more programs for the have nots who by in large, probably did it to themselves with poor life choices and work ethic.

I have family out east in PEI who just forever bitch about how "The Gov. needs to do something"... expecting more money to stimulate anything... well guess what retard, move to where the jobs are, don't just expect the Gov. to prop up failing businesses and geographic regions if there is no tangible benefit to the rest of the country.

:accepted:

[jasonturbo]

Anyone else watch the debate lol... pretty pathetic all the way around IMO.

[tiger_handheld]

Anyone else watch the debate lol... pretty pathetic all the way around IMO.

really? I missed it!!

Anyone have a link?

Any highlights you wanna share or coles notes the view of the 3 leaders?

[jasonturbo]

really? I missed it!!

Anyone have a link?

Any highlights you wanna share or coles notes the view of the 3 leaders?

Don't have a link but it was pretty lackluster all the way around.

Pseudo-facts being used, Cons bragging about a balanced budget they are yet to achieve, Trudeau being picked on for being Trudeau, Mulcair being a lame duck, and the Green party just showing up for the sake of filling a fourth podium spot. Lot's of subtle jabs about how the election campaign is going to be so long etc.

You basically have three way left leaning parties with platforms pushing a far more socialistic agenda and the cons who are all about the status quo. Way to split the vote up team socialism!

My prediction (I know we're a long way out yet) cons stay in power with a minority or a very very very slim majority. If any of the other parties proposed a platform similar to the cons but simply provided a leader that wasn't hated like Harper they would certainly do well IMO... something less-Harper with some socialistic tendencies... but that option does not appear to exist at this time.

Meh, time will tell, I do realize Harper is not a popular man, guy has the charisma of a wet sock... but the other parties really need to start selling themselves a lot harder if they want to bump the cons out.

[Traum]

One thing I couldn't understand is, why are Trudeau and Mulcair not campaigning for a coalition government, or at least entertain the idea of one? I remember Trudeau saying that he isn't interested in one at this point. But does he (and the Liberals) seriously think they can defeat the Cons all by themselves? If the Liberals are willing to share power with the NDP, I am quite certain that they can form a coalition majority and put Steve Harpy behind.

[tonyzoomzoom]

agreed. I think the only way to knock off Harper is for the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition. Otherwise there will be too much vote splitting going on.

[CRS]

No one likes admitting defeat before they need to because it is a show of weakness. I have no doubt that if a coalition is what is needed that both the NDP and the Liberals will find a way to work together to topple Harper.

For the moment, I'm sure the NDP and the Liberals think they can form a minority government so they're going to go with that until they know with certainty that this won't pan out.

[godwin]

Because if they do.. Harper can play each party's core against one another.. it is better to entertain coalition AFTER an election when all votes / seats are counted.

or Do it what the Alliances and the original PC did.. form one party.. but I think both party are too different to be one.

One thing I couldn't understand is, why are Trudeau and Mulcair not campaigning for a coalition government, or at least entertain the idea of one? I remember Trudeau saying that he isn't interested in one at this point. But does he (and the Liberals) seriously think they can defeat the Cons all by themselves? If the Liberals are willing to share power with the NDP, I am quite certain that they can form a coalition majority and put Steve Harpy behind.

[Lomac]

No one likes admitting defeat before they need to because it is a show of weakness. I have no doubt that if a coalition is what is needed that both the NDP and the Liberals will find a way to work together to topple Harper.

For the moment, I'm sure the NDP and the Liberals think they can form a minority government so they're going to go with that until they know with certainty that this won't pan out.

Pretty much this. By saying that you're forming a coalition, you've admitted to the voting public that you feel that you don't have a strong enough platform to stand on your own and you're already defeated.

Honestly, it probably will come down to this.

The frustrating thing is that all three major parties (no, I don't Green as a viable party) have parts that I agree with, and parts that I don't.

I like the Con's platform when it comes to small business but I strongly dislike C-51 and many of the misgivings that certain party members have gotten away with (yes, I realize this isn't just a Conservative party issue). I also strongly dislike how opaque they are when it comes to getting information and how many, many party members and scientists are essentially muzzled. Oh, and the fact that they've taken us out of most major world emission treaties and lost us the seat on the UN Security Council to freakin' Portugal.

The NDP intrigues me when it comes to emissions and alternative fuel solutions, their commitment to fixing Harper's cuts to Foreign Aid, and reintroducing the Long Form Consensus, but I disagree with them bringing back door-to-door service for Canada Post, and the abolishment of the Senate (though I agree an overhaul is needed).

The Liberal's have nice hair. I like that.

[Traum]

At this point, I also suspect the total number of seats will give the Cons the ability to form a minority government. But by then, the Liberals and NDP would have enough seats to form a majority coalition government as well.

What would be very interesting is, if at that point, both the Cons and the Lib-NDP coalition approach the GG and ask him to grant them the right to form government, we would have a crazy few days (or even weeks) in Ottawa. I am just not sure whether that'd be a good or bad thing...

[carisear]

If the Liberals and NDP were so similar, they would've joined forces a long time ago. This is a non-starter. They have more differences than they have similarities.

In reality, Liberals and Conservatives are MUCH closer together, and you know no one is remotely suggesting that they join together. By my account, the liberals have only gone further left when Chretien handed over the keys -- and they've suffered mightily for it.

I personally want a central-right party when it comes to economics, centre-left when it comes to social issues, and centre for all other issues. I hate extremes -- from the greens and their environment party, to ndp and their social policy, to the conservatives and their big brother policy.

[Traum]

Justin Trudeau himself is actually very left leaning. Of course, given the Trudeau legacy, can't possibly join anything other than the Liberals. Additionally, just because he is left leaning doesn't necessarily mean he can steer the Liberals to a hard left either.

[westopher]

Today is the day I convinced myself to vote conservative.

It's really not that hard to justify, the reality is this, under the current Gov. you can basically be as successful as you want to be.

People sit back and shit all over Harper and blame him for everything they aren't happy about... well, get the fuck off your lazy ass, work two part time jobs, become a dentist, and then see if you still feel like Stephen Harper is responsible for your pain and suffering while banking 500k/year.

There is a quote I like; "Capitalism is the only system that rewards virtue and punishes vice" - obviously this is a shot at socialism. When I look at the options, there is basically two far left leaning parties that will push a socialist agenda, and then the cons who will just maintain the status quo if anything.

I would like to shit on Harper for a number of things, namely;
- Interest rates, which pumped up housing
- Non existing regulation on foreign ownership of Canadian property
- Immigration policies and TFW program

But, at the same time, can I blame Harper that people think it's a good idea to lock themselves into a mortgage they can't actually afford just because the bank is willing to loan them money (not assuming any risk of course, thanks CMHC)?

So for me, while I don't think the cons are doing a good job (at all), I also don't feel like Canada needs more socialism. I feel like Canadians need to be more accountable for the choices they make, stop expecting the Gov to make things right, just get off your ass and make it right on your own.

I grew up a screw up, eventually identified opportunity, worked my bag off, got educated, got trained, continued to work my bag off and make sacrifices, and for that I get nice things like GT3's and don't live paycheque to paycheque. I didn't need, nor do I want any more help from the Gov.

I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I don't spend tons of money on stupid fucking clothes that cost too much, I don't assume any debt that I can't easily handle, and I'm always working towards further career advancement and long term stability.

I guess the point of this rant is simply to say that I don't believe that the other parties will make my life better, I think they will just result in a bigger Gov., more taxes, and more programs for the have nots who by in large, probably did it to themselves with poor life choices and work ethic.

I have family out east in PEI who just forever bitch about how "The Gov. needs to do something"... expecting more money to stimulate anything... well guess what retard, move to where the jobs are, don't just expect the Gov. to prop up failing businesses and geographic regions if there is no tangible benefit to the rest of the country.

:accepted:
The thing is, while I can appreciate your point of view on this, is maybe we shouldn't just be voting for who makes our lives better, but makes the lives of the majority better. I want to live in a country full of happy, successful people. Crime naturally goes down when people aren't so desperate. Companies are allowed to run such corrupt and negligent business under the cons. Evading taxes with the greatest ease. Shitting on our environment with little to no consequence. Corporations being allowed to sue our country if we don't give them what they want because we signed ourselves away for peanuts as a desperate ploy to pretend we could avoid the global economic downturn. While I can appreciate the "look out for yourself" attitude you have, the cons damage so much you can't even do that. They allow so many negatives to be out of your control that it isn't going to matter how hard your work when your country has been raped of everything it had to offer and all the money you get paid in is worth less than monopoly money.

[multicartual]

My take on the Canadian debates:

Mulclair: I'm going to have beard nightmares with all of the tax hikes behind a phalanx of grizzly left wing fur

Trudeau: Ken doll with a long cord, once pulled, the string will slowly work it's way back into his lower spine while droning out buzz words robotically

May: She is like the nice lady who sells you organic teas and talks about con tails and ley lines who likes to rightly point out how Harper just changes the rules as he goes along

Harper: Smirking the entire time, he knows his competition doesn't come across very strong. Best closing speech. All other closing speeches fell completely flat.

[CRS]

The thing is, while I can appreciate your point of view on this, is maybe we shouldn't just be voting for who makes our lives better, but makes the lives of the majority better. I want to live in a country full of happy, successful people. Crime naturally goes down when people aren't so desperate. Companies are allowed to run such corrupt and negligent business under the cons. Evading taxes with the greatest ease. Shitting on our environment with little to no consequence. Corporations being allowed to sue our country if we don't give them what they want because we signed ourselves away for peanuts as a desperate ploy to pretend we could avoid the global economic downturn. While I can appreciate the "look out for yourself" attitude you have, the cons damage so much you can't even do that. They allow so many negatives to be out of your control that it isn't going to matter how hard your work when your country has been raped of everything it had to offer and all the money you get paid in is worth less than monopoly money.

THIS. RIGHT. FUCKING. HERE.

My vote is going to go to who I think will do the most good. Although I disagree with some platform issues that a party has, if I believe they are going to the benefit the majority and Canada as a whole, my vote is going to them. I've been voting this way for municipal elections all the way to federal.

I'm willing to concede on some issues that I disagree with so long as the majority benefits.

[Hehe]

The only thing I want from our gov't is a more open approach to industries.

Fuck the dairy cartel and cellphone oligopoly. They were all created due to the fact of protectionism. But the truth is, what are we really protecting here?

The benefit of a small group of people/companies or the benefit of all Canadians?

If there's enough incentive, businesses will adjust and evolve to be more competitive. There is no need for gov't intervention in between. If there are farmers who would be out of job due to incompetence, educate them, create programs to assist them. But don't straight up limit competition so they can scratch their balls all day while making unreasonable economic profit (from an economic theory point of view, not pure $$$).

[CharlesInCharge]

Each party (based on looks\speech\or political stance) is engineered to cater to different segments of the population. This way there isnt a majority of unified votes going to one party, thus no one has any idea who will win.
In conclusion the winner could be already chosen and Canadians will have no way of knowing where all the actual votes went in the end.

Here I cornered a RS member that supposedly worked in a voting office on local voting accountability... his response was I dont know, Im as stupid as the next guy. http://www.revscene.net/forums/682694-bc-election-2013-a-2.html#post8207228

[jasonturbo]

I can appreciate that some people believe that the left leaning parties are better for the "greater good" as opposed to what benefits one as an individual.

However, I still feel that socialism simply removes accountability from the individual.

Edit: Food for thought, when you grow up in an environment where people know the Gov will support them regardless of their personal efforts or ambitions, how does it impact Canada when considering globalization?

We tend to think of Canads as a prosperous nation but have spent the last 15 years + relying on natural resources, immigration, and real estate to prop the economy up. Perhaps many believe that things here should be better, when in fact, things should actually be much worse.

Edit #2: Oddly enough, provincially I voted NDP, Notley is much less left leaning though, and the Alberta Cons had just spent the last 2-3 years shitting the bed in an unprecedented way.

Edit #3: Corporate taxes are already too high in Canada as it is, when was the last time a a foreign based company decided to move their operations to Canada for any sort of competitive advantage? Never, because our taxes and regulatory environment seems bad for business compared to other economic super powers.

[StylinRed]

Edit #3: Corporate taxes are already too high in Canada as it is, when was the last time a a foreign based company decided to move their operations to Canada for any sort of competitive advantage? Never, because our taxes and regulatory environment seems bad for business compared to other economic super powers.

Wow, where have you been? Many US firms have been switching their HQs to Canada, some companies (most notably Burger King) faced public outrage over their consideration on moving to Canada, we've got a far lower corporate tax rate than the US and many European nations...

[CharlesInCharge]

We tend to think of Canads as a prosperous nation but have spent the last 15 years + relying on natural resources, immigration, and real estate to prop the economy up. Perhaps many believe that things here should be better, when in fact, things should actually be much worse.
.Heres food for thought, why doesnt Canada nationalize oil and other commodities? Which political party has ever brought this issue up?

[StylinRed]

Heres food for thought, why doesnt Canada nationalize oil and other commodities? Which political party has ever brought this issue up?

that's a good point, I'm all for nationalization, unfortunately everyones got their hands in corporate pockets, and the public are too stupid/selfish to be accepting of it, so we'd never see that happening. Heck we have to fight tooth and nail to keep our healthcare system since the corporations and government want to axe that

maybe if Jack Layton didn't pass away we'd have an NDP government and some nationalizing happening (who knows, probably not)

I don't think we'll ever have a leader working to benefit Canadians like a Tommy Douglas or Lester Pearson again

[CharlesInCharge]

Yeah... except I dont really believe in the whole corporate lobby thing. Imagine a Russian corporation offering Harper to give them any of our resources, our PM would be at the bottom of some lake pretty fast. Same with anyone (politician\celeb\sports star) going public with the idea of nationalizing I can imagine.

[AstulzerRZD]

really? I missed it!!

Anyone have a link?

Any highlights you wanna share or coles notes the view of the 3 leaders?

Here's a link to the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSf2__qpeGA
I've watched most debates since 2008, and have found this one the most entertaining and definitely worth a watch.

Here's a quick overview of how the debate went:

Harper was definitely on the defensive, often making claims without facts. Others looked disgusted by some of the things that he sometimes said. It's admirable to hear him defend his position on things like ISIS and C51.
Elizabeth May almost acting as a moderator and siding with whoever was being the most reasonable. Not only did she give many many facts to back up her claims, she fact checked and went after all other leaders as she needed to. Also had a realistic and concise closing statement.
Trudeau being a charismatic speaker - quite a bit of rhetoric but not too much substance. Had a good explanation of his party's position on C51.
Mulcair being calm and perhaps a bit defensive. Did a good job of staying on top when all leaders are speaking at once


Highlights of the debate to me:

Trudeau telling Harper that "nobody believes you". Harper's reaction was quite amusing
Harper slipped up and admitted that the economy was in a recession
Trudeau and Mulcair slipped up in their closing statements. Mulcair recovered quite well since his gaffe was in the middle, while Trudeau slipped as the closing speaker at the very end of his speech
Trudeau and Mulcair having a bit of a verbal fight over "the number" needed for a Quebecois sovereignty referendum to succeed.
Trudeau and Mulcair using some similar structure. E.g. Mulcair: The Greens want to say no to all pipelines, the Conservatives want to say yes to all pipelines, we want to evaluate and keep processing jobs in the country....
Harper stating that he doesn't take responsibility for the mess that is the Senate and would just let it get worse until the provinces want something done

[jasonturbo]

Wow, where have you been? Many US firms have been switching their HQs to Canada, some companies (most notably Burger King) faced public outrage over their consideration on moving to Canada

Care to provide some examples? (Other than the one example everyone knows about which is BK)

Yes tax rates are lower now because the rate has been cut approximately 8-10% between the last liberal and conservative governments, still not attracting people to do their business in Canada, just look at trade deficit and GDP if you don't agree.

Point is, we have slashed corp taxes and that did not stimulate business enough, so why elect someone who wants to increase corporate taxes?

[westopher]

However, I still feel that socialism simply removes accountability from the individual.


The thing is, we aren't talking about switching to the communist party of Canada. There are no far left options in the running. We are talking about somewhere between the slightly right (the cons), the ever so slightly left (liberals) and the tiny bit more left than the others. (NDP)
Lazy people aren't suddenly going to get a free ride, its more likely that people will get that boost that actually gives them incentive to work harder because they might have a chance to get educated in a field they are passionate in when otherwise that post secondary was too far out of reach for them. People who are actually growing up poor have no chance here under the cons.

[jasonturbo]

How can anyone look at the NDP's platform and not realize the only realistic outcome will be higher taxes and more debt.

- Creating middle class jobs by cutting tax rate for SB 2% and investing money in innovation and clean technologies. (Less tax revenue and more money spent on "job creation" = debt)

- Create a million childcare spaces for our kids and cap fees for parents – no more than $15 a day. It’s a plan that will save young families money and enable greater participation in the workforce – especially for women. (Will be subsidized by the Gov = debt)

- Help communities fix roads and bridges by transferring an extra cent of the existing gas tax to municipalities. And he’ll shorten commute times by partnering with cities on a Better Transit Plan — creating 31,000 good jobs in the process. (More gov. spending = debt)

- Cancel the Conservative decision to raise the retirement age — bringing it back down to 65. And he’ll work tirelessly to strengthen public pensions while protecting workplace pensions. (Chretien gov. was the first to say the CPP was broken, Cons made the choice that had to be made and expect that age to slip more, paying out more CPP = debt)

- Stop unilateral Conservative cuts to health and get back to working collaboratively with provinces and territories to improve primary care and expand access to long-term and primary care. (More health care = debt)

I also don't personally feel like Canada lacks reasonable environmental policies, between the laws and regulations at provincial and federal levels you can't get away with basically anything. Do emissions concern me? Yes, but our emissions are a drop in the bucket in the global picture (@1.47% compared to China and USA at approximately 20% each) though I will concede that our emissions per capita are high but that's only a result of us being a very resource based economy with an insane amount of vehicles on the road.

People in this thread shaming the cons for the current senator "scandals" and overspending, well you can apply that to every party that's ever served Canada lol.

Though Harper is totally full of shit with his balanced budget rhetoric.

Edit: We have generationally fucked as millennials (A large portion of this site), you had the boomers that did well and got filthy rich, and you have the boomers who shit the bed in life, now we are in a situation where today we have 4.9 tax payers per retiree and by 2030 that number is estimated to be 2.7, CPP will but incredible pressure on the Canadian economy in the coming years while these people also burden the health care system like never before. ( Due to the number of people >65)

Consider how our country is changing. Back in 1971 there were 7.8 people between the ages of 15-64 in Canada for every person over the age of 65. By 2010 that ratio had shrunk to just 4.9 people of working age for every retiree. By 2030 the federal government expects the ratio to shrink again; to just 2.7 people of working age for each retiree. This change can be chalked up to the massive “baby boom” generation born after World War II and a subsequent drop in the birth rate.

http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries/a-big-issue-worth-more-attention

So while our generation seems very cranky with the cons, keep in mind that the problems we face today, are largely caused by decisions made decades ago, and there should probably be a limit to how much we let past generations burden us, just as we should be responsible to not burden those that come after us.

[multicartual]

People who are actually growing up poor have no chance here under the cons.


I disagree...


With my poor upbringing and zero education, I could still make it to where I am today.


My belief is that people keep voting for change because they see politicians as the only route for change when change actually comes from within the people themselves.

[jasonturbo]

I disagree...


With my poor upbringing and zero education, I could still make it to where I am today.


My belief is that people keep voting for change because they see politicians as the only route for change when change actually comes from within the people themselves.

+ 1 here for growing up a total screw up from a very low class family (if you can call it that, I have seen my dad once in 8 years, my mom once in the last 3 years) and somehow still "making it".

One side note, if there is something that pisses me off about all candidates it's been the total disregard towards aboriginal affairs to date.

People think they had a bad childhood, try growing up on a reserve, It's a miracle any of those kids turn out to be functional.

[noclue]

Plus student loans and tuition are cheap here.

Seems like people are unwilling to improve themselves and blame others.

[underscore]

My big problem is that all the parties have at least a few stances I agree with, but they also all have stances I completely disagree with. What I wish we could do is vote on individual categories instead of having to pick one group to control it all, when everyone knows full well any party is going to be shit with at least one thing.

Which puts me back to having to weigh what I agree and disagree with for each group, and then have to guesstimate the likelihood of them actually doing the things they say, both good and bad. Normally I'd expect the Liberals to land at more of a middle ground, but they're pushing some rather stupid ideas at the moment and to me Trudeau comes across as a bit of an idiot. The Cons are starting to go full-'murica when it comes to fears of terrorism, the NDP want to throw money at everything and the Greens...well just no.

All in all, the gun registry has been a colossal failure that has used millions of tax dollar money solving absolutely nothing.

All good points, but basing your vote on the wasting of millions when the budget is nearly $300 billion seems like pretty narrow thinking.

[CRS]

underscore,

I just did some fact checking since when I wrote the previous post, here are some good tidbits of information:

1. The conception (1995): The government says the registry will cost about $119 million, but the revenue generated by registration fees would mean taxpayers would only be on the hook for $2 million.
2. 2001: The cost has risen to an estimated $527 million
3. 2002: The tab for implementing the registry rises to $629 million, according to an audit of the registry. Here is a breakdown of the bulk of the spending: $2 million to help police enforce legislation, at least $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts) and $227 million in computer costs. Complicated application forms are slowing processing times and driving costs higher than anticipated. Then there is $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.
4. 2003: Audit reveals the program costs $1 billion
5. 2004: Firearm registry now costs $2 billion

More info:
The rise and fall of Canada's long-gun registry - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001)

Over the course of 9 years, if $2 billion was spent on it, I would hardly consider it something to scoff at.

[westopher]

+ 1 here for growing up a total screw up from a very low class family (if you can call it that, I have seen my dad once in 8 years, my mom once in the last 3 years) and somehow still "making it".

One side note, if there is something that pisses me off about all candidates it's been the total disregard towards aboriginal affairs to date.

People think they had a bad childhood, try growing up on a reserve, It's a miracle any of those kids turn out to be functional.
You are not the norm Jason. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you based on the path you took. I know you worked your ass off to get to where you are, but say your true interests lied within the medical profession? Social work? Without being willing to essentially write off successful financial living until you are 35-40 due to student loans, or having someone to pay your way, its simply not happening.

I disagree...


With my poor upbringing and zero education, I could still make it to where I am today.


My belief is that people keep voting for change because they see politicians as the only route for change when change actually comes from within the people themselves.
You work in porn multi. I have no problem with it, but there is a certain moral compass most people have that wouldn't be able to make their money that way.

Plus student loans and tuition are cheap here.

Seems like people are unwilling to improve themselves and blame others.

Thats not even close to true. Post secondary is not accessible to everyone by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the irresponsibility caused by our for profit education system that pumps out tens of thousands of graduates for fields with no jobs. Moderate socialism is working extremely well in the countries that always are at the top of livability and happiness levels for its citizens. Why is it so out of the question that it will work here? Denmark, Sweden, etc. haven't just become a place for the lazy to relax while the hard working rich support them.

[multicartual]

People think they had a bad childhood, try growing up on a reserve, It's a miracle any of those kids turn out to be functional.


Ya, dropping out and being homeless in my teens was actually a GOOD thing because it got me away from the other low-class high school kids that would have fucked me up even more if I considered them peers. I learned how to use a modem and made older friends who somewhat had their shit together and began emulating them instead.


Reserves are fucked, but chiefs do nothing to make them better. I used to be friends with an indian dude who came from a band outside of Lytton, he told me that the chief and his cronies kept all the money and did nothing for the community other than blame the government for doing nothing. The people, of course, believed the chief and the cycle continues...

[multicartual]

You work in porn multi. I have no problem with it, but there is a certain moral compass most people have that wouldn't be able to make their money that way.


"It is not the strongest or smartest who survive but those most adaptable to change"


Morality is changing, I'm just ahead of the curve

[underscore]

Over the course of 9 years, if $2 billion was spent on it, I would hardly consider it something to scoff at.

I can only find numbers as far back as 2002 saying we had a total budget of ~$175B, so lets say the average was $150B across those 9 years, which is a total of $1,350B. $2B of $1,350B is 0.148%. Yes $2B is a lot of money, but compared to the budget of the entire nation, which is what the federal election has an effect on, the cost of the gun registry was effectively meaningless.

Not to mention the irresponsibility caused by our for profit education system that pumps out tens of thousands of graduates for fields with no jobs.

I currently know more people with degrees that have gone back to school for something they can get a job in, than I know who got degrees and are currently using them.

[jasonturbo]

I will say that my situation is only unique in one way, ambition.

If tomorrow my industry died I would immediately be pursuing other lucrative career fields in other industries. It's like math equation to me, you sacrifice while you are young so that you can work less and make more the rest of your life.

My only regrets relate to the nature of my work, I certainly lack fulfillment and would prefer a career in sciences that involved animals and environmental preservation, mainly with aquatic life. But it took me a long time to figure that out.

I do find it hard to sympathize with someone who has 100k in student debt that spend 7 years studying philosophy etc.

And for gods sake, will someone pay teachers more money?????

Edit: Also on the subject of me making it, I felt like the education I got from my Jr. High was incredible, High School was also good... but damn I learned a lot between grades 7-9. I feel like our school system here is amazing if you make the most of it.

[RRxtar]

The problem with the LGR isn't just the cost, but also that it is an unnecessary attempt anyway. Registering long guns like 22s, shotguns, and hunting rifles that are bought and sold does nothing to prevent firearm crimes. The 'cool' guns that are restricted and prohibited all need to be registered, and no criminal is going to use a 22 or hunting rifle for crime.

[CRS]

I can only find numbers as far back as 2002 saying we had a total budget of ~$175B, so lets say the average was $150B across those 9 years, which is a total of $1,350B. $2B of $1,350B is 0.148%. Yes $2B is a lot of money, but compared to the budget of the entire nation, which is what the federal election has an effect on, the cost of the gun registry was effectively meaningless.


So then where do we draw the line? At what amount (or percentage) does it make it meaningful?

I'm not saying 'don't look at the larger picture' but I'm looking at making the most out of the money we have. Remember, we're in a recession here and every penny (or billion in this case) counts.

[underscore]

So then where do we draw the line? At what amount (or percentage) does it make it meaningful?

I'm not saying 'don't look at the larger picture' but I'm looking at making the most out of the money we have. Remember, we're in a recession here and every penny (or billion in this case) counts.

Honestly I'm not sure, but it should be higher than 0.15% since some people:

The conservatives are the only ones who aren't anti gun, so it makes my choice pretty obvious.

Are going to base their vote, something that affects millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars, on one issue that made up an insignificant part of the budget.

[AstulzerRZD]

How can anyone look at the NDP's platform and not realize the only realistic outcome will be higher taxes and more debt.

- Creating middle class jobs by cutting tax rate for SB 2% and investing money in innovation and clean technologies. (Less tax revenue and more money spent on "job creation" = debt)

- Create a million childcare spaces for our kids and cap fees for parents – no more than $15 a day. It’s a plan that will save young families money and enable greater participation in the workforce – especially for women. (Will be subsidized by the Gov = debt)

- Help communities fix roads and bridges by transferring an extra cent of the existing gas tax to municipalities. And he’ll shorten commute times by partnering with cities on a Better Transit Plan — creating 31,000 good jobs in the process. (More gov. spending = debt)

- Cancel the Conservative decision to raise the retirement age — bringing it back down to 65. And he’ll work tirelessly to strengthen public pensions while protecting workplace pensions. (Chretien gov. was the first to say the CPP was broken, Cons made the choice that had to be made and expect that age to slip more, paying out more CPP = debt)

- Stop unilateral Conservative cuts to health and get back to working collaboratively with provinces and territories to improve primary care and expand access to long-term and primary care. (More health care = debt)

I also don't personally feel like Canada lacks reasonable environmental policies, between the laws and regulations at provincial and federal levels you can't get away with basically anything. Do emissions concern me? Yes, but our emissions are a drop in the bucket in the global picture (@1.47% compared to China and USA at approximately 20% each) though I will concede that our emissions per capita are high but that's only a result of us being a very resource based economy with an insane amount of vehicles on the road.

People in this thread shaming the cons for the current senator "scandals" and overspending, well you can apply that to every party that's ever served Canada lol.

Though Harper is totally full of shit with his balanced budget rhetoric.

Edit: We have generationally fucked as millennials (A large portion of this site), you had the boomers that did well and got filthy rich, and you have the boomers who shit the bed in life, now we are in a situation where today we have 4.9 tax payers per retiree and by 2030 that number is estimated to be 2.7, CPP will but incredible pressure on the Canadian economy in the coming years while these people also burden the health care system like never before. ( Due to the number of people >65)



Canadian Taxpayers Federation | The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a citizen's advocacy group dedicated to lower taxes, less waste & accountable government. (http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries/a-big-issue-worth-more-attention)

So while our generation seems very cranky with the cons, keep in mind that the problems we face today, are largely caused by decisions made decades ago, and there should probably be a limit to how much we let past generations burden us, just as we should be responsible to not burden those that come after us.

I could see why you think that way, but at the same time, many of these projects involve short term spending, but significant long term benefits to the economy and society that can help increase tax revenue. Allow me to explain :)

- Creating middle class jobs by cutting tax rate for SB 2% and investing money in innovation and clean technologies.
> The last several months have shown that oil prices can fluctuate. We also don't process any of our oil before shipping it overseas, which limits jobs to extraction. Check out this calculator from the NPR which uses research from Oxford university - it predicts the likelihood of your job being automated: Will Your Job Be Done By A Machine? : Planet Money : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/21/408234543/will-your-job-be-done-by-a-machine)

Speaking of automation, if we become a leader in innovation, others economies could eventually become more dependent on us for their software and hardware needs in order for them to stay competitive, instead of us remaining dependent on oil prices, and others' economies for processed petroleum and other goods.

Developing/developed economies are also likely to move towards clean energy, China is one big example of that. By innovating in growing areas of clean energy and innovation, we are participating in a growing industry, which would mean more jobs and opportunities for future Canadians.

- Create a million childcare spaces for our kids and cap fees for parents – no more than $15 a day. It’s a plan that will save young families money and enable greater participation in the workforce – especially for women.
> If young families have one more member that is available to work, they would be able to... you guessed it! Spend more at small businesses/corporations (more revenue for them!) and afford better opportunities for their children. This sounds win win to me.

- Help communities fix roads and bridges by transferring an extra cent of the existing gas tax to municipalities. And he’ll shorten commute times by partnering with cities on a Better Transit Plan — creating 31,000 good jobs in the process.
> The reality is that a number of people take buses, and since our Prime Minister emphasized that immigration is a part of his Economic Action Plan, we can expect more people who need to get around. I live in Waterloo Ontario now, where buses come every 5-10 minutes, even at night. I'm happy, and I'm more likely to go out and spend money.

As well, traffic on the 401, Highway 7, DVP, 404, and other major throughways in Toronto is sometimes insultingly bad. Traffic makes me worn out and less likely to go out or do things after work - People are unable to get where they want to quickly, goods aren't able to get around, etc. Transit would help people save money on transport, spend more time with their families or on their own pursuits, and spend more money!

Article: The Economist explains: The cost of traffic jams | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains-1)

- Stop unilateral Conservative cuts to health and get back to working collaboratively with provinces and territories to improve primary care and expand access to long-term and primary care.
> Wouldn't you agree that a healthy workforce is a more productive workforce? Our economy relies on our workforce, and preventative care is almost always cheaper than treatment.

Article: "Canada's only supervised drug injection site can save the Canadian health-care system as much as $20 million and substantially increase a population's life span over a 10-year period in Vancouver"
Insite can save Canada's health-care system $20M: Study (http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=a4c0517f-77d6-493a-abfe-391b377b0e28)

I know it can be scary sometimes to spend money, but these proposals seem like a great way to add lasting value and growth to our economy. I can go into detail with regards to why some of our government's current spending imo is "bad" spending, but I wanted to address some of your points first :)

[jasonturbo]

Ontario lawl... I spent way too much time there over the last year.

I'll just leave this here...

With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world?s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower | Financial Post (http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/with-twice-the-debt-of-california-ontario-is-now-the-worlds-most-indebted-sub-sovereign-borrower)

With regards to exporting refined products you have two problems:
1. Additional logistics and costs associated with moving a number of refined products vs crude which will later be refined into these products.
2. Which party would be interested in constructing more refineries in Canada? (And where would they be located, are you saying you would be supporting a refinery in Kitimat?) The cons would be the only ones quick to say yes to a new refinery, the libs,NDP, and most certainly the greens would just kill it with red tape.

Clean energy is a misnomer, while over the long term we can certainly consider hydro and wind power less damaging in terms of emissions, there are other environmental issues associated with these energies. I think the more appropriate way of saying it is that more and more companies and countries are capitalizing on the diversity afforded by alternative energy sources.

With regards to child care take a look at they programs the have in Quebec and what the costs have been like to the federal and provincial gov. in terms of child tax credits and day care reduced contribution programs. Quebec has long been the leader in terms of these sort of "incentives" and their economy is 100% shit. Obviously there are other cultural and corruption issues that contribute to Quebec being an economic nightmare... but you get the idea. BTW Quebec has insanely high personal, corp, and sales taxes.

GTA traffic makes me want to kill myself, the real lesson to be learned there is actually in the housing market - if we don't facilitate a housing bubble where everyone and their cousin needs a house in the burbs we wouldn't have the transportation burdens we have today. What's fair, more tax on the people that use this infrastructure aka higher taxes on gasoline. Live near where you work like a reasonable person and the problem goes away. I know this is simplistic, but I'm sure you can appreciated the perspective to some extent. (IE: Those who live in abby and commute to DT Van :hay:)

Yes i would prefer a healthy work force, but I doubt it's the work force that burdens the health care system - it's old people slowly dying.. and there are a lot of them set to die in the next 30 years compared to the number of tax payers.

Hate all you want, but I dream of two tier health care, it would have to be a "reasonable" system though which was beneficial to the country.(IE: High costs for priority service provides more funds for those who can't afford the primary tier, possibly increasing health care delivery for all) :)

Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with your position or thoughts on the issues. I just have very little faith that any of the left leaning parties will successfully execute. To facilitate these programs costs money, people need to administer them, and next thing you know you are paying more taxes for the program and people who make it functional. Only after many years will we know if the programs were worth the money, at which point someone gets tasked with cutting this piece of the Gov. off.. which will be an election issue in something like 2041 etc.

Economic outlook for Canada is not good IMO, I think we're going to have a very nasty 20 year patch while the boomers die off and our economy diversifies. It's not the Gov. that's going to fix it, it's up to the people to push their kids into the right sectors, to ditch their jobs as EIT's at pipeline companies and go do something innovative as opposed to worrying about how many ppm of magnesium made it into the last batch of crude etc. Right now there are too many smart people being sucked into finance, construction, and resource development - need to convince these people technology is where it's at.. but the pay does not seem to compare, so what can you do?

[carisear]

I caught about 75% of the debate, and what a snooze fest. I don't follow politics everyday anymore, but know enough of the history to not have learned anything new at all.

What was clear was the strategy each party took.

NDP wanted to look like they were calm now, and could actually govern. They did not want to look like a protest vote, and were acting as if they were the official opposition. good for them. (still hate them, but I like the approach)

Everyone is saying the debate NEEDS Elizabeth May. I disagree. She said what she needed to say, and she came prepared. She is now a veteran life-long politician, and spoke like one.

Trudeau came out scrappy, aiming directly at the NDP. He did not look stately at all. He knows that most of the votes he can sway will be from the NDP, and had a clear plan to attack them. He's just not ready (tm).

with so many years in office, and so much potential ammo, no one could muster anything against Harper. By default, as the ruling PM for an extended period of time, it should've been easy to lay it on him, issue after issue after issue. He came out completely unscathed. The fight the 3 other leaders had, were with each other mainly. Simply by not losing, Harper came out as a winner.

[AstulzerRZD]

Ontario lawl... I spent way too much time there over the last year.

I'll just leave this here...

With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world?s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower | Financial Post (http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/with-twice-the-debt-of-california-ontario-is-now-the-worlds-most-indebted-sub-sovereign-borrower)

With regards to exporting refined products you have two problems:
1. Additional logistics and costs associated with moving a number of refined products vs crude which will later be refined into these products.
2. Which party would be interested in constructing more refineries in Canada? (And where would they be located, are you saying you would be supporting a refinery in Kitimat?) The cons would be the only ones quick to say yes to a new refinery, the libs,NDP, and most certainly the greens would just kill it with red tape.

Clean energy is a misnomer, while over the long term we can certainly consider hydro and wind power less damaging in terms of emissions, there are other environmental issues associated with these energies. I think the more appropriate way of saying it is that more and more companies and countries are capitalizing on the diversity afforded by alternative energy sources.

With regards to child care take a look at they programs the have in Quebec and what the costs have been like to the federal and provincial gov. in terms of child tax credits and day care reduced contribution programs. Quebec has long been the leader in terms of these sort of "incentives" and their economy is 100% shit. Obviously there are other cultural and corruption issues that contribute to Quebec being an economic nightmare... but you get the idea. BTW Quebec has insanely high personal, corp, and sales taxes.

GTA traffic makes me want to kill myself, the real lesson to be learned there is actually in the housing market - if we don't facilitate a housing bubble where everyone and their cousin needs a house in the burbs we wouldn't have the transportation burdens we have today. What's fair, more tax on the people that use this infrastructure aka higher taxes on gasoline. Live near where you work like a reasonable person and the problem goes away. I know this is simplistic, but I'm sure you can appreciated the perspective to some extent. (IE: Those who live in abby and commute to DT Van :hay:)

Yes i would prefer a healthy work force, but I doubt it's the work force that burdens the health care system - it's old people slowly dying.. and there are a lot of them set to die in the next 30 years compared to the number of tax payers.

Hate all you want, but I dream of two tier health care, it would have to be a "reasonable" system though which was beneficial to the country.(IE: High costs for priority service provides more funds for those who can't afford the primary tier, possibly increasing health care delivery for all) :)

Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with your position or thoughts on the issues. I just have very little faith that any of the left leaning parties will successfully execute. To facilitate these programs costs money, people need to administer them, and next thing you know you are paying more taxes for the program and people who make it functional. Only after many years will we know if the programs were worth the money, at which point someone gets tasked with cutting this piece of the Gov. off.. which will be an election issue in something like 2041 etc.

Economic outlook for Canada is not good IMO, I think we're going to have a very nasty 20 year patch while the boomers die off and our economy diversifies. It's not the Gov. that's going to fix it, it's up to the people to push their kids into the right sectors, to ditch their jobs as EIT's at pipeline companies and go do something innovative as opposed to worrying about how many ppm of magnesium made it into the last batch of crude etc. Right now there are too many smart people being sucked into finance, construction, and resource development - need to convince these people technology is where it's at.. but the pay does not seem to compare, so what can you do?

I appreciate the detailed response! The current Liberal provincial government in Ontario and their leader aren't exactly well received ;)

Could you point me in the direction of some literature with regards to the complexities of moving refine vs crude petroleum?

I took a look at Quebec's child care scheme, and this is what I was able to find:
Quebec?s child-care scheme pays for itself, economist | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2011/06/22/quebecs_childcare_scheme_pays_for_itself_economist .html)

I question the NDP's ability to execute their plans myself, my question is how much expertise they have within the party? I think I remember the Liberals having quite the expertise military wise within their nominees: Trudeau unveils foreign policy team of ex-military officers, ambassadors - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-enlists-ex-military-officers-ambassadors-to-advise-on-foreign-policy/article22107500/)

With regards to the pay not comparing in tech, I'm curious. Although pay south of the border is much better (especially with the value of CAD right now), even starting pay for a good developer in Vancouver is about $70k. Hell, even Google pays their a second year co-op student $25+ an hour in Kitchener (near Waterloo), and pay in this region seems to be much lower than in Toronto.

There is, however, a ceiling for engineers/soft devs at about $150k, but from what I see around me, pay doesn't seem to be a big issue in tech/innovation - brain drain due to high US incomes is.

As well, one thing that I've found is that Canadian investors seem to be much more risk averse, while startup money flows much more easily in the States. Their investors seem to better understand that there is a certain risk associated with startups, but also significant reward if success is to be found.

[jasonturbo]

I appreciate the detailed response! The current Liberal provincial government in Ontario and their leader aren't exactly well received ;)

Could you point me in the direction of some literature with regards to the complexities of moving refine vs crude petroleum?

I took a look at Quebec's child care scheme, and this is what I was able to find:
Quebec?s child-care scheme pays for itself, economist | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2011/06/22/quebecs_childcare_scheme_pays_for_itself_economist .html)

I question the NDP's ability to execute their plans myself, my question is how much expertise they have within the party? I think I remember the Liberals having quite the expertise military wise within their nominees: Trudeau unveils foreign policy team of ex-military officers, ambassadors - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-enlists-ex-military-officers-ambassadors-to-advise-on-foreign-policy/article22107500/)

With regards to the pay not comparing in tech, I'm curious. Although pay south of the border is much better (especially with the value of CAD right now), even starting pay for a good developer in Vancouver is about $70k. Hell, even Google pays their a second year co-op student $25+ an hour in Kitchener (near Waterloo), and pay in this region seems to be much lower than in Toronto.

There is, however, a ceiling for engineers/soft devs at about $150k, but from what I see around me, pay doesn't seem to be a big issue in tech/innovation - brain drain due to high US incomes is.

As well, one thing that I've found is that Canadian investors seem to be much more risk averse, while startup money flows much more easily in the States. Their investors seem to better understand that there is a certain risk associated with startups, but also significant reward if success is to be found.

I'm invested in two Canadian start ups that moved their ops to SF lol.

Child care - for every positive perspective in the media expect a negative as well Quebec's failed child-care model (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=5a5e1555-093f-4959-9395-028c36daadc7&p=2)

I've heard locals in Montreal bitch and complain about how it cost the gov. billions, 2.2B to be exact. Obviously anecdotal, but you get the idea.

Literature for the crude issue is not easy to find, but I'll do my best to explain.

Exporting crude is simple, you export one product that a large number of customers want, and you can do it with one type of vessel for virtually any geographic area. Refineries are typically strategically located to service immediate geographic regions. Take a domestic refinery that converts crude into gasoline, getting the oil to the facility was cheap and easy via pipeline, once it becomes gasoline it's now three separate grades that must be trucked to consumers. That costs a lot of money.

If you wanted to export refined products you need to find a buyer for the products you can refine for them. That is to say that many geographic areas require specific types of fuels and other petroleum derivatives. To set your refinery up to make a wide variety of these products is difficult and expensive. Refining is by in large, a low margin business actually. Someone needs to have or build a facility to receive these individual refined products and then arrange for their retail distribution.

Then there is the shipping, you can ship all the crude in one large single vessel. With refined products you will need specific smaller vessels and compartments for each product. How many stops will this ship make while it delivers the various products? Are there unique double bottom or double hull requirements for the types of products you are shipping? etc.

Crude tankers are mainly used for the deep sea transport of crude oil from production sites to refineries. They range in size from 55,000 DWT* up to around 450,000 DWT. The main trading routes are from the production areas in the Arabian Gulf and West Africa to Asia, Europe and the USA.

Product tankers are used to transport refined oil products (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, jet or fuel oil) to the market. They range in size from 5,000 DWT to around 80,000 DWT. One traditional trading route for product tankers is between North America and Europe, where gasoline is carried to the US and diesel fuel is transported back to Europe.

The Tanker Business (http://www.maersktankers.com/aboutus/pages/thetankerbusiness.aspx)

Keep in mind when you refine crude you cannot turn 1 BBL of oil into 1 BBL of gasoline, during the distillation process you typically receive something like this;

A barrel of crude oil is about 42 US gallons. Oil refineries heat it to 370 degrees celcius, as the vapor rises it is transformed into various oil products. The lighter molecules of gasoline, diesel or jet fuel continue to rise until it is cooled and syphooned into seperate holding tanks. A barrel of crude oil can make about 19 US gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel, 4 gallons of jet fuel and another 9 gallons of other oil products such as liquid petroleum gas, plastics, lubricants or heating oil. A flight from San Francisco to Tokyo may take about 9,000 US gallons of jet fuel which requires about 2,250 barrels of crude oil to extract.
The biggest questions for Canada may simply be WILL anyone buy our refined oil. We are now, and will be for some time in a position where there is a glut of oil, if we don't want to sell crude to a foreign company that has the refining capacity, they will buy the crude form someone else before they buy our refined products and pay the extra costs that come with it.

So you would have to find a buyer for each of the products, not just one etc.

On top of that, we are in a situation where people do not depend on Canadian oil exports. If you told a trade partner that we didn't want to ship them crude, we would only shipped them refined products, they would buy their crude elsewhere and continue to use their existing refining capacity which is no doubt much cheaper than ours would ever be even before the costs associated with shipping products vs crude.

Scattered I know, my level of caring has been very low today, but I felt a duty to respond lol.

[StylinRed]

Care to provide some examples? (Other than the one example everyone knows about which is BK)


hm, it hasn't really happened in the last year (at least with major firms) thanks to the US' moves to prevent 'tax inversions' from happening

but another major publicly traded company that i can recall is Valeant Pharmaceuticals from the US, and Allergan iirc

if you read the business section of 'globe and mail' they were constantly printing stories regarding US firms small and large leaving the US and coming to Canada and elsewhere

Yes tax rates are lower now because the rate has been cut approximately 8-10% between the last liberal and conservative governments, still not attracting people to do their business in Canada, just look at trade deficit and GDP if you don't agree.

Point is, we have slashed corp taxes and that did not stimulate business enough, so why elect someone who wants to increase corporate taxes?

so what you're saying is the conservatives tried and failed with their easing up on corporations...they also neglected our manufacturing sector (it's gone...) why not raise the taxes up a bit? we are still incredibly competitive worldwide and among OECD member states (KPMG argues Canada has the best corporate tax system with all things considered)

the NDP on the other hand wants to support the manufacturing industry and create jobs in canada...with our low dollar now, and likely for some time, i could see a manufacture sector thriving, if properly supported but the cons want to pretend that there isn't a problem, while selling away everything to foreign corporations/nations

[SkinnyPupp]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but this might help some people

Canada?s most popular voting guide for elections, political issues, candidates, and poll data (http://canada.isidewith.com/)

[Gucci Mane]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but this might help some people

Canada?s most popular voting guide for elections, political issues, candidates, and poll data (http://canada.isidewith.com/)

i side with the Liberal party, no surprise there.

[SkinnyPupp]

i side with the Liberal party, no surprise there.
I got libertarian (had no idea what was even a thing in Canada) with Liberal and Green

I can't believe I used to side with the Conservatives.... Either I changed a lot since then, or they did. Haven't paid any attention to Canadian politics in 10 years

[jasonturbo]

hm, it hasn't really happened in the last year (at least with major firms) thanks to the US' moves to prevent 'tax inversions' from happening

but another major publicly traded company that i can recall is Valeant Pharmaceuticals from the US, and Allergan iirc

if you read the business section of 'globe and mail' they were constantly printing stories regarding US firms small and large leaving the US and coming to Canada and elsewhere

Valeant was one of the only examples I could find actually. Their move to Canada had a lot to do with the acquisition of BioVail and being incentivized by the Quebec Gov in addition to being able to capitalize on the pharma labor market which had just endured a downturn and available office space they had in Laval which allowed them to relocate employees form other areas that cost more money.

so what you're saying is the conservatives tried and failed with their easing up on corporations...they also neglected our manufacturing sector (it's gone...) why not raise the taxes up a bit? we are still incredibly competitive worldwide and among OECD member states (KPMG argues Canada has the best corporate tax system with all things considered)

the NDP on the other hand wants to support the manufacturing industry and create jobs in canada...with our low dollar now, and likely for some time, i could see a manufacture sector thriving, if properly supported but the cons want to pretend that there isn't a problem, while selling away everything to foreign corporations/nations

Everyone is so uppity about MFG, Ontario's economy is primarily service based @ 77%, manufacturing is only 12% of GDP. (Worth noting is that it was 24% back in 2000, so it's never been at the forefront of their economy, though a 50% reduction in the sector over 15 years is significant and can certainly be attributed to some degree to the CAD trading higher.)

In terms of exports from the province automobiles lead @ 34% to next in line precious metals @ 12%.

Manufacturing in Ontario is interesting, anything outside of the Auto Workers Union is actually competitive in terms of labor market cost.

Late last week, Ontario and Ottawa agreed to extend a lifeline to the country’s struggling auto industry. The provincial and federal governments pegged their bailout package at “about 20 per cent” of the amount the U.S. will commit to the beleaguered trio of Chrysler, GM, and Ford. The Bush administration announced on Friday that it would sign over US$17.4-billion to the Detroit Three, meaning Canada’s contribution figures to be in the $4.3-billion range. But rescuing car makers with taxpayer money hasn’t proven to be a universally popular idea on either side of the border, with auto workers’ wages attracting much of the scorn. On average, Canadian auto-sector workers make about $35 an hour—$72,000 a year—plus benefits. The average wage of a Canadian manufacturing-sector employee, by comparison, is $20.75 an hour, or $41,500 a year. Could the auto workers comparatively high wages be to blame for the Detroit Three’s collapse?

Do auto workers make too much? - Macleans.ca (http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/auto-workers-make-a-lot-of-money-but-not-that-much/)

Faria noted that UAW president Ron Gettelfinger agreed to have the UAW's "all-in" wage, benefit and pension costs drop from a high of $75.86 per hour in 2007 to an average of about $51 per hour starting in 2010. By comparison, the CAW's cost per hour was $77 in 2007 and will rise to over $80 per hour by the end of the new contract. Faria said that Gettelfinger went into negotiations "with the right intention...Save jobs. The CAW strategy was to squeeze every dime out of them."[7] Hargrove was said to have "instilled backbone and an attitude that the union could always make the auto makers buckle at the bargaining table"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Auto_Workers

When you actually take the wage of a CAW worker and factor in the benefits it's insane what those people made for assembly line work. The unions ruined manufacturing in the province just as much as the high CAD did. They still make way too much today IMO.

I've worked with a lot of people who came from the CAW and they all tell crazy stories about how much money the auto manufacturers hemorrhaged. GM was referred to as generous motors and it was literally impossible to fire anyone. One of my friends was a machinist at Magna that was under contract to GM, back in 2005 he was netting almost 10K/month to stand and watch a CNC machine + collecting benefits.

So while I'm going off on a bit of a tangent, here's the problem with MFG. The Fed can try to prop it up all they want, but globalization is a MUCH stronger force than the Fed Gov., sooner or later the only way MFG. will exist is if it's competitive with the global market.

BTW Mr. Harper launched his campaign at a manufacturing facility in QC, so I don't think he's denying there is an issue with the sector.

Again though, MFG would be more competitive here to a point if labor market costs weren't so insanely high.

Getting passed all that, I don't personally believe mfg. will be our salvation, tech and innovation will be, those industries will bolster the economy and provide the mfg. jobs. But that change will be generational, it will take many years for Canada to become a tech/innovation leader.

[Tegra_Devil]

i got liberal

[underscore]

Liberal here as well, doesn't surprise me except there's a few significant things I really disagree with the man with the pretty hair on.

[falcon]

Got more or less what I expected. %77 Lib, %65 NDP/Green. Hell... I'm more Libertarian and Communist than I am Conservative with %55 Com and only %32 Cons.

[jasonturbo]

73% Conservative, 56% Libertarion, 41% Liberal, 41% Christian Heritage (WTF), 39% NDP.

I do find that there are a lot of silly issues, insane allowing or not allowing women to wear the Hijab such an issue, insane the marijuana isn't legal at some capacity, insane to subsidize "seasonal workers", insane to pay more into CPP considering it's already destined to implode, insane to cut tuition costs (IMO they are very affordable, compare them to the states and see lol).

Meh, I was almost expecting to get Liberal actually.

The ballot system should be more complex, it should allow you to select your stance on a number of issues and the majority response should be something the new leaders are forced to align their party with.

[tonyzoomzoom]

83% Liberal for me

[CorneringArtist]

Of course Liberal, but I want to hear how each party is going to deal with the F-35 jet development costs. It's already going well-over projected costs, and is not only late in roll out, some of its systems are still teething. There's quite a few, much cheaper options on the table, but without the stealth capability of the F-35.

Niche issue yes, but the Conservatives have been throwing money at the procurement project.

[MindBomber]

93% Liberal, 92% NDP, 87% Green, 82% Communist, and 7% Cons, lol.

[jasonturbo]

I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.

While the cons have certainly sucked financially, they were sort of shafted by the melt down in 2007... I don't think they are any better at managing money, but they are certainly pushing less social spending programs than the other parties.

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.

Edit: BTW, why do people feel like Canada is lacking environmental regulation? I deal with this at work constantly and I could swear it would be nearly impossible to regulate it any further than it already is.

Years ago companies got away with doing shitty things (IE: Royal Oak Mine in YK with tonnes of Arsenic sitting in the ground leeching into the ground water), but that was ever so long ago.

Imagine the Federal Gov. and Provincial Gov. gives us permission to reverse a pump station, during that work, we have to dig holes in the ground to install new valves etc - WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH WATER WE CAN REMOVE. That is to say that if we have excavations which gradually fill up with ground/rain water, we can only pump so many litres out of the hole per day. Imagine that, you have a construction site that has to cease work just because there is too much ground/rain water and you are not allowed to pump it out.

Where does the water go that we pump out? To a third party water treatment company who tests it, treats it, filters it, and then releases it.. we don't even bat an eyelash at the cost of any of this, it's the cost of doing business.

How is any environmental regulation lacking in that example :s

I just get a little confused I guess... the NDP and Green party especially push the issue but I'm not sure I understand what the policies will actually look like for increased regulation.

[AstulzerRZD]

I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.

While the cons have certainly sucked financially, they were sort of shafted by the melt down in 2007... I don't think they are any better at managing money, but they are certainly pushing less social spending programs than the other parties.

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.

Edit: BTW, why do people feel like Canada is lacking environmental regulation? I deal with this at work constantly and I could swear it would be nearly impossible to regulate it any further than it already is.

Years ago companies got away with doing shitty things (IE: Royal Oak Mine in YK with tonnes of Arsenic sitting in the ground leeching into the ground water), but that was ever so long ago.

Imagine the Federal Gov. and Provincial Gov. gives us permission to reverse a pump station, during that work, we have to dig holes in the ground to install new valves etc - WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH WATER WE CAN REMOVE. That is to say that if we have excavations which gradually fill up with ground/rain water, we can only pump so many litres out of the hole per day. Imagine that, you have a construction site that has to cease work just because there is too much ground/rain water and you are not allowed to pump it out.

Where does the water go that we pump out? To a third party water treatment company who tests it, treats it, filters it, and then releases it.. we don't even bat an eyelash at the cost of any of this, it's the cost of doing business.

How is any environmental regulation lacking in that example :s

I just get a little confused I guess... the NDP and Green party especially push the issue but I'm not sure I understand what the policies will actually look like for increased regulation.

From what I understand, the Liberals kept/enforced the more stringent banking regulations in the 90s, which was a part of what kept us sheltered in 07.

Here's an article that I was able to find: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/paul-martin-a-regulator-who-said-no-to-banks.html

[StylinRed]

^^^yes, the only reasons the cons were able to mislead the public, initially, was due to the high commodity prices but that ships sailed
I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.


im all for paying more taxes, if they went into suitable projects, weren't hampered by bureaucracy, and didnt have the profits going into corporations (our new toll bridges for example) and if the government sought other means to raise funds before going to, or in conjunction with, raising taxes (bonds, etc)

other countries in europe, the middle east, south america, even with similar population sizes/spreads, are able to offer more social services than we do with similar or less taxes*


*middle eastern/south american countries for example, where their only resource industry (oil) is nationalized and pays for everything (even all the corrupt politcians greed)

[jasonturbo]

From what I understand, the Liberals kept/enforced the more stringent banking regulations in the 90s, which was a part of what kept us sheltered in 07.

Here's an article that I was able to find: Paul Martin, A Regulator Who Said No to Banks | naked capitalism (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/paul-martin-a-regulator-who-said-no-to-banks.html)

http://www.cifo.uqam.ca/publications/pdf/2013-03.pdf

I would copy and quote but I can't from the PDF, skip to the conclusion if you value your weekends lol

Long ago I posted a major explanation on why the Canadian banking sector was leveraged just as much as the USA. If I wasn't so lazy I would dig that up along with better links and sources for everything lol.

The most basic way of looking at exposure would be to simply compare the leverage ratio:

Everything you ever wanted to know about bank leverage rules (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100880857) 3-6% in USA

Canadian banks sink under new ratios - BNN News (http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/7/11/Canadian-banks-sink-under-new-ratios.aspx) 5% in Canada.

Also wort mentioning, more and more analysts are growing concerned with Canadians banks exposure to real estate.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/balance-sheet/canada-banks-trouble-housing-bubble-pops-report-162811862.html

The major reason for the financial crisis in 2007+ was because ratings agencies were being a bunch of idiots and rating everything higher than it should have been. Once people realized they had bought garbage debts the shit hit the fan and it all fell apart. Banks under estimated their exposure to toxic debt and liquidity vanished instantly. Specifcially poorly assessed credit default swaps are to blame, and Canadian banks had very little exposure to these assets compared to American banks. So really, the only aspect of the financial crisis that hurt Canada was tumbling US equity values, US defaults impacting long term debt repayments (IE: Corporate bonds from Fannie and Freddy that were owned by Canadian institutions), and commodity prices as development came to a halt in North America. Not a single Canadian bank required a bail out, that's very telling in itself. (Though it's worth mentioning some US banks didn't want TARP funds but were forced to take them lol JPM)

So really, Canada was in no comparable way impacted like the US was, though we were still hurt by having to bail out automakers and the lower commodity prices.

[jasonturbo]

im all for paying more taxes, if they went into suitable projects, weren't hampered by bureaucracy, and didnt have the profits going into corporations (our new toll bridges for example) and if the government sought other means to raise funds before going to, or in conjunction with, raising taxes (bonds, etc)


I couldn't agree more, but then when the gov. is subsidizing manufacturing to make it more competitive, are you not simply paying profits to corporations?

(Not that the cons aren't also proposing this)

CPP is what gets me the most, it's going to be 30-40 years before most of us can collect on this program and there is virtually no change we will get the same ROI on CPP that the last 3 generations before us got. (Realistically it will fail and new program will result that probably just grandfathers everyone in regardless of whether or not they paid in)

[GLOW]

75,62,62,28
conservative
some interesting questions that i never really thought of before

[Jmac]

Apparently I'm a card-carrying Commie ... Followed by Green, NDP, and Liberal.

Didn't see that one coming ...

[CorneringArtist]

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.


But in addition they delayed full deployment to 2018 at this time, meaning they could push to the projected CF-18 retirement date of 2020. The F-35 is going into Compass card levels of overpayment, while cheaper options are readily available and proven.

Dassault has offered its Rafale at a cost that's nearly half of what an F-35 is worth (literally 2:1 buying power), with options to have the plane fully produced in Canada, meaning it can open up a job pool and millions in economic growth. In addition, a new procurement plan is being tabled because of the ballooning costs, after opposition found out about it.

Canada's flying antiques, do we really need stealth and a plane that was simulated to lose to F-16s for patrolling the Arctic?

[Mr.HappySilp]

I couldn't agree more, but then when the gov. is subsidizing manufacturing to make it more competitive, are you not simply paying profits to corporations?

(Not that the cons aren't also proposing this)

CPP is what gets me the most, it's going to be 30-40 years before most of us can collect on this program and there is virtually no change we will get the same ROI on CPP that the last 3 generations before us got. (Realistically it will fail and new program will result that probably just grandfathers everyone in regardless of whether or not they paid in)

Sorry I already paid enough tax. If the gov is short on cash they can tax the top 1% or companies. Better yet run a more efficient gov. So my vote goes to which party can actually put more money back in my pocket gets my vote. So far none is doing that. Most of us are in the middle class, I myself have no family and no kids and don't ever plan on having one. So these so call child benefits don't apply to me at all. Talk about CPP I bet you that by the time we retire we won't even be able to get a dime from it. Yet we are still paying for it. I want a gov who will actually lower our tax rates and put the money right back at our pockets. Let people decide what they want to do with the extra money (Take their kids on vacation, day care, spend the money on investments etc etc....) That way everyone benefits.

[SkinnyPupp]

Apparently I'm a card-carrying Commie ... Followed by Green, NDP, and Liberal.

Didn't see that one coming ...
NDP are practically commies anyway so that makes sense :thumbs:

[Lomac]

97% Liberal

:pokerface:

That's a little surprising...

Also:
90% Green
89% NDP
82% Communist
41% Libertarian

...and 72% Bloc Quebecois :lol

[CharlesInCharge]

........

The major reason for the financial crisis in 2007+ was because ratings agencies were being a bunch of idiots and rating everything higher than it should have been. Once people realized they had bought garbage debts the shit hit the fan and it all fell apart. Banks under estimated their exposure to toxic debt and liquidity vanished instantly. Specifcially poorly assessed credit default swaps are to blame, and Canadian banks had very little exposure to these assets compared to American banks. So really, the only aspect of the financial crisis that hurt Canada was tumbling US equity values, US defaults impacting long term debt repayments (IE: Corporate bonds from Fannie and Freddy that were owned by Canadian institutions), and commodity prices as development came to a halt in North America. Not a single Canadian bank required a bail out, that's very telling in itself. (Though it's worth mentioning some US banks didn't want TARP funds but were forced to take them lol JPM)

So really, Canada was in no comparable way impacted like the US was, though we were still hurt by having to bail out automakers and the lower commodity prices.Its said that a trillion dollars of wealth was usurped from the U.S. people alone.


Banks got $114B from governments during recession
Support for banks 'more substantial than Canadians were led to believe': CCPA report
Banks got $114B from governments during recession - Business - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-got-114b-from-governments-during-recession-1.1145997) It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak.

Europeans are in all time highs of economic austerity... with headlines like "'Silent epidemic of hunger' among young people in UK". People from Greece, a first world country, have committed 10,000 suicides in a span of 5 years.

Where has this global transfer of wealth gone? Did it just get erased in banking cyberspace?

[underscore]

One question I didn't see on that questionaire is stances on GMO's and GMO labeling, I know the NDP have gone full looney toon with that stuff but I can't find out what all the other parties any thinking.

[jasonturbo]

One thing I could see costing the Cons the election - their focus on security and terrorism.

Someone needs to tell Harper to stop pushing something that just ins't at the forefront of concern for most voters, I would say his latest speech is a step in the wrong direction.

Saving CIC the trouble, see below

Harper is pushing the security agenda now in advance of his planned domestic terrorist attacks which will bolster him as the leader that can keep us safe and maintain the zio-american regime... 911... Illuminati.. Bilderberg...

[westopher]

1. Green
2. Liberal
3. (near tie with liberal)NDP
4. Communist
5. Cons

P.S. Nice work on the Christian Heritage JT:lawl:

[Manic!]

Must watch LOL!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=39&v=6OyBXEF6LMI

[Manic!]

liberal/NDP tied at 91%

Surprised at 59% for the Bloc

[CharlesInCharge]

One thing I could see costing the Cons the election - their focus on security and terrorism.

Someone needs to tell Harper to stop pushing something that just ins't at the forefront of concern for most voters, I would say his latest speech is a step in the wrong direction.

Saving CIC the trouble, see below

Harper is pushing the security agenda now in advance of his planned domestic terrorist attacks which will bolster him as the leader that can keep us safe and maintain the zio-american regime... 911... Illuminati.. Bilderberg...You were so analytical about Canada's banking and money system...I would have liked to read your explanation with my question... but hey, you made my sig for posting propaganda on RS :p

[Ronin]

I got mostly Liberal. Didn't know how to answer questions about hijabs and whatever. There are a few questions where I was like...who cares? Is that really an election issue? Aboriginal issues are also not very high on my list of priorities. Not really bothering to read anyone's stance on that as it wouldn't change the way I vote.

All I want a government to do is take care of our finances.

[CharlesInCharge]

Imagine getting drunk with the bigot in your avatar and secretly recording him talk about aboriginal issue... that would be half a million dollar TMZ tape right there!

[jasonturbo]

You were so analytical about Canada's banking and money system...I would have liked to read your explanation with my question... but hey, you made my sig for posting propaganda on RS :p

I could explain most of it yes, but that would require me to invest my time, and I'm already out of fucks in this election thread lol

If the libs and NDP could provide a bit more depth into how the plan to fund all their grand expenditures perhaps they could swing me over to vote for the dark side.

[CharlesInCharge]

Sorry, that long post of yours was so all full of propaganda that I couldnt image for you to explain the real truth.

Since the dollar rules the world... here is a hint.
1781 how did the US redeem its worthless currency...

[MindBomber]

My areas of concern are the environment, health care, and finances.

My core concern, though, is finances; and in that, I cannot back environmental and health care expenditures that are not clearly financially feasible. I find that creates a precarious position for myself because none of the parties strike me as of that mindset.

Harper and the Cons are completely comfortable with the tremendous cost of mandatory minimum sentences, and the cost overruns of the F35 project, and I'm certain they would feel it fit to throw $100b at another war in the Middle East were one to arise. So, aren't they willing to spend on whatever their social and defence policy considers important?

What I'd really like to see is a party that is willing to say something like, "we're going to legalize and tax the shit out of marijuana, and with the est. $700m (a completely arbitrary number) in revenue that will generate, we're going to extend universal health care to cover dental care for children."

[underscore]

I could explain most of it yes, but that would require me to invest my time, and I'm already out of fucks in this election thread lol

If the libs and NDP could provide a bit more depth into how the plan to fund all their grand expenditures perhaps they could swing me over to vote for the dark side.

Serious question, aren't the Cons military plans also grand expenditures? I'll admit I haven't had a chance to dig into the actual proposed costs of each parties plans but to me I'd rather be blowing money on projects that actually help our citizens instead of on some fearmongering bullshit that doesn't actually protect anyone.

[Mr.HappySilp]

I could explain most of it yes, but that would require me to invest my time, and I'm already out of fucks in this election thread lol

If the libs and NDP could provide a bit more depth into how the plan to fund all their grand expenditures perhaps they could swing me over to vote for the dark side.

They don't. That's the whole deal with Libs and NDP is all they talk about is spendings but never talk about how they will come up with the money.

Basically they have no plans to get the money so in the end they will either increase tax or borrow more.

[carisear]

I haven't researched into Canada's practices, but the way I see it, the Army in the US (front line fodder) is basically their version of welfare-to-work program.

If you look at it that way, the people who spend the most on the military are actually the most socialist party out there.

[Klondike]

80% liberal
75% NDP
66% Communist :lawl:
65% Green

http://i.imgur.com/qxUDfDK.gif

[GS8]

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/Crimson_Jackal/Misc/Election_zpst9ucenbe.jpg


I should read up on the Communist Party, now

:pokerface:

[Ronin]

Imagine getting drunk with the bigot in your avatar and secretly recording him talk about aboriginal issue... that would be half a million dollar TMZ tape right there!

If I ever had drinks with Jeremy Clarkson, I'm pretty sure Aboriginal issues would be the last goddamn thing we would ever talk about. Actually, I'm rather sure Aboriginal issues are the last thing I'd talk to...anyone...about.

You must be fun at parties.

[godwin]

The problem with isidewith or even votecompass (to a certain extent, it used to be an academic project) is the are all black box operation we don't really know what's going on... we don't know how much the weigh on questions etc. Use them as a guide but nothing absolute!

Also since anyone can geolocate using your browser IP address, they also didn't really say besides ads who else get the data... I won't put in your absolute views into these things.

[will068]

The problem with isidewith or even votecompass (to a certain extent, it used to be an academic project) is the are all black box operation we don't really know what's going on... we don't know how much the weigh on questions etc. Use them as a guide but nothing absolute!

Also since anyone can geolocate using your browser IP address, they also didn't really say besides ads who else get the data... I won't put in your absolute views into these things.

Agreed. It also only highlights certain stances by the parties/candidates.

I did the survey for the Democratic Presidential Nominee between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I noticed a lot of the questions inquired by the survey did not touch on the key points by both Candidates. I suspect it is also this generalized with the Canadian Federal Elections.

[SkinnyPupp]

http://i.imgur.com/Ie99RMG.jpg

This would probably end up being a throwaway vote, so I'd probably have to go with second place - Liberal. Anything but Conservative or NDP would be fine with me.

Apparently I can't vote anyway... Long-term expats don't have right to vote in federal elections, court rules - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/long-term-expats-don-t-have-right-to-vote-in-federal-elections-court-rules-1.3160110)

[7seven]

No real surprise for me

http://oi61.tinypic.com/63u6gp.jpg

[AstulzerRZD]

Came across this article today - might be an interesting read for those concerned about government spending.

Tories announced $14-billion in spending in six weeks before election call, 670 announcements | hilltimes.com (http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/08/10/tories-announced-%2414-billion-in-spending-in-six-weeks-before-election-call-670/43034)

CBC: Stephen Harper pledges $9M for religious freedom in Middle East
Announcement during election campaign follows yesterday's pledge to block travel to some areas of world (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-religion-aug10-1.3185333)

[jasonturbo]

Came across this article today - might be an interesting read for those concerned about government spending.

Tories announced $14-billion in spending in six weeks before election call, 670 announcements | hilltimes.com (http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/08/10/tories-announced-%2414-billion-in-spending-in-six-weeks-before-election-call-670/43034)
[/URL]

Sounds like cons hemorrhaging money to try and stave off ugly unemployment numbers before the election lol.

As a general comment, how insane would it be for a major corporation to shuffle it's entire management team every four years?

It doesn't matter who gets in, 4 years is not enough time to un-fuck issues created by the last ruling party and implement measures to show positive change. Anyone who gets in after the cons will most likely look like failures regardless of how well they actually did... unless they get at least 2, more like 3 terms in office.

I think our democratic system could use some adjustments :s

[willystyle]

I got 72% Liberal, and 70% NDP. Bill C-51 is a deal breaker for me. Voting for latter.

[AstulzerRZD]

Sounds like cons hemorrhaging money to try and stave off ugly unemployment numbers before the election lol.

As a general comment, how insane would it be for a major corporation to shuffle it's entire management team every four years?

It doesn't matter who gets in, 4 years is not enough time to un-fuck issues created by the last ruling party and implement measures to show positive change. Anyone who gets in after the cons will most likely look like failures regardless of how well they actually did... unless they get at least 2, more like 3 terms in office.

I think our democratic system could use some adjustments :s

Although I understand that the House of Commons probably involves quite a bit of political posturing, I wonder if the various committees are better at getting things done behind closed doors.

[ForbiddenX]

Got 93% liberal, not too surprising

NDP 85%, Green 82%, Communist 72%, Conservative 23%

[underscore]

It doesn't matter who gets in, 4 years is not enough time to un-fuck issues created by the last ruling party and implement measures to show positive change. Anyone who gets in after the cons will most likely look like failures regardless of how well they actually did... unless they get at least 2, more like 3 terms in office.

I think our democratic system could use some adjustments :s

It's a double-edged sword, you want to allow the ones doing good work time to do so, but on the flip side you're allowing the same amount of time to someone who could be royally fucking us over. It's a careful balance.

[Great68]

87% Liberal
74% NDP
64% Green
37% Conservative


I actually thought I'd have a higher conservative rating than that, considering I am technically considered a high income earner.

I guess I'm just not a selfish prick that doesn't mind being taxed a bit more if it benefits others in the country.

[RRxtar]

These surveys and questionnaires still need to be taken with a grain of salt.

A question could be:

Do you want the government to hand you out more money for doing nothing:
Yes answer means party A as their platform promises free money like candy
No answer means party B as their platform promises fiscal responsibility


Without really asking if you think the government should be giving away money they don't have, and can't really get given their platform, you could be lead to believe you're a party A supporter, when in reality you're strongly a party B supporter.

[SkinnyPupp]

87% Liberal
74% NDP
64% Green
37% Conservative


I actually thought I'd have a higher conservative rating than that, considering I am technically considered a high income earner.

I guess I'm just not a selfish prick that doesn't mind being taxed a bit more if it benefits others in the country.
Yup you can earn a high income and still not be a cunt, surprisingly enough

[Bouncing Bettys]

Its too bad for all the socially progressive fiscal conservatives that Harper's cons combined the right into one party. They knew they could never get elected a majority on their own and they knew the left would continue to split votes. My parent's dislike a lot of the social/environmental conservatisim of the Cons but they will never ever vote for Trudeau because of his father or the NDP because of the provincial NDP. Couple the move to a 2 party system initiated by the Cons, the attack ads, the campain finance reforms which just happen to benefit themselves, the voter registration reforms which just happen to make it harder for people who traditionally do not vote conservative, the robo calls, the quiet dismantling of the CBC from the inside out, and so on; it's beginning to look a lot more like the dysfunctional political system to the south.

[SkinnyPupp]

Its too bad for all the socially progressive fiscal conservatives that Harper's cons combined the right into one party. They knew they could never get elected a majority on their own and they knew the left would continue to split votes. My parent's dislike a lot of the social/environmental conservatisim of the Cons but they will never ever vote for Trudeau because of his father or the NDP because of the provincial NDP. Couple the move to a 2 party system initiated by the Cons, the attack ads, the campain finance reforms which just happen to benefit themselves, the voter registration reforms which just happen to make it harder for people who traditionally do not vote conservative, the robo calls, the quiet dismantling of the CBC from the inside out, and so on; it's beginning to look a lot more like the dysfunctional political system to the south.
I think that's how I ended up siding with the Libertarian party... Their platform seems to combine the 'good' parts of the right wing - economy, education, etc leaving out the 'bad' social and environmental parts. Meanwhile, they take the 'good' social side of the left wing, and leave out the more welfare state/socialism stuff.

To me, this is the best political platform. It's too bad it's basically a 2 party system, and voting for any small party means you're essentially throwing away your vote (or splitting it, if there are 3 parties competing)

[carisear]

^^ you should never worry about so-called vote splitting or strategic voting. always vote for YOUR ideal choice.

from 18 to about 30, I never voted for a winning candidate.

What my vote did, over time, was show a growing trend towards a certain ideology, which the governing party could not ignore.

Take the Green party for example. By a significant population voting for them, even though they had no chance in hell of winning, it made other parties change their environmental policies, due to the fact that it was 'suddenly' a hot topic for Canadians.

[underscore]

These surveys and questionnaires still need to be taken with a grain of salt.

A question could be:

Do you want the government to hand you out more money for doing nothing:
Yes answer means party A as their platform promises free money like candy
No answer means party B as their platform promises fiscal responsibility


Without really asking if you think the government should be giving away money they don't have, and can't really get given their platform, you could be lead to believe you're a party A supporter, when in reality you're strongly a party B supporter.

The questions are also likely to only cover issues that provide info that can be sold to marketing companies.

[RRxtar]

And none of them ever ask about firearms. Which essentially turns this election into a single issue election for a significant portion of the population as the NDP is very anti-firearms, and the liberals lean strongly towards giving more power to the RCMP to make up their own rules as they go.

[Yodamaster]

And none of them ever ask about firearms. Which essentially turns this election into a single issue election for a significant portion of the population as the NDP is very anti-firearms, and the liberals lean strongly towards giving more power to the RCMP to make up their own rules as they go.

I wouldn't say that a significant portion of Canadians are firearms owners, we are still a minority. That being said, the Conservatives are the only ones who are openly middle ground > supportive of firearms owners.

Which is a shame, since that site said I'm more Liberal than anything else, and I identify as such. (86% vs. 43% for conservatives.)

[rslater]

^^ you should never worry about so-called vote splitting or strategic voting. always vote for YOUR ideal choice.

from 18 to about 30, I never voted for a winning candidate.

What my vote did, over time, was show a growing trend towards a certain ideology, which the governing party could not ignore.

Take the Green party for example. By a significant population voting for them, even though they had no chance in hell of winning, it made other parties change their environmental policies, due to the fact that it was 'suddenly' a hot topic for Canadians.

To your last point, I'd argue the exact opposite has actually occurred with the Conservative Party and Harper.

Crimes Against Ecology | A\J ? Canada's Environmental Voice (http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/policy-and-politics/crimes-against-ecology)

[RRxtar]

I wouldn't say that a significant portion of Canadians are firearms owners, we are still a minority. That being said, the Conservatives are the only ones who are openly middle ground > supportive of firearms owners.

Which is a shame, since that site said I'm more Liberal than anything else, and I identify as such. (86% vs. 43% for conservatives.)
roughly 2 million licensed firearm owners in canada as per the rcmp figures as of december 2014.

if 2 parties openly said they would make firearm ownership difficult, and one said they would stand behind firearm owners, that 2 million becomes a pretty measurable percentage.

[underscore]

^ 8.3%, which is a decent amount, but you're assuming that all firearms owners hold that above every other aspect of government (which I still think is fucking daft).

[Tapioca]

Gotta love RS when a policy debate about something that affects maybe a few hundred thousand people overshadows discussion about the Mike Duffy trial.

[Lomac]

Gotta love RS when a policy debate about something that affects maybe a few hundred thousand people overshadows discussion about the Mike Duffy trial.

To be fair, a corruption charge doesn't necessarily directly impact people's lives, whereas a law change does.

[Sid Vicious]

Gotta love RS when a policy debate about something that affects maybe a few hundred thousand people overshadows discussion about the Mike Duffy trial.

isn't that how most of politics work? a couple of hot button issues that pander to the most vocal group?

lgbt are like, 10% of the population and yet the marriage issue was huge

inb4 ulic and his wall of text

[cow20xx]

Gotta love RS when a policy debate about something that affects maybe a few hundred thousand people overshadows discussion about the Mike Duffy trial.

Because its only a matter of time beforr Duffy is found guilty, thats old news. When and if the bombshell that directly links with proof that Harper is involved, you can bet that will dominate the air wave.

[Tapioca]

To be fair, a corruption charge doesn't necessarily directly impact people's lives, whereas a law change does.

My larger point is that people go apeshit when it comes to public sector inefficiencies, salaries, and art projects (which don't really have a direct impact on daily lives either), but are silent when outright an violation of public rules has occurred.

[Ronin]

So Harper says he'll look into foreign home ownership. Doesn't mean he'll actually do anything but I just realized that if someone said they were going to tax the fuck out of people buying homes in Canada without living in them, I'd vote for that guy. That would swing my vote almost instantly.

[AstulzerRZD]

So Harper says he'll look into foreign home ownership. Doesn't mean he'll actually do anything but I just realized that if someone said they were going to tax the fuck out of people buying homes in Canada without living in them, I'd vote for that guy. That would swing my vote almost instantly.

I think he pleged 500k to try to track foreign ownership.
Video: Harper's pledge to collect data on foreign home ownership could chill Vancouver real estate market (http://www.theprovince.com/Video+Harper+pledge+collect+data+foreign+home+owne rship+could+chill/11284906/story.html)

Not only do I doubt that 500k is enough, I question why he hasn't done it for 10 years if it's truly a priority to him and not just an election topic that will be as easily forgotten as his senate reform pledges.

[Ronin]

Yeah, Harper doesn't have it but if someone made it cheaper for us to buy homes by making it way more expensive for foreign investment, I'd be all for that guy.

[Tapioca]

So Harper says he'll look into foreign home ownership. Doesn't mean he'll actually do anything but I just realized that if someone said they were going to tax the fuck out of people buying homes in Canada without living in them, I'd vote for that guy. That would swing my vote almost instantly.

Well, he could have kept the long-form census, for starters. Lots of useful data relating to incomes, ethnicity, education, and housing, was obtained in those surveys.

[booge_man]

Well, he could have kept the long-form census, for starters. Lots of useful data relating to incomes, ethnicity, education, and housing, was obtained in those surveys.

Keeping in mind The Conservatives made massive cuts to Stats Canada to track stuff like this, and massive cuts to CRA departments that tracked corporate tax evasion and offshore banking investigations.

His former tax advisor was caught stashing money offshore.

[Tapioca]

^ Who needs statistics and data to make decisions when you can rely on gut feeling and common sense about what's right?

[Iceman_2K]

Exactly. Like really? Federal policy making and thats the reason you give?

^ Who needs statistics and data to make decisions when you can rely on gut feeling and common sense about what's right?

[Lomac]

Food for thought:

There's a lot of criticism about countries that have a two party system when it comes to federal elections. The disadvantages are obvious as it creates a ton of voter apathy and allows for a narrower field of options when it comes inter-party cooperation. However, it seems like there's certainly a case for it.

When it comes to Canada, you vote Conservative if you lean right. There's really no viable second option. However, if you lean left, you have three main parties to choose from (NDP, Liberals, Green). This causes a massive split between votes. So theoretically the vast majority of the country could be left leaning, but when you split those votes between three parties, you're likely stuck with the right wing party still standing with the majority vote.

So what's the solution? Do we try and move to a two party system as well? Do we try and convince the lefts to join together and create one party that wont split the votes?

How do you fix the split votes?

[Lomac]

Also, there's a problem when I'm more interested in the USA's federal election than my own.

[underscore]

When the Liberals were more central our system made more sense. If they stayed more central they'd be more likely to win, and the votes for the NDP and Cons would tell them how for to lean one way or the other on some issues. Of course that's unlikely to really happen, but it'd be nice.

[jasonturbo]

Keeping in mind The Conservatives made massive cuts to Stats Canada to track stuff like this, and massive cuts to CRA departments that tracked corporate tax evasion and offshore banking investigations.

His former tax advisor was caught stashing money offshore.

Wouldn't that suggest that the CRA is still effective even after the cuts? lol

#justsayin

[Gucci Mane]

ok so a buddy of mine got this nasty smear campaign card in the mail just hating on Trudeau and his stand on abortion.


****NOTE****

this is graphic, its probably a fake image but it is graphic so click at your own risk.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2zykej5.jpg


how the fuck is something like this allowed to be even sent out in the mail? its fucking disgusting.. i bet the Conservatives are behind it.

[yray]

I think someone put it in the mailbox instead. There are no cambodian post markings.

[tool001]

^ u do know that Canada post delivers flyers? None of them have addresses or postage either.

Don't remember exactly where, but some province Canada Post employees said they won't be delivering these

[jasonturbo]

The abortion thing was all over the news a week ago

Union, Canada Post reach deal over anti-abortion flyers targeting Trudeau - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saskatoon-letter-carriers-told-to-deliver-anti-abortion-flyers-that-target-trudeau-cupw/article25857432/)

The end result was some Provinces delivered them, some did not.

Pretty disgusting anyway.

[Verdasco]

if harper comes back, im fucking done with canada

[westopher]

Lomac made a great point. Conservatives are really the only choice for people on that side of the spectrum, where the other side has 3 parties with similar platforms and ideologies. I think a minority conservative win is a strong possibility this time around.

[Manic!]

https://viphotobooth.smugmug.com/Cars/Motor-Gathering-2015/i-qxqfd55/0/L/IMG_0344-L.jpg

[vitaminG]

im not a huge harper supporter, but that is a very stupid and misleading ad. firstly you have to consider there was a global recession in 2007 which harper can hardly be blamed for. second they post the deficit in 2013 instead of the much lower amount in 2014.

[jasonturbo]

Nobody voting for the Libs/NDP/Green party should be poking fun at the Harper deficit... the money spent did shield us (at least so far) from any reduction in the quality of our lives after the melt down in 07/08 (Compared to what many states in the USA endured and what many EU countries are dealing with).

Just wait and see how fast that deficit balloons with the left leaning agenda's of the other parties lol... those additional services do not come free.

There seems to be a number of typical positions if you're anti conservative;
- You hate him for being him
- You assume he has some hidden agenda
- You just want someone else in power
- You like all the increased social spending promised by others (Green energy, CPP, Child Care, Health Care)
- You hate bill C-51 (Which Trudeau is for as well anyway... so meh)

I will say the first three reasons I gave are just stupid as fuck, the increased social services are not a bad thing.. but the cost of these programs should not be underestimated, and I think that's what a lot of voters are doing right now, living in the land of "grass is always greener"

[tool001]

im not a huge harper supporter, but that is a very stupid and misleading ad. firstly you have to consider there was a global recession in 2007 which harper can hardly be blamed for. second they post the deficit in 2013 instead of the much lower amount in 2014.

since when did elections ads, become about stating facts

[dat_steve]

Sometimes i wonder if these attack ads even work...

I mean, when the ad airs and delivers sick, utterly decimating, burns like "nice hair doe", are the conservatives all like:

http://i.imgur.com/VQLGJOL.gif

[Manic!]

FYI: it's not an attack ad that's been put out buy a party. it's a political cartoon put out buy a news paper in the opinion section. All newspapers do it. They are making fun of all the ads Harper puts out.

[will068]

Also, there's a problem when I'm more interested in the USA's federal election than my own.

Sadly, a lot of us are in the same boat.

Bernie Sanders 2016 #bernthejewels

[Bouncing Bettys]

[QUOTE=jasonturbo;8671960]Nobody voting for the Libs/NDP/Green party should be poking fun at the Harper deficit... the money spent did shield us (at least so far) from any reduction in the quality of our lives after the melt down in 07/08 (Compared to what many states in the USA endured and what many EU countries are dealing with). Our stricter regulations on banks and other industries, which were put in place long before the Conservatives took power, played a big part in shielding us from the 2008 collapse. Most conservatives love deregulation.

Just wait and see how fast that deficit balloons with the left leaning agenda's of the other parties lol... those additional services do not come free. Cutting services has done a lot of damage to this country all so Harper could claim balanced budgets - which he couldn't even do. It will take a lot of effort and money to fix the damage done. Perhaps we should get the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes instead of moving profits to off-shore tax havens, hiring temporary foreign workers, increasing earnings for executives while keeping employee wages stagnant, etc.

There seems to be a number of typical positions if you're anti conservative;
- You hate him for being him not really, I even liked Bush occationally while disagreeing with pretty much everything he did as president. Harper seems to be pretty knowledgeable about hockey and the history of thd game, which I like.
- You assume he has some hidden agenda Like what? His agenda is pretty obvious and open if you know what to watch for. Actions speak louder than words and all polititians have an agenda.
- You just want someone else in power The people who talk soley about disliking Harper tend to not actually show up at the polls. #slacktivism
- You like all the increased social spending promised by others (Green energy, CPP, Child Care, Health Care) Far more damage is being done by cuts and it will cost much more than any savings made for political gains and "balanced budgets."
- You hate bill C-51 (Which Trudeau is for as well anyway... so meh) its been enough for me to consider other parties who didn't support it.

I will say the first three reasons I gave are just stupid as fuck, the increased social services are not a bad thing.. but the cost of these programs should not be underestimated, and I think that's what a lot of voters are doing right now, living in the land of "grass is always greener" [b]People are slowly growing tired of a shrinking middle class, widening income gap

[Soundy]

im not a huge harper supporter, but that is a very stupid and misleading ad.
As opposed to pretty much everything the Cons have been running so far?

I mean, I'm not particularly anti-Harper (not pro-Harper either, but most of the anti-Harper stuff floating around just feels horribly exaggerated), but the anti-Justin ads they've been running for months now just totally insult my intelligence.

Like, seriously, Steve, how stupid do you really think the voters are?

[Jmac]

Social programs aren't a bad thing and, if smart choices are made with the funding (I know, it's a reach for the government), you can actually have a measurable return on the investment over the long term.

Also, it's not like the Conservatives have slashed spending.

[jasonturbo]

RE: Bouncing Bettys

1.
- Earlier in this thread I debunked the myth of our tighter bank regulations with references... our regulation are almost identical to the USA in terms of how much they can leverage.

2.
- Cutting services has damaged the country how? Examples? Harper also did not commit to a balanced budget until this year.. though I doubt it will happen and it's padded with one-time only asset sales.

-Corporations moving profits to offshore tax havens??? You do realize most of the big companies in Canada are publicly traded right? They have a legal responsibility for disclosure, there is no way any of them are moving money to "tax havens" without the shareholders and regulators figuring it out.

- Increasing earnings for executives and keeping employee wages stagnant? Employee wages are as stagnant as you let them be... if you are a high demand employee, you get paid very well. Executives tend to get paid more because they are worth more... boot filler at Tim Hortons and people who repair pot holes for a living are paid according to the difficulty with which a company will have replacing them. You expect the Federal Gov. to regulate wage restrictions in a capitalist economy in a global market place? Does not work + it's not like any of the other parties are going to pitch earnings caps for individuals.

3.
- You like that Harper knows about hockey? Cool...

4.
- What is his obvious agenda then? To maintain our quality of life? Things don't seem any worse to me today than they were 10 years ago... actually my life is great right now.

5.
- How is more damage being done by cuts????? How have you been impacted?

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e201bb079c8183970d-pi

Trash the debt all you want, but compared to the other G7 countries after the global financial melt down of 07/08 we're doing pretty good I would say.

[underscore]

Like, seriously, Steve, how stupid do you really think the voters are?

On average? Dumb as a fucking post.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Social programs aren't a bad thing and, if smart choices are made with the funding (I know, it's a reach for the government), you can actually have a measurable return on the investment over the long term.

Also, it's not like the Conservatives have slashed spending.

Gov never ever make smart choices when it comes to social programs. I rather have the money in my pockets and decide how I want to spend it (IE hitting the gym ,swimming, eat more healthy thus save the gov money on health care).

[Soundy]

On average? Dumb as a fucking post.
I guess it was kind of a rhetorical question...

[Gucci Mane]

Sadly, a lot of us are in the same boat.

Bernie Sanders 2016 #bernthejewels

meh.

Deez Nutz 2016

[noclue]

call me an asshole but when I drive past east hastings, I automatically vote against increasing social programs. Not a fan of low-income housing in prime real estate. Some people use it to become better members of society, most stay content with welfare wednesday.

[CRS]

Thought this was pretty interesting.

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/633675756850163712

Harper supporter's profane rant brings out all of the memes - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-supporter-yells-reporters-memes-1.3196052)

[PiuYi]

Justin Trudeau was at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver tonight, speaking to a very wealthy predominantly Asian, predominantly Mandarin speaking crowd

Go Liberals! :toot:

[murd0c]

http://i.imgur.com/9jL6vYh.jpg

[cow20xx]

liberal/NDP tied at 91%

Surprised at 59% for the Bloc

probably because you chose the position of supporting quebec separation, but for different reasons that the PQers: at this point i wouldn't shred a tear if it chooses to go, but if Quebec continues to be a drag to the rest of the country and choose to leave, it's going to be a complete divorce. No miltary support, no financial support, and a donald trump style wall around the border even if it means a pay a couple extra dollars in taxes just to make a big FUCK YOU symbolic statement for being an ungrateful bitch for so long.

[Manic!]

Got a call from the conservatives asking if I will support Steve. Asked If I could go to one of his rally's. Answer was no because I am not a conservative party member. Messed around with her for 4/5 minutes. She gave me the number for steves campaign office. Called the number and turns out if the fax line. Googled the area code and got this:

Area code 603 is the sole area code for the U.S. state of New Hampshire in the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The numbering plan area (NPA) was created as one of the original area codes in October 1947.

[godwin]

Might just be transcription error.. Area code for Ottawa is 613.

Got a call from the conservatives asking if I will support Steve. Asked If I could go to one of his rally's. Answer was no because I am not a conservative party member. Messed around with her for 4/5 minutes. She gave me the number for steves campaign office. Called the number and turns out if the fax line. Googled the area code and got this:

[Manic!]

Might just be transcription error.. Area code for Ottawa is 613.

Good catch. Wrote down 1 typed in 0 in Google.

[Tapioca]

Aylan Kurdi is becoming an election issue now. Chris Alexander, Minister of Immigration, has returned to Ottawa.

The facts about their refugee application will reveal themselves in time, but it's hard to lay blame on anyone, despite the tragic story. Just sad all around.

[Manic!]

The quality of conservative candidates is astounding!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BdejLG6SU4

Jerry Bance Pees Into Mug, Conservative Candidate Becomes Internet Joke (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/06/jerry-bance-peeing-mug-peegate_n_8097196.html)

Tim Dutaud, Conservatives' Toronto-Danforth Candidate, Dropped By Party (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/07/tim-dutaud-conservative-toronto-danforth_n_8099984.html)

[Mr.HappySilp]

Still voting on conservative!

[Manic!]

Still voting on conservative!

I bet you couldn't pick the person running for the conservative party in your ridding if they where in a line up.

[Manic!]

Polls have the NDP at 31% Cons at 30% and Libs at 28%. Con voters are not going to change but NDP and Lib voters want Steve gone and are willing to do what ever it takes to get him out including switching parties.


In My riding the Greens NDP and Cons have signs out but the Lib candidate does not have a single sign out. It's like he's not even trying.

[sdubfid]

What does a damn sign have to do with anything? Wasted money and extra garbage. All the money for signs could be used to build a Syrian ark to nanaimo

[Manic!]

What does a damn sign have to do with anything? Wasted money and extra garbage. All the money for signs could be used to build a Syrian ark to nanaimo

Because it would help to know who is running.

[jasonturbo]

New Democrats pledge $1.8B for seniors' health care - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-democrats-pledge-1-8b-for-seniors-health-care-1.3226250)

Oh goodie, the NDP is promising to spend more money, meanwhile they are yet to provide any sort of plan for how they will cover the costs of their promises.

I can't wait for someone to draft up a complete list of all the spending the NDP has promised. NDP was quick to bitch about the length of the election, shame that didn't give them enough time to draft an actual spending plan - I don't know how any financially competent person could vote the the NDP after they have promised the moon.

And on a side note, people saying the cons cooked the books for the surplus... well this year probably should have been a deficit year given the price of Oil, but the GM sale bailed them out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCFHOoLUsAIIydG.png

Yes they spent a lot of money, but every single country spent a lot of money to shield their people from the financial crisis. Any reasonable person can look at the trend and see we are headed to the land of the elusive surplus under the current gov.

[Hondaracer]

At the same time the conservatives posting a 1.9 billion surplus:

Feds post surprise $1.9-billion surplus - NEWS 1130 (http://www.news1130.com/2015/09/14/feds-post-surprise-1-9-billion-surplus/)

[jasonturbo]

Yeah but that surplus is a sham for the EI fund raid and the one time sale of GM assets.

Realistically we would have seen 3-4B deficit for 2014/2015.

[PeanutButter]

Does anyone know what the "major" down falls for voting Liberal are?

I am likely voting liberal because their principles match mine, but if I had to flip, I would flip to Liberal.

Also, what are the major Harper screw ups? I don't think Harper has done such a terrible job. I feel a major reason why we're in a recession is because of the price of oil . He couldn't control that.

I likely will never vote for NDP until their budget looks more reasonable.

Thanks.

[Manic!]

Wanna here something stupid. If you are a Canadian citizen but have not lived in Canada for 5 years you can't vote but you can run for office in any riding you want. You should be at least be able to vote for yourself. Thanx harper.

More info here: http://www.letcanadiansvote.com/

[Hondaracer]

Uhg...moved to the "south burnaby" riding this year. Historically I've been a con for as long as I've been able to vote.

Spend some decent time on the weekend looking over my ridings candidates, the con candidate for my riding is "Grace Seear" uhg.. What a joke.

On her website there is a small, 2 paragraph bio, that's it. Ok..maybe I can dig up some actual platform info or priorities elsewhere. Go on her linked Facebook page, nothing but photo ops, and lunch pictures. If I have to spend fucking 20 minutes looking for your priorities, you've failed me as my candidate.

South burnaby is obviously an NDP stronghold but fuck, you can't even say what you stand for in point form?

I emailed them saying essentially the same thing and saying you've lost my vote, so we'll see what they reply with

[urrh]

Also, what are the major Harper screw ups? I don't think Harper has done such a terrible job. I feel a major reason why we're in a recession is because of the price of oil . He couldn't control that.

i don't know if harper was directly responsible, but it did happen on his watch.
from rick mercer rants;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advh4xb6gRQ

he talks about more too, stuff like; unanswered questions from MPs directed to the PM, the income splitting "tax break", abolishing benefits to veterans, non existent canada action plan which we're still seeing ads for, bills being passed in bulk packages.

i know this is just one person's view, but his show is on CBC and he's not siding with the government. this alone is enough for me to pause and listen. and i've heard enough to want harper the fuck out

[Manic!]

Uhg...moved to the "south burnaby" riding this year. Historically I've been a con for as long as I've been able to vote.

Spend some decent time on the weekend looking over my ridings candidates, the con candidate for my riding is "Grace Seear" uhg.. What a joke.

On her website there is a small, 2 paragraph bio, that's it. Ok..maybe I can dig up some actual platform info or priorities elsewhere. Go on her linked Facebook page, nothing but photo ops, and lunch pictures. If I have to spend fucking 20 minutes looking for your priorities, you've failed me as my candidate.

South burnaby is obviously an NDP stronghold but fuck, you can't even say what you stand for in point form?

I emailed them saying essentially the same thing and saying you've lost my vote, so we'll see what they reply with

Conservative candidates have no platform or thoughts of there own. They are just empty vessels for Harper. That is how he has always run the party.

[tinico]

i don't know if harper was directly responsible, but it did happen on his watch.
from rick mercer rants;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advh4xb6gRQ

he talks about more too, stuff like; unanswered questions from MPs directed to the PM, the income splitting "tax break", abolishing benefits to veterans, non existent canada action plan which we're still seeing ads for, bills being passed in bulk packages.

i know this is just one person's view, but his show is on CBC and he's not siding with the government. this alone is enough for me to pause and listen. and i've heard enough to want harper the fuck out

Not saying this clip in particular is a hoax/fake/lie/... but just because the CBC is government owned does not mean it is not biased. From what i've noticed since I moved back here, CBC is against Harper, look at the analysis they do as the debates go on, the content (that I have viewed) is against Harper/Conservatives.

One thing I am concerned about the conservatives is the "FIPA canada-china agreement", what I understand is that this deal was made behind closed doors, and apparently it gives China power to sue Canada for any law they pass that may affect China's economy. I might be wrong, but this is what i get from that, if let's say our government decides to lower taxes (or any other kind of advantage) for factories, well they can't because that could affect China's economy. Which to me seems to make it very hard to create jobs in a situation like this. Also seems we have a similar deal with US (and Mexico I believe) but we can cancel the agreement withing a month or so, where as with China (FIPA) we have 28+ more years before we get out of it (32 year agreement). I am not certain of a positive side of such agreement unless it applies also to China

Do not quote me as this is information i have recently gathered, and continue to do so. Those who know more than me please correct me and inform us all

In the end I believe it's all about doing your own research and making your own mind, by taking every information you find with a grain of salt

[Ronin]

LOL heard an ad on the radio this morning from the Conservatives basically saying "Remember the BC NDP from back in the day? Yeah...Mulcair is like that. Can't be trusted!"

Geez...why does every ad have to be a shit throwing contest? I'd love to see a politician just talk straight up about the issues and not pander to the lowest common denominator of idiots that just want to vote based on hair.

[Manic!]

The guy who wrote and sang this song is/was a scientist working for the goverment but has now been put on leave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c

Federal scientist put on leave over Harperman protest song - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harperman-tony-turner-scientist-investigation-1.3207390)

and check this ad out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9x0AHUa-E

[Tone Loc]

Honestly, my vote would go to whomever had the strongest stance on combating foreign investment and levelling the playing field (real estate-wise) for Canadian citizens. As well as taking a tougher stance on immigration fraud, PR residency requirements, and in general creating tougher borders.

Call it small-minded but I'm able to pay for school without taking on debt and/or borrowing from the bank of Mom & Dad, I am studying and doing a co-op in a field that is 90% likely to get me a good job after graduation, and the only real "struggle" I think I will face is buying a house in today's inflated market.

But it's hard to choose as they all seem pretty wishy-washy with their "promises" and policies. Harper says if he is re-elected, he will look into whether Canadians are being held at a disadvantage in the real estate market. My question is, why didn't he do this for the last 7 years....? If he started taking a firm stance on foreign investment back in 2006, a lot of the problems we face in Vancouver, Toronto, et al., would be nonexistent. Then there's the matter of the immigrant investor program, which to me was a huge fucking joke...