Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

And speaking of horsesh!t, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the immediate financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, responsibly, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer. And dragging Paul Martin out of retirement to give a stump speech is not the right answer, either.

 

[Altair]

He said later in the campaign.

That said, it's election campaign time. Political promises everywhere for everyone by everyone.

 

[a_majoor]

And speaking of horsesh!t, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the immediate financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, responsibly, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer. And dragging Paul Martin out of retirement to give a stump speech is not the right answer, either.

That is the one question each and every one of us (and the rest of the voters) should be asking every minute of every day: How do you plan to pay for this Mr (insert candidate/party leader here)/Ms May?

If they start handwaving or tapdancing, then it is a fair bet that this promise will never see the light of day in the floor of Parliament (anyone remember the Liberal's "National Daycare Program", first introduced with much flourish in 1993 and a regular plank in EVERY Liberal campaign until they were finally trounced in 2011. I'm waiting for the breathless announcement of the Liberal daycare plan (Oh wait: the Canada Child Benefit. Just blow off some of the dust so you don't see the "ca 1993" lable on the back...))

If a platform plank actually comes with numbers and some real funding plan, then it is much more likely to become a bill in parliament. Even if they say "we will cut National Defense by 30%" or "we will raid the CPP fund to pay for this" , at least you can now evaluate the proposal on two parameters: is the program itself realistic, and can it actually be funded this way? You are also free to agree or disagree with either or bith parameters.

This may not be a perfect way to decide, but it certainly allows you to narrow down the "least worst choice" when you reach the ballot box.

 

[Remius]

that didn't work so well for Tim Hudak...

 

[Privateer]

And speaking of horsesh!t, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the immediate financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, responsibly, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer.

Although, in fairness, what Mr. Mulcair said is that the 2015/16 budget will be what the current government makes it - ie., it could very well be a deficit - but that he does not foresee having to incur a deficit in the next year to fund his campaign platform.  You can believe that or not, but he did not say that he would balance the 2015/16 budget.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It would be unreasonable to hold Mulcair responsible for balancing the 15/16 budget with half the FY out the door before the election.

If they could depend on a linear return on a corporate income tax hike, the NDP platform might stay in the black.  Based on what happened to the CIT take on the way down, that's not a safe assumption.  I don't think they would actually wind up with a net loss of CIT revenue (but it is possible).  I expect a NDP, LPC, or NDP/LPC government to raise the GST within 2 years of taking office if they refuse to run deficits.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

  I expect a NDP, LPC, or NDP/LPC government to raise the GST within 2 years of taking office if they refuse to run deficits.

And I would say hurrah!  Good policy, vice the venal politics that caused the cut on the first place

 

[Infanteer]

I'd echo that.  I would gladly see a raise in consumption taxes (one of the most effective forms) as opposed to the increasingly complicated income taxation policies that one has to navigate through.  The simpler the tax system, the better.

 

[dapaterson]

The simpler the tax system, the better.

And the lower the cost to administer, whether by individuals or government.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All parties promises are absolutely worthless unless they give that promise in a speech and then tell us how they are going to make it happen in the same breath.

All parties will offer up anything they think the electorate will swallow, but they never say how. Once in power, the typical answer, which is absolute bullshit, is they never realized the books were in such bad shape. Then they walk away from their promises that got them elected. The books are open and they all know what's in them.

If the MSM was worth a pinch of shit, they would be asking "How are you going to do that?" instead of 'What are your (empty) promises to special interest groups?"

The other thing that I'm getting tired of is the MSM sandbagging the PM, with the useless, immaterial, nonsensical questions about that fat f**k Duffey, instead of giving him the same latitude to campaign, as the rest of the runners, to get his message out.

Simply, they are trying him in the media, instead of waiting for the courts to do their job. Something we all abhor here and have forum rules for. However, some here relish the thought and unfairness of it. Absolutely hypocritical on their part.

 

[Altair]

All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.

And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.

And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?

Talking heads and charisma. That's what you have. Voting on promises, or attack ads, is a wasted vote. All you really have, to decide who you want, is a party's past record.

 

[Altair]

Talking heads and charisma. That's what you have. Voting on promises, or attack ads, is a wasted vote. All you really have, to decide who you want, is a party's past record.

the liberals are 9 years removed from goverment and the Federal NDP, Greens, communist party,ect have never held office.

 

[Jed]

All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.

And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?

So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A GST increase is good revenue policy, provided economic growth is not sluggish and certainly not during a recession or near recession.  Under those conditions, tax increases are contraindicated.

It also matters to what purpose the revenue is directed.  Paying off some of the accumulated deficit (debt) should be at the head of the line to generate fiscal freedom of manoeuvre for the next recession.

Part of the reason Harper cut the GST (and other taxes) in the first place was because too much of the surpluses was being used to create and extend new spending - basically, pork to buy votes, since there were no landmark programs being developed - and not enough to knock down the debt.  The reasoning was straightforward: if the surpluses weren't to be used to reduce taxpayers' future obligations, return the money to the taxpayers.  The Chretien/Martin Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B during their 13 years n office ($487B at the end of 93/94, peak was $563B at the end of 96/97, down to $467B at the end of 05/06).  We hit a new peak of $612B at end of 13/14 (last date on my copy of the fiscal reference tables).

We need to do a much better job of reducing debt between recessionary run-ups.  Much, much better.  Bi-partisan concensus existed to eliminate the deficit at one time.  It would be great if the three major parties could agree on some sort of collective target and shelve their respective desires to increase spending / decrease taxes.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Ant and the Grasshopper.

...We need to do a much better job of reducing debt between recessionary run-ups.  Much, much better.  Bi-partisan concensus existed to eliminate the deficit at one time.  It would be great if the three major parties could agree on some sort of collective target and shelve their respective desires to increase spending / decrease taxes.

 

[Altair]

So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.

That record would probably go to the gomery commission.

As for the Duffy Trial,  sure. But that was a self inflicted wound, a unforced error. I personally don't care one way or another besides wanting to do something about the Senate. But if your opponent hands you a gift like that, what is one suppose to do? Not use it?

 

[Jed]

That record would probably go to the gomery commission.

As for the Duffy Trial,  sure. But that was a self inflicted wound, a unforced error. I personally don't care one way or another besides wanting to do something about the Senate. But if your opponent hands you a gift like that, what is one suppose to do? Not use it?

The opponent is the Green / Liberal / NDP parties. It should not be the complicit Media Party with their tight control on the ultimate PSYOPS weapons capability. At least in a fair world anyway. But as my old man used to tell me  " This world isn't fair kid."

 

[Altair]

The opponent is the Green / Liberal / NDP parties. It should not be the complicit Media Party with their tight control on the ultimate PSYOPS weapons capability. At least in a fair world anyway. But as my old man used to tell me  " This world isn't fair kid."

The media is a equal opportunity hitter though.

The gomery commission was prime time television and the quebec Qing of the liberal party still hasn't fully recovered from it.

While it's true that there is a bit of media bias, the media usually turns its guns on whoever is in power at the time. Just happens to be the conservatives for the last 9 years.

 

[Harrigan]

So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.

Perhaps if the government would provide credible answers to the questions, they might stop asking them.  But they don't.  As many polls have shown, Canadians don't believe the party line that there is 'nothing to see here'.  If they want to stop the questions, they need to provide the answers.  Wishing it away or crying that 'it's not fair' doesn't cut it.

  The Chretien/Martin Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B during their 13 years n office ($487B at the end of 93/94, peak was $563B at the end of 96/97, down to $467B at the end of 05/06).  We hit a new peak of $612B at end of 13/14 (last date on my copy of the fiscal reference tables).

So the Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B in their 13 years, but we should reward a party that has increased it by $145B in the last 9 years?  If, as recceguy suggests, we should only be considering a party's past record, who do you think is going to win that comparison?

Harrigan