TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Federal Election 2008 Thread
Pages (16): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »

Is anybody else worried about the tories not being as accountable as they said they were going to be? I recall a few moves by them, where they have made it harder for the public/media to find out what they are doing. Example:

quote:

Tories kill access to information database The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable. The Coordination of Access to Information Requests System, or CAIRS, is an electronic list of nearly every access to information request filed to federal departments and agencies. Originally created in 1989, it was used as an internal tool to keep track of requests and co-ordinate the government's response between agencies to potentially sensitive information released. ... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008...rs.html?ref=rss

There were a few others, but I would have to go back and search for them. This is like killing the database to a public community library. 'We have lots of books, but you will have to guess if we have what you want.'.

I had to use this at work sometimes, and I thought it was actually pretty useful, and a great way for people to just read more about their government.

quote:

Originally posted by Sentinal The gay and abortion issues are dead. Get over it. Harper put it to a free vote, and he repsects the vote as any democratic politician would. And as for all this bullshit calling him a liar because he is "breaking his own legislation". Minority gov't's are meant to function as an interm government and as such are not to last for more than 2-3 years. This is not just for federal politics but provincial as well. Harper could not let the gov't sit for a year and get dick all acomplished. It would cost the country more then 300 million to sit and do nothing progressive for a year. In all honesty I feel like I'm wasting my time writing this however. This is a thread in the Toronto page. Toronto loves their Liberals no matter how much they prove to be corrupt and ineffiecent with taxpayer money. The best thing to happen to this country would be a majority Consevative country. I will be voting conservative and I am very proud to support them.

Well said!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'll give him credit in that he stuck to his 5 point plan; however, their fiscal management has been terrible, they've managed to lower themselves to the same shitty brokerage politics they slam the Liberals for, and he's calling an election needlessly for his own political advantage (cutting his losses). I was excited when the Conservatives were elected... they promised more transparency and accountability, unfortunately what we got was far less of both.

You are right about diluting his spendings and going over the top on military spendings, instead of cutting income taxes to let provinces take what they need, he augmented transfers significantly (an error in my book).

Unless the CPC cuts back taxes for the middle class, i don't see why I should vote for a "right" version of the liberals.

First CPC concrete promess: cutting in half diesel federal tax from 4c to 2c on each liter.

quote:

Originally posted by malek Unless the CPC cuts back taxes for the middle class, i don't see why I should vote for a "right" version of the liberals.

I think you can give up on this hope... the Conservatives have been pretty clear that they want to make targeted tax cuts, not general... so unless you're part of a constituency they are trying to buy votes from you're probably out of luck (another old brokerage party tactic they have adopted).

Man, I miss the Reform... they were squirle shit nutty but at least you could trust them.

Didn't the federal surplus get doled out for infrastructure spending earlier this summer? Does that happen on a monthly basis? Surely not..

Just had reps from my Conservative MP (Wajid Khan, Streetsville, MIssissauga), come to my door.

Them:"Can we count on your support?"
Me:"depends on where he stands on the issues"
Them:"ok what are they"
Me: named the copyright bill, and naturpathic regulatory bill
Them: silent
Me: "Why did Mr. Khan switch from being elected as a liberal, to sitting as a conservative?"
Them: 'the liberals did not vote or show up to work. Mr. Dion drove him away'.

They obviously are not versed on the issues, so I have asked for a meeting with him for next week.

^^^

awesome. you're a better man than I.

I'd have just laughed in their face and told them that I'm not supporting Harper for a number of reasons (and listed them), and wouldn't SOLELY for the fact that this election is completely unnecessary and hypocritical.

I honestly commend people for volunteering in support of their chosen political party/candidate...but GET A FUCKING CLUE before you have the balls to ask other people for their support.

(that naturopathic bill really should be getting more press. education, not regulation, is what is needed here, IMHO).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I honestly commend people for volunteering in support of their chosen political party/candidate...but GET A FUCKING CLUE before you have the balls to ask other people for their support. (that naturopathic bill really should be getting more press. education, not regulation, is what is needed here, IMHO).

Yeah their volunteers not being informed is a big problem. I got a call from a Conservo rep the other day:

him:" Hi Mr. Jain, are you voting conservative this election?"
Me:"Well that depends on where they stand on some key issues"
Him: "Well have you been watching the debates to help you decide?"
Me: "Harper called the election on Sunday, today is Tuesday, there haven't been any debates yet, so how can I watch them?"
Him:"I have no more questions for you, good bye"

Bunch of idiots. Even if I was a volunteer, I would be asking to be better supported with material than they seem to be.


I would prefer them leave naturapthic options alone.

We're having this election because Dion was stupid enough to muse that "Canadians are ready for a fall election." The second I heard he said that, I knew we'd be having one, whether they (the Liberals) voted against the government or not.

Every time Dion or the Liberals have said something in parliament, Harper has called their bluff EVERY time, and this time was no different. LOL, silly Dion.

This of course, does not excuse his blatant disrespect for his own law, but it sure is funny to watch his poll-numbers go up this week after doing it. Lovin' Layton helping him out by framing this election about "Leadership". What's a poor Liberal to do when Harper's lookin' all, prime-minister-like on the right, and Layton's yellin about leadership on the left? Liberals need someone cunning. Maybe they should work on wooing Elizabeth May? The way she got into the debates was pure brilliance, "Is it because we have no elected MP's in parliament? NO! Sexism, sexism, sexism!"

It may be a waste of 300 mil, but damn is our 21986523856329875628 party system entertaining!

Will be voting conservative because frankly, Dion is a retard, Layton is still crazy and May just plain scares me.

I think Harper did OK considering a minority govt, but Dion is really screwing Libs over.

I don't think status quo will change after this election, unless something really changes in next few weeks. (With end result with Con-servatives in power for another 3 yrs because Libs won't be able to call another election so soon afterwards)

Well, isn't this interesting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/politics/home

quote:

Tories in the lead A Harris/Decima poll of 1,393 Canadians taken Thursday to Saturday found the Tories have a lead over the Liberals sufficient for a majority government. Here's how the four national parties rated: Conservatives 40% Liberals 26% NDP 15% Greens 9%

Gotta love first past the post!

Every Monday from now til Election day, the globe is running a special report on one issue and clarifying where each party stands on it. Today was the economy - quite timely considering what is going on south of the border today.

quote:

Where they stand Issues tend to get lost in campaign rhetoric. But each party does have a position on most issues. Each Monday through the election, The Globe will explore a single issue and examine each party's stand. Today, the competing economic visions of the five major parties HEATHER SCOFFIELD From Monday's Globe and Mail September 15, 2008 at 4:18 AM EDT When Conservative Leader Stephen Harper vowed, in the early days of the campaign, that he would cut the federal diesel fuel tax in half, the Liberals saw it as a gift. Posing in front of the celery and carrots at a fresh-produce store in Winnipeg, Mr. Harper told a crowd of partisans that the tax cut highlights the Tory approach to economic management. The federal election, he said, "is a choice between two very different plans. We want to reduce the tax on diesel a bit. Others plan to increase the tax on diesel significantly. In fact, they plan to increase the price of everything." The Liberals disagree vehemently with that interpretation, of course, but they do agree with part of Mr. Harper's message: The choice between the Tory and Liberal approaches to fiscal and economic policy is stark. Just as Mr. Harper was announcing the diesel fuel measure, Liberal MP and economist John McCallum was in the midst of an interview. He could hardly restrain a chortle. The tax cut, he said, is Tory policy at its worst - a targeted measure, aimed wrongly at consumption, that will only exacerbate pollution. "I think that sums up Stephen Harper pretty well," Mr. McCallum said. "There's not an economist in the country who would support it. It's like reducing the GST and not caring about environmental policy at the same time." Tory cuts to the goods and services tax aside, in recent election campaigns the two parties have differed in the economic bells and whistles, but their general approaches to fiscal policy have been similar. Governments of the past decade have enjoyed healthy surpluses, and could promise new spending, tax cuts and improved transfers to the provinces without worrying much about where the money would come from. Now, the global economy is on the brink of recession, Canada's economy has stalled and the surplus is slim. Some economists believe a further slide in the price of oil will push Ottawa into deficit for the first time since 1997. Politicians can no longer promise the world - especially if, like both the Tories and the Liberals, they also promise to stay out of the red. As the economy zooms to the top of the list of public concerns, voters can pick, for the first time in over a decade, between two contrasting visions of how the government should interact with the economy. Well aware of the contrast, the parties intend to make as much political hay as they can. The sub-headline on the press release accompanying Mr. Harper's diesel tax announcement is a case in point. "Modest, affordable, practical plan for lower taxes vs. grandiose, costly, risky plan for higher tax on everything," it reads. Or, from the Liberals on the same day: "Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs and what does this government do? Insult them and abandon them with laissez-faire, I-don't-care policies," Leader St�phane Dion said. "A Liberal government will invest in partnership with Canadians by cutting taxes for families, investing in the manufacturing sector and building strong jobs." At the heart of the Conservatives' economic thrust is tax reduction. The Tories are campaigning on the GST cut already implemented, as well as their more recent cuts to income and corporate taxes. By kicking off their campaign with the diesel tax announcement, they're suggesting that the plethora of small but targeted tax cuts that worked well for them in the last election will likely figure prominently again. Tax cuts, they say, have protected the Canadian economy from the U.S. downturn. Some troubled sectors may require direct measures on a short-term basis, but the preference is for permanent tax cuts, explained Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister and MP running for re-election in Whitby, Ont. "If we talk about fiscal and tax policy, we approach things in a fundamental, permanent way," he said in an interview. One-time subsidies "thrown at" troubled parts of the economy are often a waste of money, he argued. "I'm not interested in that sort of ad hoc activity," he said, adding that the millions handed to the auto sector in the days before the election call came from a previously announced fund to spur innovation and does not constitute a subsidy. The Conservatives want controlled spending and a minimalist fiscal framework that will lead to a stronger economy, Mr. Flaherty said, while the Liberals are eyeing higher taxes, higher spending, intrusive government and irresponsible economic management. Needless to say, the Liberals don't see things that way - but they're equally anxious to win political points by exploiting their differences. At the centre of the Liberals' fiscal proposals is a $15-billion shuffle of taxes and spending in the hopes of tackling global warming, cutting income tax and alleviating poverty at the same time. Their Green Shift proposal would thrust the federal government's fiscal power into the centre of business operations, by imposing a carbon tax on greenhouse-gas emitters. The plan fully expects corporations to pass along the costs of the tax to consumers. And to help consumers and companies cover the cost, the Liberals would use their carbon-tax revenue to cut personal and corporate income tax. The plan would likely be the biggest tax reform seen in decades in Canada, economists say. In the short term, the Liberals also see an activist role for themselves in alleviating the pain of the slowdown - dramatically speeding up infrastructure spending so that building projects will put people back to work just when they most need jobs. They'd also inject more money into the manufacturing sector. Mr. McCallum describes his party's approach as "fiscally prudent but active." Both parties promise to balance the books, encourage innovation and clean technology. But both also have a history of spending a lot - especially right before an election - and accomplishing little in giving Canada an edge, said Jayson Myers, an economist and head of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. "What are we doing," he asked, "to actually create wealth in this country rather than just redistribute it?" *** THE LIBERAL PARTY THE ECONOMY TAX ON, TAX OFF ON GOVERNMENT'S ROLE: "Fiscally prudent but active," according to finance critic John McCallum. Ottawa needs to recharge social programs and reform the tax system to help the poor, fight greenhouse gases, reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. ON THE SLOWDOWN: Government money should be made available for manufacturing; infrastructure funding should be dramatically sped up to flow quickly to cities and create jobs. NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: Liberals want to rekindle Canada's relationship with China, lead high-profile trade missions and promote key Canadian businesses abroad. Liberals would likely bring in a national security review of foreign takeovers. ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: They have been sympathetic to creating regional funds in the past, and hint they will have new campaign initiatives to announce about employment insurance and regional employment incentives. ON DEFICIT FINANCING: "Liberals have it in their DNA not to go into deficit," Mr. McCallum says. Liberals would reinstate the $3-billion contingency fund to keep government out of deficit, and if they were to inherit a deficit from the Tories, would immediately cut spending to make ends meet. ON TAXATION: The so-called Green Shift slaps a carbon tax on industrial emitters, rising gradually over four years. The tax is being marketed as revenue neutral, however, because the Liberals would also cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes, with an emphasis on low-income groups. ON SPENDING: Poverty reduction, families and seniors would receive more income supplements, funded by new revenue flowing through carbon taxes. The Liberals' record shows the party eliminated the $42-billion deficit in the late 1990s, but allowed spending to gradually creep up as a share of GDP. ON EMISSIONS CONTROL: The carbon tax is meant to deter emissions and steer industry into green technology. The Liberals say they would also move towards a cap-and-trade system over the long run. Winners and losers Who benefits: Lower-income Canadians, through cuts to income tax and enhanced income supplements. Who pays: The 700 large polluters who would pay the carbon tax. *** THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THE ECONOMY FREE-MARKET FAITH ON GOVERNMENT'S ROLE: "We approach things in a fundamental, permanent way," says Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister. A federal government should do what it can to not impede business: cut red tape, cut taxes, offer incentives for innovation. ON THE SLOWDOWN: Stimulus took place last fall with a series of tax cuts that meant tax refunds to Canadians this spring were on average $200 higher than the year before, up 14 per cent. NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: Governments should not pick winners, but create the conditions for winners to emerge on their own. Conservatives would encourage more foreign investment in Canada by removing some restrictions in the uranium and airline sectors, and raising the threshold for review of foreign takeovers. But they would also bring in a national-security review of potential takeovers. ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Tories have a general distaste for making allowances for struggling regions, but introduced a $1-billion "community trust fund" to help hard-hit areas try to move on. ON DEFICIT FINANCING: "I can say without hesitation that we will run a surplus this year," Mr. Flaherty says. Even if the economy turns from bad to worse in 2009, when the budgeted surplus is expected to be slimmer, he says a Conservative government would make up the difference, if necessary, by speeding up its expenditure review process. ON TAXATION: Lower business taxes help give Canada a global edge; all taxes should drop relentlessly; cuts should be small and targeted, with specific policy aims. ON SPENDING: Mr. Flaherty argues it should be tightly controlled, though his own budgets have contained spending increases at least as large as those in many Liberal budgets. Spending is budgeted to be above 13 per cent of GDP, a higher ratio than in most years of Liberal government. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates the Tories' pre-election spending promises total $19.2-billion, announced between June 2 and Sept. 6. ON EMISSIONS CONTROL: Conservatives want it accomplished mainly through regulation, not tax policy. But any attempt to control emissions puts government in the middle of the energy industry, despite Tory ideology that dictates minimalist intervention. Winners and losers WHO BENEFITS: The middle class, because of cuts to consumption taxes and income taxes. WHO PAYS: People who have lost their jobs at factories that have closed, because funding is for struggling firms that remain open. *** THE OTHER PARTIES A MIX OF MESSAGES BLOC QU�B�COIS: It wants financial support, loan guarantees and better tax treatment for the manufacturing sector; wants a law to force government to buy Canadian; wants better income support for seniors; hopes for enriched transfers to Quebec and more provincial freedom to spend the money. NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY: The NDP would halt corporate tax cuts and instead create a $2-billion-a-year fund to offer subsidies and create 40,000 factory jobs; the fund would offer subsidies to encourage companies to innovate, produce low-emission cars and train unemployed workers for green jobs. The NDP wants a made-in-Canada procurement policy and trade policies that protect manufacturing. GREEN PARTY: It would overhaul taxation so that polluters paid a carbon tax; would use the proceeds to cut payroll taxes, allow income splitting and boost transfers to seniors and low-income people.

I'm still amused at what seems to be 3 parties (Fiberals, New Dummycrats and Groan) running on essentially enviro platform and the Con-servatives remaining the visible alternative to all.

quote:

Tories to open parental benefits to self-employed OTTAWA � Stephen Harper has announced a spending promise worth $147-million that would allow self-employed Canadians the opportunity to access maternity and parental benefits enjoyed by other wage earners who pay into the EI system. ... �Ironically, self-employed Canadians who are successful and who create jobs must pay into the EI system on behalf on their employees, but cannot access those benefits themselves,� Mr. Harper said. �This is not right.� http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...lxnharperEI0915

Pretty interesting. Just as you said Yohan, an actual policy announcement, that goes away from the environment. How do people figure the rest of the economy/government is run after the enviro is all taken care of?

Yup, going after the female vote. Not a bad idea, as even here on TA, some women were lamenting the lack of financial support during a pregnancy.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Yup, going after the female vote. Not a bad idea, as even here on TA, some women were lamenting the lack of financial support during a pregnancy.

Yes we were, but I think we all have jobs and already have access to EI.
Personally I'd prefer to see the upper end of the salary range increased instead of given to people who have removed themselves from the workforce voluntarily.

I am confused by the Liberal Carbon scheme. Will they not end up implementing a tax on the manufacturing sector, the same sector that they also promise to help out financially? I agree the world is moving towards greener business and we all have to get on board eventually, but with the economy the way it is now, I think it's the wrong strategy to be basing a big part of your platform on increased corporate taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Personally I'd prefer to see the upper end of the salary range increased instead of given to people who have removed themselves from the workforce voluntarily.

Self-employed is hardly the same as being out of the workforce. That said, I don't believe it's acceptable for people who have not paid into the system to collect from it... this is an insurance plan; if you don't pay your premiums you don't have coverage. Note: this is the position of man with a self-employed wife and an eight week old (Mrs. Hazard is back to work).

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Note: this is the position of man with a self-employed wife and an eight week old (Mrs. Hazard is back to work).

You are such a slave driver....does Mrs. Hazard at least get bread and water?

My post, copied from the PDD...

Honestly, I believe a Conservative majority is the worst possible outcome for the Conservative party. Remember; this is a party built on grassroots, hard right/fundimentalist ideology. This base is what allowed the former Reform party to maintain the level of support it did. Since rebranding as the Conservatives, Harper has led the party more and more toward the centre, turning it into a brokerage centre party rather then a grassroots far right party. This has won him new support east of Manitoba; however, it has alienated many in their base. The only thing that has really kept the base tolerant of this new softer conservatism is the belief (and I have no idea if the party is encouraging this belief or not) that this move to the centre is just being done to win them enough seats to form a majority afterwhich they will govern based on their Reform roots rather then their new outward image. So Harper's in a rough place... if he gets a majority then he'll have to choose... govern from the soft right and he'll alienate his base, which is likely to result in a resurgance of Reform or a new party akin to it; or, he can govern from the hard right, which will apiese his base but send his new converts from east of the Lake of Bays running like hell back to the Liberals... worse yet, it will kill the Conservative Party because all those who feared Reform will have their fears vindicated and will likely never return to support the Conservatives.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced You are such a slave driver....does Mrs. Hazard at least get bread and water?

It's the nature of her business... you spend years building a client base but if you're unavailable for an extended time they all find new therapists.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Self-employed is hardly the same as being out of the workforce. That said, I don't believe it's acceptable for people who have not paid into the system to collect from it... this is an insurance plan; if you don't pay your premiums you don't have coverage.

Agreed, it is basically an insurance plan. The question is, are there private insurance plans which cover pregnancy? If not, this is a great option for the self-employed. And it is pretty fair, pay and get a benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's the nature of her business... you spend years building a client base but if you're unavailable for an extended time they all find new therapists.

fine...suck all the humour right out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced fine...suck all the humour right out of it.

Initially I had written a humorous reply... but it was really offensive; while that normally doesn't bother me it was offensive and directed at my wife... that just didn't seem right. I'll tell you later.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Agreed, it is basically an insurance plan. The question is, are there private insurance plans which cover pregnancy? If not, this is a great option for the self-employed. And it is pretty fair, pay and get a benefit.

My guess is that some of the private life and health policies would. If not then an annuity is a great option for self-employed women who intend on getting pregant... purchase an annuity when you start work and then alter the pay-out date to your due date (once you know what that is). Granted, this strategy requires that this is a planned pregancy and that you had been considering it for several years before hand; however, if your self-employed and reasonably assured you'll want kids then it's a good strategy. If you end up not having kids then you've still got a good investment.

**edit: I suppose the annuity plan would also be a good one for anyone that wants to top up their parental benefits.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.