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 »

quote:

Originally posted by malek Duceppe wasn't that good today, he was very nervous. He didn't end his words and sentences which only made him hard to understand. I liked the part where he's just frank saying "i will not be a PM and neither you three" pointing at everyone except harper.

I loved that line and wish all our politicians were more honest and up front. Duceppe when he is on has more personality and charisma that all the other 4 leaders combined.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper because when international affairs are conducted in english, he's going to struggle communicating. because 2 of the most powerful nations in the world -US and Britain - are obviously english.

Have you ever heard Bush speak? What about those damn Brits with their proper English...talk about hard to understand.

:P

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I didn't have a problem with Chretien, but I thought his accent wasn't as bad and he had enough of a presence otherwise to offset it. Dion is a boob. When he argues I find the words just stumble awkwardly out of his mouth. It's not just an accent. He's not convincing at all, and if you want to vote for someone who can't convince anyone of anything, that's your call. I don't think he has the presence of a politician and he won't get my vote because of it.

I think your big issue has more to do with him as a person and not just his ability to speak English. The biggest problem we have is all of our political leaders leave a lot to be desired. None of them have that extra something. There is no charisma, no personality, no leadership qualities (there is no Trudeau, Reagan, Castro, Thatcher, Clinton, to name a few). Layton with his porn stache just appears to be too much of a joke, Dion is just a nerd who appears to be scared and timid. Duceppe I actually don't mind but as he said last night isn't really a choice. May, while she impressed me just seems like someones mother who is trying to teach you something but just doesn't come off as a leader. Harper...what can I say. I think he is a great politician BUT he isn't a leader. He always looks so awkward when he isn't talking and listening. He should be a behind the scenes advisor..

Until we get some new blood in the federal scene we are going to be stuck with this bland, oatmeal for breakfast candidates.

I know people will definetly not agree with this but the Conservatives need someone like Mike Harris. Love him or hate him he was a great leader and speaker. They would have had this election wrapped up long ago. As much as I hate the Liberals they would have been doing so much better if they had gone with Rae, or
even if they had gone in a different direction with Kennedy (who I hate, but he is a great speaker). Its ironic the Liberals are in the position they are in because of Kennedy.

Even with a Cons minority, it'll be like last parliament all over again. Does Canadians want another election in 2 yrs? That was the Sword of Damocles for the opposition and it'll be similar climate again.

So if the Cons win the election, it'll be just like winning a majority, at least for 3 yrs IMO

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Dion ... solid platform (IMHO)

Hahahaha, that's a good one.

Yes, carbon taxes and more handouts are a superb platform.

quote:

Harper ... unreleased/unknown formal platform (fact)

I don't see how that's a "fact". It sounds like the same FUD that Liberal supporters were talking about during the last election with Harper's "hidden agenda". Aside from a few cock-ups here and there, he's basically done what he said he was going to do, in spite of having a minority government. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to support the same policies.

Can any of the Liberals in this thread answer this? no one so far was able to...

To those who understand the green shift program from the liberals.

I understand that Dion wants to reduce everyone's taxation, and shift it to those that pollute (people and companies).

In other words, he'll reduce the taxes of citizens and corporations regardless, and tax things, services and production means that are harmful for the environment.

If it's well calculated, this move would not alter govt revenues (economic cost 0$).

The intention is that by taxing pollution, it would discourage those who produce it and reduce pollution essentially.

My question is, 5-10 years down the road, if pollution is significantly reduced, thus taxation coming from that source, reduced. How will the government make up for those losses? Hike taxes back to their original levels?

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller I personally don't feel he comes off as a top politician either, but I really don't think the (lack of a) language barrier would make any difference. All he has is an accent. From when I've heard him speak, he very rarely makes any grammatical mistakes. Remember, there are many Canadians whose first language is French, who the prime minister is supposed to represent. Furthermore, Canada is a bilingual country. I'm beginning to believe that for some (not saying anyone in particular that's posted in this thread), their problem is more that French is his mother tongue, not that his ability to speak English inhibits his ability to communicate and therefore lead the country...

Are you kidding me? It's not JUST his accent. Jean Chretien has an accent and I've NEVER had a problem understanding him. Duceppe has a STRONG accent and I understand him just fine. But when Dion starts speaking, I lean forward towards the television to make sure I'm paying full attention, and I STILL have a hard time understanding him.

He sounds like he has peanut-butter stuck to the top of his mouth. Like a bilingual deaf guy. His words tumble out of his mouth in batches of 3 or 4 words at a time, and they're usually so quick I can't follow what he says in any given sentence until I'm given the full context of his message as he continues to speak. This is a PROBLEM. It's not 'simply' an accent.


On to the debate:

I found the debate entertaining, nothing like watching 4 liberals attack one Conservative for 2 hours with the occasional, even more entertaining in-fighting (Layton: You couldn't do your job as Opposition leader and now you want to be PM?!).

I'm with everyone else who says the line of the night was Duceppe right at the end. "Well, I will never be Prime Minister and I do not think any of you three will be either." while pointing at the other liberals at the table. If he had a plan for CANADA that didn't include Quebec getting the hell out, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Like a bilingual deaf guy.

<3

As much as I disliked all of the liberal candidates, I thought Ignatieff would have given the liberals a better chance of winning this election. I remember being just stunned that Dion was chosen, and that's basically when I started looking for another party to give my vote to.

quote:

Originally posted by malek I understand that Dion wants to reduce everyone's taxation, and shift it to those that pollute (people and companies).

I don't even know where to begin on what's wrong with this statement. Let's see:

1. This is using a very liberal definition of "pollution". Whether or not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can actually cause a significant and negatively-impacting climate shift (and my money is still firmly on "unlikely"), it is most certainly not a "pollutant". Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring chemical in our atmosphere and is not toxic in any way - the only issue being debated is what concentration of it could block heat transmission.

2. There is no evidence - none - that the tax would be accompanied by other cuts. The Liberals have reneged on promises for tax breaks before, and this time they haven't even made a promise. Even if they did, there's still no evidence that the breaks would be across the board, and knowing the Liberals, any breaks would be on the bottom end, screwing the middle class as usual.

3. Even if the tax breaks happened and even if they were completely fair, industry isn't just going to eat the tax and forgo profitability. The costs will be passed on to consumers and we will therefore end up paying for it anyway.

4. Emissions are a direct side-effect of energy consumption, which is something that businesses and (most) individuals already pay for. Since the economic incentive is already in place, the likelihood of actually reducing emissions with an additional tax is vanishingly small.

There's not a shred of practicality or intellectual credibility to the "green shift" program. If it would accomplish anything at all, it would be to damage several industries and raise the cost of living for all Canadians. It's reason enough on its own not to vote Liberal this election.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut There's not a shred of practicality or intellectual credibility to the "green shift" program. If it would accomplish anything at all, it would be to damage several industries and raise the cost of living for all Canadians. It's reason enough on its own not to vote Liberal this election.

Well said.
I understand the point of sticking to one major theme or focusing on one major change as the basis of the party platform, but it seemed odd to me that the liberals would pick such a controversial one - then I realized they probably put the program together before the last month of economic carnage. Most people are cool with changing the environment (ha, get it - cool? global warming? ) but the economy is always going to trump that.

Did any of the parties talk about the bailout bill?

Ugh, don't get started on the bailout bill. What a waste of money. It's going to take MUCH more than 700b to get the US out of that mess, so either way, we're looking at a recession. I'm no economist, but I'm of the opinion that a few well-planned regulations to prevent something like that happening again, then letting the dust settle on it's own would have been a far better choice than wasting money trying to stop something that's already happening.

Nevermind that, how stupid ARE people these days? What was the original trigger for the Great Depression? As I've understood it, retail (mostly furniture?) companies handed out piles and piles of credit to people who couldn't pay up, then, a few years down the line when all those people started defaulting on their debts, all those companies and their stock-holders realized they didn't ACTUALLY have the money they thought they did. Did people not learn their lessons back then? Did they think that "Oh, well, mortgages are different from furniture."? Give me a break, hand out piles of credit to poor people and you're INVITING recession. On top of that, and I'm foggy on the deatails because I started listening halfway through the message. I heard some dude on the radio claiming that back in theeee...... 80's? 90's? It was the GOVERNMENT that basically FORCED financial institutions to hand out that credit in order to get more immigrants and low-income families on the path to owning their own house (forced equality). What a horrible decision that was. No wonder the government's bailing these companies out, they forced them into the current situation to begin with!

I haven't read up much on the great financial crises in US history (I'd like to though) but from what I understand, government bailouts aren't new. A bailout accompanied the depression and another one in the 70s. Obviously both periods were followed by a recession anyways. But how bad would it have been without government intervention? That's anyone's guess.

I agree in principle that the bailout is a bad idea. But I'm starting to wrap my head around how enormous the current situation is - American consumers are already hurting. They've lost their homes, their jobs, their savings (if they had any). If credit markets don't get the lubrication they need, the world will go into a truly deep and prolonged recession. I know that in principle that this means the market is functioning normally, but as Warren Buffet says that this is the "pearl harbor of economics." Pretty scary.

all this talk about Dion's communications skills really supports my argument that we should replace this democracy with a meritocracy; there are far too many people who can discern what is and is not a valid criteria on which to base a decision of this magnitude.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hahahaha, that's a good one. Yes, carbon taxes and more handouts are a superb platform.

come on...you're buying into the same "media FUD" that you mention below. Have you read the 60+ page PDF of the Liberal platform that's on their site?

it's a bit more comprehensive than a carbon tax and handouts.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't see how that's a "fact". It sounds like the same FUD that Liberal supporters were talking about during the last election with Harper's "hidden agenda". Aside from a few cock-ups here and there, he's basically done what he said he was going to do, in spite of having a minority government. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to support the same policies.

that's funny, because the CPC is finallly releasing it this week

Harper has kind of done what he's said he'd do, but has refused to directly answer questions and criticisms of his policies, particularly going forward...so I think a platform is indeed necessary for voters to compare and contrast it with the alternatives.

I agree with those suggesting Ignatieff would have been a better choice. I was pulling for him during the leadership debate. Aside from his stance on the wars, an 'academic' in power would have been an interesting option.


Malek, as for what happens to tax cuts once the companies retool...good question. Given that carbon taxes have been implemented in Europe for well over 10 years, I suppose the answer might be found there?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT an 'academic' in power would have been an interesting option.

Isn't that what they got with Dion?

FYI, Harper is on BNN in 10 minutes talking about the economy.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper <3 As much as I disliked all of the liberal candidates, I thought Ignatieff would have given the liberals a better chance of winning this election. I remember being just stunned that Dion was chosen, and that's basically when I started looking for another party to give my vote to.

I have also been disappointed in the Liberal Party since Paul Martin took over. Still, that discontent has not, like in your case, pushed me into the arms of the Reform Party. They are not the Tory Party either...people really need to stop calling them that.

This is Preston Manning's party dressed in blue and nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper FYI, Harper is on BNN in 10 minutes talking about the economy.

Watched part of it. Didn't know that he used to be an economist.

I like the fact that the interviewer brought up the part about a recession being necessary to any 'healthy' market.

It look s like Harper's harping on the carbon tax may work because of how crazy the economy is.

^^^ opposition leaders pointed that out in the debate, to underscore their arguments against his economic policies...I think one said "you're an economist, you should know...".

you'd think an economist could have put the 12 billion in GST revenue to better use (e.g. infrastructure, cities, etc), rather than handing it back to those who spend money. Tying tax savings to consumption is not sound economic policy, IMHO, and certainly doesn't help those who need it most...but hey, he's the brilliant economist.

So what are you doing with the $25-30/mth you *may* be saving? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Isn't that what they got with Dion?

kind of.

Ignatieff seems stronger, more confident, more able to express his views and positions. Any time I've heard him speak or read something by him, I'm impressed. Agree or disagree with what he says, there is thought behind it...an arguement rather than 'politician speak' or hype.

I think he would be a refreshing change to the standard politician. Dion would be as well...and I don't personally have a problem with him or with my voting for him...but he clearly hasn't been able to sway the public and effectively lead the party (whether that's his fault or the fault of a public who needs to be "sold" with frilly Obama-esque speeches and charisma).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT you'd think an economist could have put the 12 billion in GST revenue to better use (e.g. infrastructure, cities, etc)

A "pure" economist would probably cut income taxes and not consumption tax, so you're right in one sense. But this is not just economics, it's also politics, and a GST cut is better perceived as benefiting the "poor".

No free-market economist would consider handing it over to municipal governments to be "better" use. Infrastructure isn't really supposed to be the government's job at all.

Socialists!

Harper harping! lol!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Infrastructure isn't really supposed to be the government's job at all.

do you mean govt in general or the federal???

quote:

Originally posted by malek My question is, 5-10 years down the road, if pollution is significantly reduced, thus taxation coming from that source, reduced. How will the government make up for those losses? Hike taxes back to their original levels?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Have you read the 60+ page PDF of the Liberal platform that's on their site?

I read as much as I could, but I did not find a provision for rolling back taxes. It seems to be permanent.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko I read as much as I could, but I did not find a provision for rolling back taxes. It seems to be permanent.

but how will the govt make up for the lost taxes once pollution is reduced???

This is the question I want someone to answer.

I posted that in response to Aaron, not Malek...but I too did not see a "what happens next" on the carbon tax plan.

absolutely it's a valid question. I haven't really had a chance to dig for info on the European countries who have had a tax in place for some time (10+ years, no?) to see how it was handled there.

did they implement income tax cuts or just tax industry? if they did implement cuts, how did they fund them as companies complied? did companies not comply? did they implement no cuts to offset the higher cost of goods that would allegedly occur as industry at least partially downloaded the cost to consumers?


If I had to hazzard a guess:

the presumption is that companies will comply and reduce emissions, thereby reducing their tax payable...but that process could take long enough (obviously companies don't retool overnight) for the gov't to gradually factor in the income tax cuts into the overall budget over time?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT If I had to hazzard a guess: the presumption is that companies will comply and reduce emissions, thereby reducing their tax payable...but that process could take long enough (obviously companies don't retool overnight) for the gov't to gradually factor in the income tax cuts into the overall budget over time?

Here's my guess, the govt will raise and raise the tax on pollution to make up for the loss of revenues.

Some products or services that can't be produced in a clean(er) manner, will become more and more expensive which will erase the advantage of the (meager) tax breaks for many and especially those who use those products or services.

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