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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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!

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

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 RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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?

Last edited by MarkT on Oct-06-2008 at 22:15

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.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

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.