Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[SirJosephPorter]

By the way, if you look at the recommendations I'd made above for how we could reduce government spending without sacrificing services in any way, what party would come closest to that?

Machjo, your recommendations, while making sense, are Utopian in nature. Both you and I know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell that any of them will be implemented.

When it comes to balancing the budget, I think everybody must do their part. The rich and middle class do their part when government increases the tax burden. However, the poor don’t pay any taxes. But they also must do their part. So to reduce deficit, there must be spending cuts, government must be ruthless about it.

Now, it is quite possible that a government which raises the taxes and cuts spending may well be a one term government. So be it. But that is what I would like to see Obama do in his second term (assuming he gets one). And also what I would like to see Liberals do if they win power (but this can only be done by a majority government). Once the current crisis is over, it is time to wield a sharp knife, cut spending. It is also the time to bludgeon the rich and the middle class with increased taxes.

The process of balancing the budget is never pleasant, there is plenty of pain involved. But it must be done for the long term health of the economy. And the only way I know it can be done is by raising taxes and cutting spending.

 

[L Gilbert]

I am talking of conservative politicians here, Machjo. You may be conservative (and certainly your abortion position is a conservative position), but how can YOU cut taxes and borrow money (unless you become the PM)? Living beyond one's means, to go on a spending spree (in the form of tax cuts) using a credit card is a privilege accorded only to the Premiers, PMs and Presidents, not to mortals like you or I.

lmao whatta twit.

 

[L Gilbert]

re: auto sector bailout - this bailout was to specific companies - not the SECTOR.

I don't believe that iff GM or Chryslar were allowed to fail, there would not have been mass layoffs. Someone would have bought the factories (Ford, VW, maybe even Magna?), etc... at bargin prices, and someone else would have built cars. The demand for cars is still there.

The whole "auto sector bailout" was a scam, and a waste of money.

Exactly.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Promoting freer movement of labour, not just freer trade sounds great in theory,
but the reality is that most folks stay where their family is when times are tough.
We might have unemployed people in Canada with skills that are in demand
abroad, or vice versa, but will the people move to where the work is???

With the exception of hordes of Newfoundlanders (& many from Saskatchewan to
Alberta in the '80's & '90's), this in my experience doesn't hold true. There ARE
jobs to be had in Western Canada. Just in the mining section alone, big numbers
of people are needed in Saskatchewan alone as its mining industry is now larger
than either Ontario's or Quebec's....but are Ontario's flocking to the Prairies enmass?
The Newfoundlanders seem to know and understand this reality (look at Fort Mac!!!).
Many originally from Saskatchewan are coming back due to the economy (and back
to where their families are), but many more are staying in Alberta 'cuz that's where
their lives are now. Machjo, I don't completely disagree with your idea, but factoring
in human nature, most folks wouldn't move across the country for work, let along
abroad. What you propose surely couldn't hurt, but it might not be as much help as
you might think.

I think that any Federal Political Party (or coalition of Parties) that tried to call another
election anytime soon, will go down in flames in an ugly way due to a population that
doesn't want another election until they absolutely have to go and vote again. Lots of
noise about an upcoming election, but if it happens, whomever forced it upon
Canadians will pay by becoming an obscure memory in the future.

 

[Machjo]

That's it? No scrapping of the gun registry and other programs, dumping redundant commissions, etc.?

I'll admit that I don't know enough about them and the possible consequences of changing them, etc. So I'll defer to your wisdom on that one. I would say though that the ownership of a functional weapon should be allowed only to those for whim it is essential, and they must declare in writing that it is, and howso. Though I would be open to a wide interpretation of this, including hunting for food, certain sports for which a weapon is required, etc. And of course for gun collectors, a simple solution would be to make it non-functional by removing the firing mechanism, etc. As to how to organize it, though, I'd have to learn more about it.

And certainly, any costs associated with it should be made user pay.

English is already replacing damned near all other languages in business, cultures, n whatnot. Dozens and dozens of languages are active now, and you wanna add another. mmhmmm I see

According to Francois Grin of the University of Geneva in 2005, his research concluded that the EU was subsidizing the British economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros a year in second-language teaching alone, and that it could save over 25 thousand million euros per year in second-language teaching alone if it should switch to an easier language. Additionally, in 2001 another study found that only about 6%of Western Europeans could accurately translate commonEnglish sentences into their languages. The UN general Assembly spends about 12 million US dollars a year on translation and interpretation for the General Assembly meetings alone, not including all other functions of the UN. According to another expert in aeronautical communication, about 15% of aircrashes are caused by simple miscommunication. And in 2006, StatsCan indicated that only about 45% of Quebecers are functional in English, and that's based on self-assessment, so it might even be lower. English is fine for the elites. For the rest, it's a big waste of money.

I'd be happy using Eurobucks. Not so happy using Yen (denominations are outlandish). Greenbacks are boring. What's NATO?

Euros I could accept since they're international. Yen woould be imposing another country's currency on us. Or we could even create a new one. Either way, the goal is to have one less currency on the world market.

hmmm I can see freedom of movement for terrorists in that idea. Probably safer to just equalize nations concerning cost of labor.

I was watching a video on Youtube today. It was interesting that one profesor mentioned that many of the Taliban are so because they're paid pennies a day for it. He'd sugggested just out-bidding the Taliban for these guys! Ah capitalism, gotta love it.:roll:

As for terrorism, my point is that there is always a reason. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and decides to be a terrorist. besides, this is what airport and port security is for. And if we give the rest of the world more work opportunities... hmmm.... maybe they'd appreciate it and we'd have fewer terrorists? One possible control would be to require those entering the country to know the local language so as to save on translation costs.

I agree; they are some ideas.

I like to open myself to all human possibilitis, and not limit myself to Gramscian common sense.

 

[Machjo]

re: auto sector bailout - this bailout was to specific companies - not the SECTOR.

I don't believe that iff GM or Chryslar were allowed to fail, there would not have been mass layoffs. Someone would have bought the factories (Ford, VW, maybe even Magna?), etc... at bargin prices, and someone else would have built cars. The demand for cars is still there.

The whole "auto sector bailout" was a scam, and a waste of money.

Agreed.

 

[Machjo]

Dion's green shift would never have worked as it relies on logic that is deeply flawed.

The scenario that you paint only works when the 'resource efficient' technology actually exists and can be comercialized on a reasonable basis... If we're talking cars, then we need battery systems that are specific to the utility AND we'll also need to generate the power in order to charge said batteries.

Not all provinces have the potential for massive hydro projects, wind power needs to be more consistent and the same goes for solar.... Right now, employing your strategy would solely result in driving-up everyone's cost of living and nothing more.

And income tax custs would allow companies to develop that. They wont' do it till the pressure is on. BC is on the right track with this. If we did this, I can guarantee many would dump their hummers for bicycles.

 

[Machjo]

By bicycles, manner of speaking.

 

[Machjo]

By the way, if you look at the recommendations I'd made above for how we could reduce government spending without sacrificing services in any way, what party would come closest to that?

Machjo, your recommendations, while making sense, are Utopian in nature. Both you and I know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell that any of them will be implemented.

.

If we want it to be Utopian, then so it shall be. The choice is ours. I'm not against cutting social assistance to the poor. But it seems mean to not explore all other options first. The options presented above would allow for tax cuts without hurting anyone too much. It would seem to me that it's not about Utopianism, but justice. Before we start cutting on the poor, let's cut all the other places first. Then we can cut on the poor. Besides, all these other burdens might be a reason they are poor.

 

[Machjo]

Promoting freer movement of labour, not just freer trade sounds great in theory,
but the reality is that most folks stay where their family is when times are tough.
We might have unemployed people in Canada with skills that are in demand
abroad, or vice versa, but will the people move to where the work is???

With the exception of hordes of Newfoundlanders (& many from Saskatchewan to
Alberta in the '80's & '90's), this in my experience doesn't hold true. There ARE
jobs to be had in Western Canada. Just in the mining section alone, big numbers
of people are needed in Saskatchewan alone as its mining industry is now larger
than either Ontario's or Quebec's....but are Ontario's flocking to the Prairies enmass?
The Newfoundlanders seem to know and understand this reality (look at Fort Mac!!!).
Many originally from Saskatchewan are coming back due to the economy (and back
to where their families are), but many more are staying in Alberta 'cuz that's where
their lives are now. Machjo, I don't completely disagree with your idea, but factoring
in human nature, most folks wouldn't move across the country for work, let along
abroad. What you propose surely couldn't hurt, but it might not be as much help as
you might think.

I think that any Federal Political Party (or coalition of Parties) that tried to call another
election anytime soon, will go down in flames in an ugly way due to a population that
doesn't want another election until they absolutely have to go and vote again. Lots of
noise about an upcoming election, but if it happens, whomever forced it upon
Canadians will pay by becoming an obscure memory in the future.

I agree with much of what you say here. but I was referring to the principle. Ture, few would exploit the opportunity to go abroad to get out of unemployment, but the least we owe them is to give them the chance. Imagine if we said that becaue few Canadians are wiling to move to other provinces to find work, that we won't allow them too. They'd be mighty angry about it. And some do. Even if it helps only some, it's still worth it.

 

[Machjo]

Not to mention that free movement of labour can help international relations too.

 

[captain morgan]

And income tax custs would allow companies to develop that. They wont' do it till the pressure is on. BC is on the right track with this. If we did this, I can guarantee many would dump their hummers for bicycles.

Good point! Now that I think of it, I really ought to consider not taking my tractor-trailer when I drive 3 blocks to buy some gum. I'd better make a note of that (*note to self: drive to staples to get note pads).

As far as BC is concerned, I don't believe that the average consumer has changed their habits one bit.... Seems to me that this grandiose idea is just another money grab after all... But at least the good people of BC can take some comfort in the notion that it's going towards - ummmm - exactly what is it going towards again?

 

[Machjo]

Actually, it's not a tax increase, but a revenue neutral tax shift, meaning that overall taxes are the same. If you use less gas, you pay less tax.

 

[Machjo]

And if you use more gas, you pay more tax.

 

[YukonJack]

Summer elections? Bring it on!

Those who are young, on vacation, ALL union members, and those who just simply could not separeate themselves from the beer fridge and the BBQ, are not going to vote, anyways.

 

[captain morgan]

Actually, it's not a tax increase, but a revenue neutral tax shift, meaning that overall taxes are the same. If you use less gas, you pay less tax.

Dion tried that revenue neutral tax shift nonsense. That's like saying that if you don't buy gas it isn't taxed at all.

 

[Machjo]

It's taxed. But while ou don't have a choice to earn an income, you do have a choice as to how much gas to consume.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'll admit that I don't know enough about them and the possible consequences of changing them, etc. So I'll defer to your wisdom on that one. I would say though that the ownership of a functional weapon should be allowed only to those for whim it is essential, and they must declare in writing that it is, and howso. Though I would be open to a wide interpretation of this, including hunting for food, certain sports for which a weapon is required, etc. And of course for gun collectors, a simple solution would be to make it non-functional by removing the firing mechanism, etc. As to how to organize it, though, I'd have to learn more about it.

And certainly, any costs associated with it should be made user pay.

If I were Chretien, I would have simply boosted the enforement of the existing gun laws. The gun registry was turned into a $2 billion+ farce.

According to Francois Grin of the University of Geneva in 2005, his research concluded that the EU was subsidizing the British economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros a year in second-language teaching alone, and that it could save over 25 thousand million euros per year in second-language teaching alone if it should switch to an easier language. Additionally, in 2001 another study found that only about 6%of Western Europeans could accurately translate commonEnglish sentences into their languages. The UN general Assembly spends about 12 million US dollars a year on translation and interpretation for the General Assembly meetings alone, not including all other functions of the UN. According to another expert in aeronautical communication, about 15% of aircrashes are caused by simple miscommunication. And in 2006, StatsCan indicated that only about 45% of Quebecers are functional in English, and that's based on self-assessment, so it might even be lower. English is fine for the elites. For the rest, it's a big waste of money.

I agree about the waste of money concerning Canadian French. Um, the UK is being overrun by Muslims. Teaching another language to people like me would be a waste of time and money. Teaching another language to bi- and multilingual people may pay in the long run but it'll be a loooooooooooooooong run.

I'd be happy using Eurobucks. Not so happy using Yen (denominations are outlandish). Greenbacks are boring. What's NATO?

Euros I could accept since they're international. Yen woould be imposing another country's currency on us. Or we could even create a new one. Either way, the goal is to have one less currency on the world market.

I like the idea as long as the denominations aren't ludicrous and the currency has color.

I was watching a video on Youtube today. It was interesting that one profesor mentioned that many of the Taliban are so because they're paid pennies a day for it. He'd sugggested just out-bidding the Taliban for these guys! Ah capitalism, gotta love it.:roll:

hhhmmm Mercenary-ism. Interesting idea. The US does it, too.

As for terrorism, my point is that there is always a reason. A person doesn't just wake up one morning and decides to be a terrorist. besides, this is what airport and port security is for. And if we give the rest of the world more work opportunities... hmmm.... maybe they'd appreciate it and we'd have fewer terrorists? One possible control would be to require those entering the country to know the local language so as to save on translation costs.

Nope. I am sure that Omar Bebahd doesn't have any plans to be one when he's 15 years old either. But then apparently it is not that hard to deluge him in propaganda to turn him into one.All it would take is a few cells in each country to subvert people into doing nasties. Oh, wait we have that now. Lets add to it by sending lots of people freely about the planet to be subverted.
lol You sure are stuck on the language thingy, aren't you? (Not a criticism, just an observation)

I like to open myself to all human possibilitis, and not limit myself to Gramscian common sense.

Awesome.

 

[L Gilbert]

Good point! Now that I think of it, I really ought to consider not taking my tractor-trailer when I drive 3 blocks to buy some gum. I'd better make a note of that (*note to self: drive to staples to get note pads).

As far as BC is concerned, I don't believe that the average consumer has changed their habits one bit.... Seems to me that this grandiose idea is just another money grab after all... But at least the good people of BC can take some comfort in the notion that it's going towards - ummmm - exactly what is it going towards again?

2010 Olys. Remember? lol

 

[#juan]

You're in waaayyyy over your head juan. Sadly, you refuse to see any of these issues from an objective stand-point but insist on toe-ing the party-line.

The worst thing that Mulroney could have done is to reduce the size of gvt and lay-off (potentially) 1/2 of the gvt employees which would equate to approx 25% of the work force (directly/indirectly employed by gvt) only to pay them through EI or welfare.... Not a real good idea.

As for your curiosity about the debt increase, how the hell should I know.... But you see, I don't claim to have all the answers whereas you make quite a show about condemning Harper/Flaherty as if you have the answers.. So, what is it? What should we be doing - what would the liberals do that is so blindingly obvious?

I'm guessing that once again, you'll evade the question by attempting to deflect the focus.

For one thing, Mulroney was in for nine years. He could have cut the size of the government through attrition without laying off anyone. Chretien eliminated the deficit in a couple years. Why couldn't lyin brian? All I know is that the Liberals handed Harper a ten billion dollar surplus. What did Harper do? He cut corporate taxes, cut the GST, He spent the surplus, and now the government is running on deficit financing and Flaherty is building debt but we don't know how much. Any time a finance minister can't tell us how much the debt is, that minister should be fired.