Looks Like the Dreaded Spring Election is on!

[Goober]

I know one thing, there is no way on God's green earth that I'll be voting for my local conservative candidate.

I am torn between Green -Space cadets- or I will have to call and check and see if when you go to vote you decline - a form is made up and it is registered, means squat to some but to other it means something - We were able when Klein had his Senate fiasco of who the voter wanted where we could decline to vote. Which i did.

Just an idea - i will email Elections Canada when i have chance.

 

[gerryh]

Well I hav'nt done the research myself, but this what is often stated in the business magazines.

If you think about it, intuitively it should be correct. If you have bags of money, what are going to do with it??
You will spend it, obviously, this will provide spin off work for others.
Or, maybe you start a business ??? Who do you think owns all the various fast food joints, for instance, and they all creat a lot of jobs, even if they are small.
Or any other kind of business, mostly run by people who have at least some money !!
It all helps !!

Well, if you got it from "business" magazines, you should be able to find it on the net to back up your BS.

 

[Durry]

Well, if you got it from "business" magazines, you should be able to find it on the net to back up your BS.

Well if you think it's bs, why are you reading it dumbo??

 

[PoliticalNick]

Pull the stats on who pays the high rate of taxes in canada on a percantage basis. Then take the numbers for low income - - it is the middle class that gets hit the hardest - Check the stats.

It all gets a little blurred when discussing 'middle class'. Right now the defined middle class is a family income between $40k and $100k which is quite misleading. $40k with a family of 4 is not middle class its working poor, and $100k to a single person or 'dink' couple is above middle class.

That said you are correct that those with the median income ($60k or so) seem to get the shaft but it is not at the expense of the poor but at the benefit of the rich. We need to close many loopholes with regards to investment, invesment income, deffered tax strategies and such that are only a benefit to the rich and increase the rate on those earning more than $100k.

When FDR (might have been Truman) implemented a 90% tax on the wealthy (those with more than $1 million income) and dropped the rate on the middle class to 10% it created the largest economic growth in the history of the USA because the poor and middle class had so much more money in their pockets to spend. It stimulated the economy by allowing people to spend more thereby increasing demand and creating jobs.

The whole idea that giving the rich and the corporations tax breaks stimulates growth is a fallacy it instead encourages stagnation. The money goes right to the shareholders or the pockets of the wealthy and stays there. There is no demand created to require more employees nor is there an incentive to do anything other than sit back and collect the cash.

 

[JLM]

Prove that point - Or is that opinion?

I think he may be right on that score, Goober. The only exceptions I can see are those who hoard their money- if they are not actually hiring people or running a business they are likely consuming a lot one way or the other be it buying fancy cars, or plane tickets or meals in upscale restaurants or expensive booze. An employee somewhere is being paid on account of them.

 

[Colpy]

Changing the topic, my apologies.

What are your opinions on this? 3 Amigos or 3 Goofs ?????

John Ivison: Coalition looking likely as Harper fights for a majority | Full Comment | National Post

But Stephen Harper’s time as a leader of a minority government is up. Even if he wins the most seats in Parliament, it is inconceivable that the opposition parties would allow him to govern. There is simply too much bad blood and ill-will for Mr. Harper to be able to prise one opposition party away from the others.

In that event, the Governor-General if anyone else could form a government. It is becoming ever more clear that Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, backed by Gilles Duceppe, would be happy to revive their 2008 coalition and give the Tories the boot for good.
The NDP leader explicitly endorsed a coalition with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois in his scrum in the foyer of the House of Commons Wednesday. “I have said I will work to ensure the ideas we campaigned on have the best possible chance of being implemented in Parliament. I will reach out to other parties who are willing to work with us,” he said.

Mr. Ignatieff, wary of walking into this potential minefield, refused to rule out a coalition, instead wittering on about the election being a choice between walking through blue doors or red doors.

But the Liberal leader knows his chances of becoming prime minister without the NDP’s help are slim to none. In the past , he has defended coalitions as “perfectly legitimate” and said he’d be prepared to lead one after the next election. Clearly, in his mind it would not be a coup if his party came second and tossed the largest party from government. While Mr. Ignatieff is right that to do so would be legitimate from a constitutional point of view, Canadians are used to governments being formed by the party that wins the election. A similar situation in the U.K. last year, where the second place Labour Party and third-placed Liberal Democrats held discussions about trying to form a government, was met with apprehension by voters.

Concerns about such constitutional nuances will quickly move from the dusty offices of procedural experts to the water cooler as we move inexorably toward an election. The Liberals introduced their no confidence motion Wednesday, to be debated Friday, and the other opposition parties have already indicated their support.

It is, by far, the most important factor in the election.

To give the BQ, the party that exists to smash the Canadian nation, a seat in a governing coalition borders on sedition.

IMO, it leaves the voters little choice......either force a strong commitment from the Liberals (no coalition with the BQ).....or vote Conservative.

 

[Durry]

I think he may be right on that score, Goober. The only exceptions I can see are those who hoard their money- if they are not actually hiring people or running a business they are likely consuming a lot one way or the other be it buying fancy cars, or plane tickets or meals in upscale restaurants or expensive booze. An employee somewhere is being paid on account of them.

This is far too deep for him to comprehend!!

 

[JLM]

This is far too deep for him to comprehend!!

Nope - Goober is one of the sharper minds here, sometimes trees just get in the way of the forest. :smile:

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think he may be right on that score, Goober. The only exceptions I can see are those who hoard their money- if they are not actually hiring people or running a business they are likely consuming a lot one way or the other be it buying fancy cars, or plane tickets or meals in upscale restaurants or expensive booze. An employee somewhere is being paid on account of them.

I have to disagree. Those with the money to have expensive cars and travel and eat at fancy restaurants are not going to spend twice as much just because they make twice as much. They already have more than they need so do not create more demand for products and services than was already there. It is only by giving those that will increase their standard of living the ability to do so that you stimulate growth in the economy.

 

[Cliffy]

It is, by far, the most important factor in the election.

To give the BQ, the party that exists to smash the Canadian nation, a seat in a governing coalition borders on sedition.

IMO, it leaves the voters little choice......either force a strong commitment from the Liberals (no coalition with the BQ).....or vote Conservative.

Black or White. No gray areas, no compromise, no reconciliation, no chance of flexibility. You are as politically rigid as a corpse. Your view is: 1. Liberals seen through a brick wall 2. Conservatives seen through rose coloured glasses.

Me, I see all politics through a pile of Bull Crap, but I would rather see a Liberal/NDP coalition than a Conservative minority because in the past all of our social safety net was created by such governments. It is a good combo of taking care of business and the general public, where Conservatives only take care of themselves and their backers - big business. Your paranoia of the BQ borders on psychosis.

 

[JLM]

I have to disagree. Those with the money to have expensive cars and travel and eat at fancy restaurants are not going to spend twice as much just because they make twice as much. They already have more than they need so do not create more demand for products and services than was already there. It is only by giving those that will increase their standard of living the ability to do so that you stimulate growth in the economy.

Don't forget such services as financial advice, tax consultants, various insurance policies- as long as these people exist other people are being paid. (Possibly 10 taxmen from Ottawa investigating them) :lol:

 

[Durry]

Nope - Goober is one of the sharper minds here, sometimes trees just get in the way of the forest. :smile:

Hahah, ok, I agree with you, I think my comment should have been directed more at gerryh !!!

 

[JLM]

Black or White. No gray areas, no compromise, no reconciliation, no chance of flexibility. You are as politically rigid as a corpse. Your view is: 1. Liberals seen through a brick wall 2. Conservatives seen through rose coloured glasses.

Me, I see all politics through a pile of Bull Crap, but I would rather see a Liberal/NDP coalition than a Conservative minority because in the past all of our social safety net was created by such governments. It is a good combo of taking care of business and the general public, where Conservatives only take care of themselves and their backers - big business.

Ooooooooooooh, ooooooooooooh Cliff- could be a bad choice! :smile:
But it would probably be close either way.

Hahah, ok, I agree with you, I think my comment should have been directed more at gerryh !!!

Don't go p*ssing off Gerry. For all we know he may live in Harper's riding.

 

[Colpy]

Black or White. No gray areas, no compromise, no reconciliation, no chance of flexibility. You are as politically rigid as a corpse. Your view is: 1. Liberals seen through a brick wall 2. Conservatives seen through rose coloured glasses.

Me, I see all politics through a pile of Bull Crap, but I would rather see a Liberal/NDP coalition than a Conservative minority because in the past all of our social safety net was created by such governments. It is a good combo of taking care of business and the general public, where Conservatives only take care of themselves and their backers - big business.

You should read what I write.

I have no problem with a Liberal/NDP coalition.....that would be completely kosher IMO.........I only have a problem with including the BQ.

I only urge Liberal voters to insist on a commitment not to screw the country by selling power to the BQ.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Don't forget such services as financial advice, tax consultants, various insurance policies- as long as these people exist other people are being paid. (Possibly 10 taxmen from Ottawa investigating them) :lol:

These are services already used by the wealthy. There is no increase in demand by making the rich richer. They will not hire another tax accountant or investment advisor because they now have twice the money and Ottawa will not investigate them any more than they do now.

 

[Goober]

It all gets a little blurred when discussing 'middle class'. Right now the defined middle class is a family income between $40k and $100k which is quite misleading. $40k with a family of 4 is not middle class its working poor, and $100k to a single person or 'dink' couple is above middle class.

That said you are correct that those with the median income ($60k or so) seem to get the shaft but it is not at the expense of the poor but at the benefit of the rich. We need to close many loopholes with regards to investment, invesment income, deffered tax strategies and such that are only a benefit to the rich and increase the rate on those earning more than $100k.

When FDR (might have been Truman) implemented a 90% tax on the wealthy (those with more than $1 million income) and dropped the rate on the middle class to 10% it created the largest economic growth in the history of the USA because the poor and middle class had so much more money in their pockets to spend. It stimulated the economy by allowing people to spend more thereby increasing demand and creating jobs.

The whole idea that giving the rich and the corporations tax breaks stimulates growth is a fallacy it instead encourages stagnation. The money goes right to the shareholders or the pockets of the wealthy and stays there. There is no demand created to require more employees nor is there an incentive to do anything other than sit back and collect the cash.

Give me stats - I asked on another thread for 10 atrocities committed that were found under Wiki leaks - you failed to reply - So i have doubt in your opinions when you state this or that happened - that to me is a reasonable conclusion - You make a statement - back it up - Otherwise - Drivel, or personal opinion. So show me where the US President implemented these tax increases.

 

[Machjo]

You should read what I write.

I have no problem with a Liberal/NDP coalition.....that would be completely kosher IMO.........I only have a problem with including the BQ.

I only urge Liberal voters to insist on a commitment not to screw the country by selling power to the BQ.

Just a question though. What ideas are kosher and which are not in a democracy? Seeing that the BQ is elected, is it allowed to represent the people who elected them or not?

As long as the BQ respects the law, it's free to try to split the country up just as the Conservatives are free to decentralize it and the Liberals and especially NDP centralize it. Who decides what vision of Canada is kosher to promote to Parliament?

 

[Cliffy]

Ooooooooooooh, ooooooooooooh Cliff- could be a bad choice! :smile:
But it would probably be close either way.

Harper came to power promising transparency. The first thing he did was build a brick wall and shut everybody out. It will take a change of government to find out what happened behind those locked doors of the PMO. I'm thinking we will find Brian Mulroney hiding in Harper's closet with fists full of cash.

 

[Goober]

Harper came to power promising transparency. The first thing he did was build a brick wall and shut everybody out. It will take a change of government to find out what happened behind those locked doors of the PMO. I'm thinking we will find Brian Mulroney hiding in Harper's closet with fists full of cash.

Was Chretien any different. Really - The honest answer would be No - Same batch of ratfuks.

 

[Cliffy]

Was Chretien any different. Really - The honest answer would be No - Same batch of ratfuks.

You are probably right, but the country was much better off under Chretien than under Mulroney or Harper.