# Canadian federal election



## andrewf

Now that the summer silly season is over and voters begin to pay attention to the upcoming federal election in a few weeks time, how do people expect this election to turn out, and who are you supporting?

I haven't paying too much attention to the day-to-day talking points and announcements, but I have been keeping an eye on the polling trends through the CBC poll tracker (http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html), run by Eric Grenier from threehundredeight.com. I must admit I am surprised by the trend so far, which the Conservatives seemingly falling to third place in support and projected seat count. I suspect they will bounce back before election day, but not enough to form a majority, and perhaps not even the government.

My prediction at this point is a NDP minority. I am not really inspired to vote for anybody, though I am more drawn to Liberal ideology (pragmatic, data-driven policy making, not in bed with unions, not in bed with social conservatives), but I am disconcerted by some of the softer-headed things Trudeau has been saying. Not too impressed with the appeal to 'middle class' concerns.


----------



## sags

I will be voting NDP.

The election is all in Ontario's hands now.

Interesting election tidbit..........if the Harper government falls, the only PC government left in Canada will be in Newfoundland/Labrador.

*Alberta* - Rachel Notley (May 24, 2015 - ) - NDP 
*British Columbia *- Christy Clark (Mar 14, 2011 - ) - Liberal 
*Manitoba* - Greg Selinger (Oct 19, 2009 - ) - NDP 
*New Brunswick *- Brian Gallant (Oct 7, 2014 - ) - Liberal 
* Newfoundland *- Paul Davis (Sep 26, 2014 - ) - P.C. 
*Northwest Territories *- Bob McLeod (Oct 27, 2011 - ) - N/A 
*Nova Scotia *- Stephen McNeil (Oct 22, 2013 - ) - Liberal 
*Nunavut* - Peter Taptuna (Nov 19, 2013 - ) - N/A 
*Ontario* - Kathleen Wynne (Feb 11, 2013 - ) - Liberal 
* Prince Edward Island *- Wade MacLauchlan (Feb 23, 2015 - ) - Liberal 
*Quebec* - Philippe Couillard (Apr. 23, 2014 - ) - Liberal 
*Saskatchewan* - Brad Wall (Nov 21, 2007 - ) - Sask. 
*Yukon* - Darrell Pasloski (Jun 11, 2011 - ) - Yukon


----------



## Davis

I'm hoping we can avoid discussion of the Middle East and refugees in this thread.

It still really irks me that the Conservatives have been so hypocritical about spending taxpayer money to sell government policies to us. They criticized Liberal governments for doing that, then when they got into power, they turned the spending up to 11.

Ontario had a good law that prevented this sort of abuse until the Wynne government neutered it earlier this year.

I haven't decided between the two opposition parties, but will probably choose based on the local candidates.


----------



## Davis

Sags, as an ex-PC, I shudder to see you lumping the Conservatives Party of Canada in with the PCs. The federal PC Party was taken over by the Reformers in the end. The Sask and Yukon parties are pretty much renamed PC parties.


----------



## Moneytoo

I live in the riding that elected Joe Oliver (who later became the minister of finance), so didn't think I need to worry for whom to vote as he'll be re-elected anyway. There've been only blue signs in my neighbourhood for weeks - was surprised to see a few freshly installed red ones (funny when the same front yard has both - guess husband and wife vote differently )

Didn't see any orange signs yet thank god. Hopefully Toronto still remembers Bob Ray whose brilliant idea was to build cheap housing in wealthy areas, leading to the drop in house prices. We just came to Toronto near the end of his ruling, and I still remember the name - everybody seemed to have hated him... And I just remember my first biggest surprise about Canada - the squirrels running around our apartment building, completely unafraid. And then the hatred when I saw kids throwing stones at them...

Anyhoo, voting for Conservatives. Wanna keep the TFSA room intact - don't care much about other promises since "Everybody lies" (c) House


----------



## sags

I watched elections and party conventions back to the days of John Diefenbaker. 

To misquote.........."Mr. Harper, I knew a real Conservative and you sir...........are no Conservative".


----------



## sags

Yes, Moneytoo..........Bob Rae became very unpopular, to the point of being booed publicly at Blue Jays games.

He surprisingly was elected and inherited an economy in trouble and tried to address the challenges.

He instituted "Rae Days" which were unpaid personal holidays for public service workers and cut a lot of spending........and was roundly despised by unions and public service workers.

Oddly enough, he used vaguely similar policies as those espoused by Tim Hudak in the last Ontario election.

Guess they didn't learn..............and now Conservatives are talking about the big bad NDP and using Bob Rae as an example ?

Crazy world politics is..............


----------



## Moneytoo

Well, as I tried to explain before, I tried to stay out of politics (USSR upbringing I guess - when we all had to vote - and there was only one candidate lol) So over the years I didn't vote, voted for liberals (as before Joe Oliver we had Joe Volpe re-elected every time), for greens, for beer party, and for freedom party of Ontario in the last provincial election. Yes, was just wasting my vote because I didn't care - and wouldn't be caught dead to be called conservative 

I don't read the news and don't listen to debates. But thanks to this forum in general (and to you in particular ), this is the first time when I actually know for whom I shall vote


----------



## Davis

Tory Mike Harris was widely reviled by the time he left, too, and Bob Rae is a Liberal now. I really want to vote Green someday, but I just read their platform, so now I can't. I just can't. Looking forward to seeing the other parties' full platforms.


----------



## fatcat

like the conservatives for immigration, taxes, budget, criminal justice and foreign policy
dislike them considerably on all social issues like drug reform, prostitution reform, death with dignity, all of which are issues i want to see happen

the ndp scare the shite out of me because they actually believe in things and that always leads to trouble, they will kill the economy just by getting elected, leave them in for about 10 years and we will become greece

i like the liberals well enough but don't really think trudeau has the chops whereas harper clearly is a leader

elizabeth may wants to french kiss omar khadr so i am going to pass on the greens though i am in a riding that is an ndp/green tossup so i might vote green just to f### with orange

this can go any which way i think

in general i would like a nice 3-way tie, it would be entertaining and no one could get up to too much mischief

maybe put put mulcair the right-wing left winger in charge of the liberal party and i would be go big red all the way


----------



## james4beach

I already voted NDP (remember, you can vote early). In my opinion, global factors will drive the economy, not what one party does for a couple years. I have no worries about the NDP negatively impacting the economy.

No political party is going to change whether commodities keep crashing, or rebound, nor will it change the direction China's economy takes (and global credit growth vs contraction)

Besides, Harper has run deficits. It's not like he's some kind of shining steward of the federal budget. And I don't like what they've cut from government services and research... these actions by Harper are things that will really hurt Canada long-term.


----------



## andrewf

I recognize that Mulcair has moved the NDP pretty far to the right, I just don't trust the party to govern there. And even still, Mulcair has positioned himself still a bit too left for my taste.


----------



## james4beach

I would have voted Liberal if it wasn't for their support of unfettered state surveillance (C-51 and other "Patriot Act" style values) as well as their support for military intervention, which let's leave to the other thread.


----------



## Sampson

frankly, I would like to see a minority, but then a coalition amongst 2 parties. I know this will never happen in Canada, but this in my mind is the only way to hold a governing party to account. Maintaining the partnership means that the the parties would need to make compromises and the strongest 'unique' views are not always passed.

It will never happen, but I would like for it happen.


----------



## Moneytoo

james4beach said:


> And I don't like what they've cut from government services and research... these actions by Harper are things that will really hurt Canada long-term.


It's ok, we'll just "import" more scientists from other countries: http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012...ies-for-biologists-and-related-scientists.htm 

And maybe I'm biased, but I like the more practical approach:

Meanwhile, this government has made a strong push for industrial-scientific partnerships. Funding has been blatantly redirected to developing innovations with the intent of generating immediate economic value. 

(as I remember reading about yet another "useless" research by Canadian scientists, wondering who's paying for it?)

Seriously though, since i don't follow the subject closely (or rather not at all) - what exactly you don't like?


----------



## sags

I think the "tone" of Mr. Harper's government has alienated a lot of Canadians, perhaps small groups at a time over the length of his tenure.

It often happens that voters become weary of a government after time, but when you add up the treatment of military veterans, the dustups with the Supreme Court, the appointments to the Senate, the introduction of Bill C-51..........a lot of Canadians started looking around for a new government.

I suggest people watch the interviews on CBC with each leader. Peter Mansbridge does an excellent job of asking important questions.

Opinions will vary on the results, but I was very impressed with Mr. Mulcair, somewhat impressed with Mr. Trudeau and thought that Mr. Harper looked like he wished he hadn't run again.

Mr. Harper's interview probably shouldn't be surprising though. He has found himself almost under siege with low oil prices, a "technical" recession, Senate scandals and candidates making fools of themselves.

I think the absence of Jim Flaherty, Tony Clements and John Baird have made life more difficult for Mr. Harper.

The great joy of a free democracy is to be able to vote for anyone you want.........and in Canada I think it safe to assume that regardless of who wins the country won't fall apart.


----------



## sags

An NDP victory wouldn't be a surprise this election, as they weren't a big surprise in Alberta....but when they won in Ontario years ago it was a complete shocker.

I remember the NDP campaigns previous, where the same candidate ran over and over and over...........and never came close to winning.

The one election she decides to sit out..........a student takes her place (nobody else wanted to run) and was swept into power under the NDP banner.

He was shocked, the riding was shocked...........everyone was shocked, but off he went to run the Province.

Everyone felt bad for the woman who had run in all those campaigns and lost.

Next election...........he was defeated and looking for a job...............


----------



## james4beach

Moneytoo said:


> Seriously though, since i don't follow the subject closely (or rather not at all) - what exactly you don't like?


I don't like that the conservatives have cut funding for fundamental scientific research, the stuff we'd classify as basic R&D. Instead they've pushed a very pro-business agenda.

One example is with fisheries research and the Experimental Lakes. This was a long-lived research project to study the behaviour of freshwater systems and ecosystems... it was unique in the world, useful to researchers globally. Harper shut it down, despite please from _scientists around the world_. Research such as this was helping Canada preserve its most vital resources: fresh water & fisheries.

Another example I'm personally familiar with is the NRC, National Research Council. This is a place we have scientists working on fundamental research concepts, like new approaches in chemistry, materials and even quantum computing. Advancements here help build Canada's global advantage ... it means future power and influence, as well as technologies we can market, even entire industries we can create.

Harper pushed to convert it into an entirely "applied" operation where they required partnerships with businesses, and stopped much of the fundamental R&D. This is harmful to Canada's long term interests. It's the slow-moving fundamental research, detached from immediate business needs, that really develops the amazing stuff.

But now at NRC, you can't have a project unless you partner with a business and illustrate an immediate benefit for commercialization. It's the same problem we have in universities. If we continue down this road, we will lose our abilities as a nation to develop new and innovative science. It's very short term thinking. No long term vision.


----------



## Moneytoo

james4beach said:


> I don't like that the conservatives have cut funding for fundamental scientific research, the stuff we'd classify as basic R&D. Instead they've pushed a very pro-business agenda.


I'm not an economist, but I work in R&D department of a privately-held IT company. When the going gets tough, there're always budget cuts, layoffs and focus on immediate project-related needs - since if the company doesn't survive the short-term, there won't be long-term needs...

I don't have the statistics, but just based on CMF discussions:

- "some" young Canadians don't want to study or work hard
- "some" not so young Canadians want to retire early
- "some" choose frugality as a lifestyle and don't thrive to earn a lot of money
- "some" buy a house and don't have the money for much else
- "some" will hunt for the cheapest price or freebies

With oil prices low and (I'm assuming here) less taxes because of lower incomes and consumptions - is it possible that there's not enough money in the budget for both short-term necessities and long-term research? I understand that there's always an easy solution: increase the taxes for corporations and the wealthy - but if they take off and leave, then what?..


----------



## gibor365

> Anyhoo, voting for Conservatives. Wanna keep the TFSA room intact - don't care much about other promises since "Everybody lies" (c) House


 Not only TFSA, I like income split and think it shouldn't be capped and should be applicable to families with older (spendings for university is much higher than in schools) or without kids... generally, Harper is trying to give some benefits not only to so-called "poor", but also to working middle class, less chances that he will increase taxes etc... So, definetely we will vote for Conservators...
even though I hate some of his foreign policies and "puppy" behavior toward US...
except last election , in out riding Libs always were winning, but now I don't even see other than PC signs and have no idea who is our Lib/NDP candidates... At list current PM Brad Butt is answering (sometimes) on email I send him 



> but if they take off and leave, then what?..


 or they also decide to retire early  why to have stressful and unlimited hours jobs, if 50% of your income you pay in taxes?!


----------



## gibor365

> the ndp scare the shite out of me because they actually believe in things and that always leads to trouble, they will kill the economy just by getting elected, leave them in for about 10 years and we will become greece


 true! and this is in the best case scenario



> I suspect they will bounce back before election day, but not enough to form a majority, and perhaps not even the government.


 that what I also expect and don't think any party gonna get majority...
btw, andrew, I don't get ... which party you are going to vote for?


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> even though I hate some of his foreign policies and "puppy" behavior toward US...


Aw puhlease, like others will have a choice... "Who's not with US is against us" 



> or they also decide to retire early  why to have stressful and unlimited hours jobs, if 50% of your income you pay in taxes?!


Yep, my husband has been VP for less than a year - and already says he's not sure he can do it much longer... wants to go back a few steps down - or better yet, become a fisherman in Belize lol


----------



## james4beach

So there was enough money to subsidize oil & gas extraction, but there wasn't enough money to fund long-term R&D for Canada's future? I call bullshit on that... I think this is about Harper's priorities and business circles, not about the actual fiscal situation.


----------



## Moneytoo

Oil & gas could've funded long-term research in the short term. But whatever, you already voted - if NDP wins, we'll see their priorities when faced with realities


----------



## james4beach

Oil & gas funds long-term research in oil & gas -- not in ecosystems, the environment, pure physics, chemistry, etc

The federal government has the unique capability of funding long-term R&D in everything, including fundamental sciences.

Gone is the kind of business world where companies would fund billions of $ worth of fundamental research. They used to ... Bell Labs, etc. But the corporate world no longer does this. Thank goodness that government still does.


----------



## gibor365

> if NDP wins, we'll see


 james won't see, he lives in Oregon 



> Yep, my husband has been VP for less than a year - and already says he's not sure he can do it much longer...


 very similar to my wife who is senior director for less than a year  , recently, after she saw that NDP is in strong lead, she joked that maybe like many other Canadians we should just stop working and spend all savings.... it will be more than enough until we can start getting CPP, OAS and in this case GIS  , but you know that "in every joke, there is part of ... joke"


----------



## FinancialFreedom

I'll be voting NDP. I work in a union so not surprising I hate Harper. The only thing I'll miss is the increase to tax free savings accounts.

My prediction is NDP wins minority government.


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> james won't see, he lives in Oregon


Interesting to know the NDP will give him an exemption on his Canadian tax return ... I missed that in their campaign promises. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## martinv

Usually, during an election the parties offer up little goodies so that you might support them.
So far the NDP is going to reduce my TFSA contribution in half ( if they don't reduce it completely ).
And they are going to treat "capital gains" the same as wages and salaries.
I watched the CBC interview with Justin the other day and he is also going to reduce my TFSA contribution in half.
I don't know what Harper is going to take away yet. Oh yes, forgot they took away my income trusts!
Thanks to all the parties for nothing...yet. waiting for something though.
Wish there was an another party on the horizon to vote for.


----------



## jargey3000

They're ALL a buncha crooks......some just haven't been caught yet.
"Don't be a chump - Vote for Trump!"


----------



## nathan79

I'll vote for whoever is leading in the polls in my riding and not Conservative... so either NDP or Liberal, not sure yet.

http://www.strategicvoting.ca/


----------



## gibor365

martinv said:


> Wish there was an another party on the horizon to vote for..


I also wish! If we switch to "popular vote" , there will be more parties for sure.... but currently from 3 evils I gonna vote for lesser one (Harper).


----------



## Ag Driver

Deleted


----------



## mrPPincer

nathan79 said:


> I'll vote for whoever is leading in the polls in my riding and not Conservative... so either NDP or Liberal, not sure yet.
> 
> http://www.strategicvoting.ca/


Nice! I was already planning to vote NDP this time, and the strategic voting site above requests we vote NDP in my riding this time. It's as good as done 
Today I'll be picking up some orange lawn signs, maybe even have one made up with the strategicvoting info on it to put on the front privacy fence. (I'm right on a busy main road).


----------



## gibor365

FinancialFreedom said:


> I'll be voting NDP. I work in a union so not surprising I hate Harper..


Another reson to vote Harper!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

If you are voting strategically without giving consideration to your local candidates, their background, and who would best represent your riding - then IMO you deserve a moron for an MP (and there appear to be a few of them running).


----------



## gibor365

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> If you are voting strategically without giving consideration to your local candidates, their background, and who would best represent your riding - then IMO you deserve a moron for an MP (and there appear to be a few of them running).


This is actually one of the things that i don't like in current election system. For example, I want to vote for Conservatives, but I hate their candidate in my riding... What should I do in such case?! And I had sometimes such situation....
Other time our riding winner Liberal (Khan) switched to Conservatives.... I was OK with his decision, but his supporters got upset 

I'd prefer to vote for party in general than for specific candidate....


----------



## Sampson

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> If you are voting strategically without giving consideration to your local candidates, their background, and who would best represent your riding - then IMO you deserve a moron for an MP (and there appear to be a few of them running).


Reciprocally, if you are voting for a leader or party without giving consideration to your local candidates..... Rob Anders


----------



## Sampson

nathan79 said:


> http://www.strategicvoting.ca/


From the site: <quote>After a successful strategic voting campaign, we expect and support a coalition government led by Tom Mulcair, with Justin Trudeau as the deputy prime minister and Elizabeth May as the minister of the environment. /quote

Is this the Avengers of the Canadian political World?


----------



## sags

The Dream Team of politics............


----------



## sags

In 47 years of voting, I have yet to call the local MP office for anything.

I am sure they do some useful work on behalf of people, but so many times voters are stuck with a non-government MP who can't get much of anything done in Ottawa.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> The Dream Team of politics............


No, the three stooges


----------



## sags

LOL..............not so bad though compared to what Americans often get to choose from..........

Substitute jury pool for Presidential candidate pool..........

https://youtu.be/q5uztpW5xjU


----------



## gibor365

another reason to vote for Conservatives ... in our riding Liberal candidate is unknown Singh, NDP candidate is terrorists' supporter who writing anti-Israeli and anti-US articles in arabsnews.com 
Thus, NO CHOICE! Only Conservatives have normal candidate


----------



## humble_pie

great stuff! this election is shaping up as that rarest of events. An old fashioned town hall meeting where pretty near everybody can get to speak out his convictions with passion.

in my town the phones in the candidates' campaign offices are already ringing night & day.


----------



## humble_pie

gibor said:


> another reason to vote for Conservatives ... in our riding Liberal candidate is unknown Singh, NDP candidate is terrorists' supporter who writing anti-Israeli and anti-US articles in arabsnews.com
> Thus, NO CHOICE! Only Conservatives have normal candidate



help! moderators! racist spotting! helphelp!

(signed)
piglet from winnie-the-pooh


----------



## gibor365

> piglet from winnie-the-pooh


 Nice to meet you Mme. Piglet!
So, terrorist supporter and Anti-Semite can represent one of the biggest parties in Canada and be MP, however, to tell that I don't want to vote for him = racism?! Super hypocracy!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

gibor - I think humble-pie was joking around. 
Let's not be an Eeyore!
View attachment 5785


----------



## sags

Harper sent his campaign director home. 

Strange election for sure.

Were it not for the fact that Harper is the PM..........the media might be giving him as much attention as they do the Green Party.


----------



## Sampson

sags said:


> In 47 years of voting, I have yet to call the local MP office for anything.
> 
> I am sure they do some useful work on behalf of people, but so many times voters are stuck with a non-government MP who can't get much of anything done in Ottawa.


This is one of the major problems with our government. MPs voting outside party policies really get punished and we are stuck with the generic rhetoric of the party's ideals.


----------



## humble_pie

gibor said:


> another reason to vote for Conservatives ... in our riding Liberal candidate is unknown Singh, NDP candidate is terrorists' supporter who writing anti-Israeli and anti-US articles in arabsnews.com
> Thus, NO CHOICE! Only Conservatives have normal candidate





gibor said:


> So, terrorist supporter and Anti-Semite can represent one of the biggest parties in Canada and be MP, however, to tell that I don't want to vote for him = racism?! Super hypocracy!




if the ontario MPP whom you don't know how to identify is Jagmeet Singh, then yes, what you've posted is racism. All you really have to say is that you don't care for his views, but what you've posted instead is strong racist language that possibly borders on the illegal, calling him abnormal & a terrorist for reasons that are not clear.

if this is Jagmeet Singh, he's a prominent NDP politician & activist lawyer who presently sits for bramalea in ontario. His record is spotless.

in 2012, the toronto Star called Singh a "dynamic trailblazer" & named him one of "12 to watch" in ontario politics.

it's true that Singh is known as left-wing, even within the NDP. But to call him an abnormal "terrorist" is to wade into the ugly waters of public libel, imho.


----------



## Moneytoo

@humble, read the post again: "Liberal candidate is unknown Singh, NDP candidate is terrorists' supporter who writing anti-Israeli and anti-US articles in arabsnews.com " I'm not saying that gibor is right, but to take what he said about the second candidate and apply it to the first is not a good arguing technique


----------



## Davis

It does look like humble_pie missed the mark there. Gibor rant doesn't identify which of the over 300 NDP candidates he is likely libelling because he doesn't tell us what riding he's in. Facts and evidence rarely seem to enter into Gibor's "thought process", though.


----------



## humble_pie

indeed our ranting friend does identify the riding as "our riding," ie his own riding.

how many times has RF told us he lives in mississauga? 9 times? 25 times? it's easy to identify the riding.

also, i said "if." as in "if" this is a particular Singh. 

do you think our honourable ranting friend is talking about 2 candidates here? that's not the sense i get, but then, the post is another one of those typical incoherent dyslexic explosions. All we're told is that he doesn't like someone, therefore the person is abnormal & a terrorist supporter :biggrin:


----------



## Davis

Fair enough. I don't pay too much attention to what Gibor says, so I don't remember where he lives. information I don't need in my life. I will criticize his bigotry, his incoherence, his bile, and his world view, but not his written English. His English is far better than my Russian. I would struggle to participate in any non-English discussion forum. 

I think he should expect those who seem to think that free speech is unlimited to defend his "right" to libel election candidates.


----------



## humble_pie

his "english" may be better than our russian but he's lived here something like 12-15 years (in the latest version of his autobiography gibor says he arrived in canada at the age of 35, then attended college in this country)

me i think that 15 years is plenty of time for ideation & thought patterns to settle down & become coherent, in any language


----------



## Davis

I don't know. Maybe he's not trying to fit into our culture and way of life. Maybe he's one of _those_ immigrants that bring their old country grievances to Canada and disrupt our peace and harmony. Maybe he's a fifth-columnist for the Putinistas. :biggrin:


----------



## humble_pie

it's hard to see dyslexia as a clandestine disruptive strategy though
if it were we could phhhht off syria in a twink


----------



## fatcat

sheesh boys and girls give us a break with the whining about racism

the ndp is a party so rife with racist and anti-semitic ideology that their own leader had to shut down it lest their views become known to the canadian people

honestly, put away the violins and the finger wagging


----------



## gibor365

> @humble, read the post again: "Liberal candidate is unknown Singh, NDP candidate is terrorists' supporter who writing anti-Israeli and anti-US articles in arabsnews.com


Exactly! But some ladies on this forum have comprehension difficulties :biggrin: :stupid: or just don't understand difference between Liberals and NDP 



> but to take what he said about the second candidate and apply it to the first is not a good arguing technique


 This is usual tactics of HP-Davis tandem 
btw, by Singh I didn't mean his last name , but Sikh :biggrin:


----------



## Davis

fatcat said:


> sheesh boys and girls give us a break with the whining about racism


Maybe you and he can stop whining about how the refugees are terrorists who are going to destroy our way of life. 

If the bigotry shoe fits, Gibor can wear it. Don't expect anyone to give him or anyone else an easy ride when they target identifiable groups for blanket opprobrium. That is what bigotry is. This isn't the first time he's done it.


----------



## fatcat

Davis said:


> Maybe you and he can stop whining about how the refugees are terrorists who are going to destroy our way of life.


maybe you can stop mischaracterizing my views ... nowhere did i say that refugees are terrorists, nowhere ... stop twisting my words


----------



## gibor365

2 quotes from davis:
1.


> I'm hoping we can avoid discussion of the Middle East and refugees in this thread.


2.


> Maybe you and he can stop whining about how the refugees are terrorists who are going to destroy our way of life.


No futher comments :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

It only took forty posts for this thread to go off the rails.


----------



## Davis

gibor said:


> 2 quotes from davis:
> No futher comments :stupid:


Hm. I regret my part in taking this off the rails, but Gibor was the one who started things by calling a candidate a terrorist-supporter. Let's leave it there. 

And having had fatcat egregiously put words into my mouth so many other times, his criticism is only laughable. 

Back on the election track, I admit to being conflicted about TFSAs. I think that increasing the limit is really bad policy, and there are lots of other reasons why I couldn't vote Conservative (undermining democracy, Duffy, Conservative bullying, boutique tax credits instead of general tax cuts), but TFSA is a bad policy that benefits me, so it hurts to vote to defeat it. There is my confession for the day.


----------



## sags

If it is any consolation to those concerned about the TFSA cut.....it is doubtful the Harper government would let people invest $10,000 a year forever.

The likely scenario is that they would cap it someday. 

The higher limit could be a revenue gained..........or it could be a loss amplified, depending on the performance of the investments within the TFSA.


----------



## gibor365

> but Gibor was the one who started things by calling a candidate a terrorist-supporter.


 Oh , really?! Gibor started it?! 
I was talking about candidates in our riding... I read article NDP candidate wrote in arabnews.com that support terrorists ... or you think that NDP candidates cannot be terrorist-supporter?! And what to do here with Syrian refugees.... ?! Davis, you are funny!


----------



## gibor365

> If it is any consolation to those concerned about the TFSA cut.....it is doubtful the Harper government would let people invest $10,000 a year forever.


 Why not?! Check out how much limits on TFSA-like accounts in UK! Bring back Mark Carney!

Even more important than TFSA income split introduced by Harper


----------



## gibor365

The real face of NDP
Tom Mulcair, Olivia Chow and the NDP’s huge anti-Semitic problem
http://www.therebel.media/tom_mulcair_olivia_chow_and_the_ndp_s_huge_anti_semitic_problem

Three federal NDP candidates are under intense scrutiny – and one has resigned – for controversial comments each made about Israel. - See more at: http://www.cjnews.com/canada/ndp-candidates-under-fire-comments-about-israel#sthash.7Fu50QLr.dpuf


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> his "english" may be better than our russian but he's lived here something like 12-15 years (in the latest version of his autobiography gibor says he arrived in canada at the age of 35, then attended college in this country)
> 
> me i think that 15 years is plenty of time for ideation & thought patterns to settle down & become coherent, in any language


You might like this book (it was one of my favorites in high school, and I'm pretty sure it's translated to English ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard. Very touchingly describes very similar point of views that keep fighting in these threads IMO:

"The story presents themes of cultural futility – both the futile attempts of the aristocracy to maintain its status and of the bourgeoisie to find meaning in its newfound materialism."


----------



## humble_pie

Moneytoo said:


> You might like this book (it was one of my favorites in high school, and I'm pretty sure it's translated to English ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard. Very touchingly describes very similar point of views that keep fighting in these threads IMO



wondering if you mean the play by russian playwright anton Tchekov? thanks ... i read it many years ago, also a couple other plays by this genius writer ... i had a prof in college who said tchekov's dramas so often feature the ambiguous problems of first-born older daughters ... i'm happy to have this reminder to go back & read more this time

one book i adored recently was A Short History of Tractors in the Ukraine. The author & the characters in the novel had all migrated to england, but i absolutely loved this work, the principal character was also a daughter & to me she felt like a relative


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> wondering if you mean the play by russian playwright anton Tchekov? thanks ... i read it many years ago, also a couple other plays by this genius writer ... i had a prof in college who said tchekov's dramas so often feature the ambiguous problems of first-born older daughters ... i'm happy to have this reminder to go back & read more this time


Yep (and I grew up on the street with his name... ) Interesting - never thought about [his books with regards to] first-born older daughters problems (maybe because I'm the only child), but both my mom and mother-in-law are such daughters with younger loser-ish... ummm... what's the better word... yes - underachieving!  brothers, so my husband and I were comparing the uncanny similarities


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> one book i adored recently was A Short History of Tractors in the Ukraine.


Didn't want to pay 14 bucks for an iBook, so downloaded a free copy in Russian - thanks! 

Anyways, sorry for off top (didn't mean to turn this thread into a book club )


----------



## Sampson

andrewf said:


> It only took forty posts for this thread to go off the rails.


There really should be a thread dedicate for this discussion so it doesn't creep into the others...

I would read it.


----------



## gibor365

Jewish voters — and more importantly, Jewish campaign contributors — are abandoning political parties of the left.



> Canada, where until 2000 the Liberal Party had a lock on Jewish support, provides a longer-lived example of how Jews react when they perceive their government to tolerate, if not encourage, anti-Semitism. After the Liberal government in 2001 decided to participate in Durban, the overtly anti-Semitic UN conference on racism, after the Liberal government in 2002 decided to allow Hezbollah to fundraise in Canada and Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien gave a speech in Lebanon with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah honoured with a front row seat, and after Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu in 2002 was prevented from speaking at Montreal’s Concordia University amid a violent, anti-Semitic melee, Jewish support for Liberals began to evaporate


http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-the-jewish-turn-to-the-right


----------



## Davis

It is easy to find examples of instances where Conservative Party candidates and operatives have made antimuslim, antigay, antiaboriginal or sexist statements. And Conservative policies are often criticized for all of these things. I will always take issue with Stephen Harper trying to bring out antigay votes by promising to hold a vote in the House of Commons on excluding same-sex couples from the Marriage Act. In addition to making gays and lesbians second-class citizens, Harper knew that doing so was unconstitutional. This was the height of political cynicism and pandering to narrow-minded people to get votes. It demonstrated a complete lack of integrity. And then the majority of the Tory caucus voted against equality for gays and lesbians.

I don't expect everyone to care about same-sex marriage as I do, but they should care about how Harper was cynically dividing Canadians for political gain. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't want to be the prime minister food all Canadians, he just wants to make sure his party's core voters are happy. "It's all about the base."


----------



## fraser

I do not like to see any party retain power for more than eight years or so. They get too comfortable, too greedy, and tired. Especially the current one. 

Long in the tooth, well past their sell by date, and completely lacking in integrity at the PM and the PMO levels. Time to kick the bums out and elect a new bunch of lying piggies at the trough.


----------



## fatcat

Davis said:


> It is easy to find examples of instances where Conservative Party candidates and operatives have made antimuslim, antigay, antiaboriginal or sexist statements. And Conservative policies are often criticized for all of these things. I will always take issue with Stephen Harper trying to bring out antigay votes by promising to hold a vote in the House of Commons on excluding same-sex couples from the Marriage Act. In addition to making gays and lesbians second-class citizens, Harper knew that doing so was unconstitutional. This was the height of political cynicism and pandering to narrow-minded people to get votes. It demonstrated a complete lack of integrity. And then the majority of the Tory caucus voted against equality for gays and lesbians.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to care about same-sex marriage as I do, but they should care about how Harper was cynically dividing Canadians for political gain. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't want to be the prime minister food all Canadians, he just wants to make sure his party's core voters are happy. "It's all about the base."


oh good lord ... and the liberals and ndp never cynically divide people for political gain ? 
and the ndp never plays to the base ? 
really ? you need to do standup :cower::biggrin:

your problem is that harper is just a lot better at the stuff they *all* do


----------



## sags

fraser said:


> I do not like to see any party retain power for more than eight years or so. They get too comfortable, too greedy, and tired. Especially the current one.
> 
> Long in the tooth, well past their sell by date, and completely lacking in integrity at the PM and the PMO levels. Time to kick the bums out and elect a new bunch of lying piggies at the trough.


Yea, it usually takes them awhile to find the free buffet. Unless they are like Mike Duffy who dig in before they even have the job........


----------



## sags

fatcat said:


> oh good lord ... and the liberals and ndp never cynically divide people for political gain ?
> and the ndp never plays to the base ?
> really ? you need to do standup :cower::biggrin:
> 
> your problem is that harper is just a lot better at the stuff they *all* do


The NDP base is average working Canadians............and I is one.


----------



## fatcat

fraser said:


> I do not like to see any party retain power for more than eight years or so. They get too comfortable, too greedy, and tired. Especially the current one.
> 
> Long in the tooth, well past their sell by date, and completely lacking in integrity at the PM and the PMO levels. Time to kick the bums out and elect a new bunch of lying piggies at the trough.


agree, it happens every time regardless of what side of the spectrum the party occupies ... i like harper but he is like 4-day old fish, starting to smell and needs to be tossed out

it should have happened here in bc but the ndp bet on the wrong horse


----------



## gibor365

> I don't expect everyone to care about same-sex marriage as I do


 OK, now I understand what is going on :biggrin:



> and the liberals and ndp never cynically divide people for political gain


 all this election they demonize "rich" people, in order to fit their political agenda, definition of "rich" for them is very various . FOr them increased TFSA is only benefits rich, Income split - also, universal child tax credit - also .... sure "only rich" because people who works can get back a bit money :biggrin: What s BS!


----------



## gibor365

> I do not like to see any party retain power for more than eight years or so.


 Me too. But I don't have any other choice now! NDP and Libs are one )actually two ) big disaster! I wish we had "true Conservative" party


----------



## Davis

I agree with fatcat that the Tories are much more effective at dividing Canadians against each other. That was my point, just stated in a different way. The Tories have taken it evern further by changing the voting rules to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to support other parties, claiming that there is a risk of voting fraud. There isn't evidence of actual voting fraud, mind you. 

Gibor, it has been shown pretty conclusively that higher income people get proportionately more benefit from inomce splitting and TFSAs. Shana tova to you and your family.


----------



## gibor365

Davis said:


> Gibor, it has been shown pretty conclusively that higher income people get proportionately more benefit from income splitting and TFSAs. Shana tova to you and your family.


Not true! A very middle class family where one spouse's income $60-70K and others 20-30K gonna get much more refund from income split than family where both spouse income 100K (when they in the same high tax bracket).
TFSA increase in % of income gives practically nothing to a rich families with household income 500K+
TFSA increase gives advantage practically to every working family who pays taxes...hold it in TFSA and not SAving account and pay less taxes ... obviously if familyis not wasting all money on gadgets

Shana tova gam lah


----------



## gibor365

Canada votes ‘no’ to raising Palestinian flag at UN headquarters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nian-flag-at-un-headquarters/article26326563/

Thank you Harper! and Australia too! \As per Tellwut, 60% of Canadians suupot this decision
http://www.tellwut.com/survey_solve/solve/share/1f8kd06tzb28-3gs81d89gzc8


----------



## gibor365

Just heard on TV news that this brute wynn wants to bring 10K syrian "refugees" to Ontario (independently from federals) and spend more than 10M$ on that... ridiculous considering that province is bankrupt.... how can she through away millions of taxpayers money?!
poor ontario seniors who many years waiting for subsidized housing....


----------



## fatcat

Davis said:


> I agree with fatcat that the Tories are much more effective at dividing Canadians against each other. That was my point, just stated in a different way. The Tories have taken it evern further by changing the voting rules to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to support other parties, claiming that there is a risk of voting fraud. There isn't evidence of actual voting fraud, mind you.
> 
> Gibor, it has been shown pretty conclusively that higher income people get proportionately more benefit from inomce splitting and TFSAs. Shana tova to you and your family.


i agree and don't agree on the voting rules issue, i tend to agree that there has been little evidence of fraud and so there is no compelling need ... on the other hand the requirements for identification are not onerous (being mostly difficult on first nations people i believe) and like it or not identification is more and more required in daily life

on the dividing of canadians against each other, as you say, the conservatives are just much better at it than the rest .. not surprisingly since they are in numbers a minority party and thus tend to use every trick in the book

personally, i prefer my politics dirty and don't care much for lofty ideals when it comes to electing the power-hungry men and women that yearn to run our lives


----------



## fatcat

gibor said:


> Just heard on TV news that this brute wynn wants to bring 10K syrian "refugees" to Ontario (independently from federals) and spend more than 10M$ on that... ridiculous considering that province is bankrupt.... how can she through away millions of taxpayers money?!
> poor ontario seniors who many years waiting for subsidized housing....


as you say there are presently people in ontario waiting on housing lists (long lists), on wait list for doctors and probably wait lists for nursing home care and competing for scarce good jobs and university allotments ... are the syrians going ahead of everyone else ?

if they aren't, how are they going to feel being unable to get decent housing, job training or good jobs since presumably they will be at the end of the line 

housing especially is a huge issue ... i don't get the wisdom in this


----------



## MrMatt

Davis said:


> I agree with fatcat that the Tories are much more effective at dividing Canadians against each other. That was my point, just stated in a different way. The Tories have taken it evern further by changing the voting rules to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to support other parties, claiming that there is a risk of voting fraud. There isn't evidence of actual voting fraud, mind you.
> 
> Gibor, it has been shown pretty conclusively that higher income people get proportionately more benefit from inomce splitting and TFSAs. Shana tova to you and your family.


Sure they save more in taxes, but they also pay more in taxes than lower income people anyway.
The extreme example of course is that a TFSA has absolutely no benefit for someone who doesn't pay taxes anyway.


----------



## MrMatt

fatcat said:


> as you say there are presently people in ontario waiting on housing lists (long lists), on wait list for doctors and probably wait lists for nursing home care and competing for scarce good jobs and university allotments ... are the syrians going ahead of everyone else ?
> 
> if they aren't, how are they going to feel being unable to get decent housing, job training or good jobs since presumably they will be at the end of the line
> 
> housing especially is a huge issue ... i don't get the wisdom in this


Those are all provincial jurisdiction anyway, the provinces should determine and control how many they can afford to handle.

The person paying the bill should have some input.


----------



## gibor365

MrMatt said:


> Those are all provincial jurisdiction anyway.


 True. But on top of federal goverment brings thousands additional refugees, also Ontario gonna bring 10K... all money from out taxes, and I don't really care as they both take money from me ... in any case majority of those refugees gonna live in GTA where there is already huge muslim community

My family doctor send month ago referral to orthopedic surgeon, they still didn't call me to schedule appointment ... familly doctor told that I may have to wait 6 month at least and this is for 10 min appointment.... and governments want to bring thousands refugees... absurd!


----------



## gibor365

> The extreme example of course is that a TFSA has absolutely no benefit for someone who doesn't pay taxes anyway.


 the same with tax split ...as there is nothing to split


----------



## sags

fatcat said:


> as you say there are presently people in ontario waiting on housing lists (long lists), on wait list for doctors and probably wait lists for nursing home care and competing for scarce good jobs and university allotments ... are the syrians going ahead of everyone else ?
> 
> if they aren't, how are they going to feel being unable to get decent housing, job training or good jobs since presumably they will be at the end of the line
> 
> housing especially is a huge issue ... i don't get the wisdom in this


There is a long list of sponsors who will finance the Syrian refugees and provide them with housing and help them get on their feet.

Any cost to the government will be recouped in future years from the income taxes paid by the refugees when they are established.

Why do you presume the refugees have no education or skills ?


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> Any cost to the government will be recouped in future years from the income taxes paid by the refugees when they are established.
> 
> Why do you presume the refugees have no education or skills ?


Sags, do you still work or are you retired? Did you hear about such thing as outsourcing? Happens a lot in IT where I work, and recent news about Magna moving to Mexico made me worried:

«New Freightliner transport trucks roll out of there three at a time nowadays, made by *Mexican shop floor workers who work for as little as one-fifth of what a Canadian made doing the same work*.»

If the corporations can have people in other countries doing the same (or better) job as Canadians for fraction of our salaries - why keep head offices here (and pay higher taxes as you support)? Aren't you a little bit concerned that there'll be less and less jobs in the future - and those who live here might have to move elsewhere?


----------



## gibor365

> Why do you presume the refugees have no education or skills ?


 If they had, they would come as independent immigrants.



> Any cost to the government will be recouped in future years from the income taxes paid by the refugees when they are established.


 Illusion! You don't know those people. Majority won't be even looking for jobs, also, money they gonna have as refugees will be much more than they can possibly earn... 

I'd would bring exact number of refugees and it's 0 ... but in case government brings any of them, they should screen them very carefully 
include check on lie detector.


----------



## gibor365

> Did you hear about such thing as outsourcing? Happens a lot in IT where I work


 70% of our IT company got outsourced. In any case , you won't find IT professionals among syrian refugees, but can find many terrorists...
Believe me, if you lived in Middle East, you would be more concerned about this herd.


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> Believe me, if you lived in Middle East, you would be more concerned about this herd.


Yeah I didn't, so would love to believe that this won't end badly right after the election is over:

"International Development Minister Christian Paradis announced a Syrian emergency relief fund today that will match donations from Canadians up to $100 million. 

...

The New Democrats and Liberals welcomed the new funding, but also urged immediate action to speed up the arrival of Syrian refugees in Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...ral-humanitarian-assistance-syrians-1.3225728

Have our daughter's friend visiting from England, she told a few stories... But looks like it's easier to wait and see than argue with good Samaritans


----------



## Jim9guitars

Moneytoo said:


> «New Freightliner transport trucks roll out of there three at a time nowadays, made by *Mexican shop floor workers who work for as little as one-fifth of what a Canadian made doing the same work*.»
> 
> If the corporations can have people in other countries doing the same (or better) job as Canadians for fraction of our salaries - why keep head offices here (and pay higher taxes as you support)? Aren't you a little bit concerned that there'll be less and less jobs in the future - and those who live here might have to move elsewhere?


We have two Mexican made Freightliner trucks where I work, they're both in the repair shop most of the time.


----------



## humble_pie

my takeaway from the Paradis announcement is that 100% of these funds will be spent on assistance on the ground in syria itself, or possibly in syrian refugee camps in bordering countries lebanon, turkey & jordan.

i believe the minister was clear that his announced effort has nothing to do with assistance to refugees already in europe.

10,000 syrian refugees would be only 1/3 of 1% of canada's 35 million population; 25,000 refugees would still be only 3/4 of 1% of canada's population. If they came here, they'd be so few they'd be invisible.

there are syrian antioch churches in most big canadian cities, each could be instrumental in melting new arrivals into the community.

there will be moslem refugees of course, but there are mosques & imams in this country who are responsible canadian citizens & they are not terrorist breeders, regardless of what the tiny handful of bigots on here would like everyone to believe. The police & the activist church networks in every city know exactly which are the peace-oriented mosques & imams, they've all been working together for years. These are the networks that can help to orient & absorb a relatively small number of newcomers.

lastly, i would be grateful for an opportunity to say the following. The tiny handful of parties on here who keep preaching a mob lynching of all syrian refugees are gravely mistaken, imho.

the refugees that we see in the videos are *not* sub-humanoid, ignorant, uneducated animals who intend to murder westerners while sucking off western welfare systems, as the resident cmf malfaiteurs keep on yammering.

what we see in the videos are multitudes who speak english remarkably well although it is a foreign language for them, who keep order among themselves, who queue in families as best they can, who are carrying an astonishing number of children in their arms & on their backs, who are enduring days of starvation, cold, rain, mud, rooflessness & police attack with fortitude.


----------



## sags

Oh goodness...............do some people actually believe that all the refugees are uneducated, unemployed layabouts ?

No teachers, doctors, nurses, construction workers, police officers, tailors, business owners in the mass of refugees ?

Do people assume that well educated professionals are spared the fighting between factions and theology of ISIS ?

My son works in construction and they are very busy. It is hard work and they are a couple of people short of full crews. They can't find anyone who wants to work long days in the muck to earn decent money. New employees tend to not last long.

I am sure there are a couple of Syrian refugees who would smile all day long for the opportunity.

When I first started working for GM, I worked at General Motors Diesel. I was assigned as a stock keeper in the machine shop.

There was a "machinist" there from another country. He couldn't read blueprints and had no idea what he was doing.

The guys all pitched in and set up the machines for him. All he had to do was push the button and learn from them step by step.

My part was to bring all the templates and parts he needed, and arrange them in the order he would need to use them, according to the blueprints.

With our aid..........he did his job, and within a short time was working on his own.

The guy had a family to feed and everyone pitched in to help him keep his job. Heaven help anyone who said anything to management about him. They would have regretted doing so.

Incidentally that is what "union people" do. They stick up for each other and help each other out. That is why we call each other "brothers and sisters".

We CAN do lots of good things if the will is there.

The current government hasn't wanted to even try. They don't trust Canadian's judgement on such matters. 

It is because of their ideology that Jean Chretien says Canada has been shamed in front of the world.


----------



## Moneytoo

Gibor, move to RFD investing forum - there it's posted in "What did you buy?" thread, not a "Hot button" discussion (and so far nobody called a guy names )



dlhunter said:


> Situation with migrants in Europe is troublesome and will get worse. EU talking about 120k migrants they could accept, but there are millions of Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis out there. If this first wave is successful, many more would chose to settle in Europe.
> 
> The most dangerous aspect of all this, in terms of security, are the ISIS agents moving in with crowds. It has already been reported that majority of migrants are adult males. And a number of terrorist acts already happened in EU... This could be huge, just like 9/11.


As for myself, I'll try to remain open-minded. I understand the importance of keeping the country's spirit and giving people purpose. But if/when the bombs do go off - I hope the kind-hearted will have it in them to admit that they were wrong...


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> my takeaway from the Paradis announcement is that 100% of these funds will be spent on assistance on the ground in syria itself, or possibly in syrian refugee camps in bordering countries lebanon, turkey & jordan.
> 
> i believe the minister was clear that his announced effort has nothing to do with assistance to refugees already in europe.
> 
> 10,000 syrian refugees would be only 1/3 of 1% of canada's 35 million population; 25,000 refugees would still be only 3/4 of 1% of canada's population. If they came here, they'd be so few they'd be invisible.
> 
> there are syrian antioch churches in most big canadian cities, each could be instrumental in melting new arrivals into the community.
> 
> there will be moslem refugees of course, but there are mosques & imams in this country who are responsible canadian citizens & they are not terrorist breeders, regardless of what the tiny handful of bigots on here would like everyone to believe. The police & the activist church networks in every city know exactly which are the peace-oriented mosques & imams, they've all been working together for years. These are the networks that can help to orient & absorb a relatively small number of newcomers.
> 
> lastly, i would be grateful for an opportunity to say the following. The tiny handful of parties on here who keep preaching a mob lynching of all syrian refugees are gravely mistaken, imho.
> 
> the refugees that we see in the videos are *not* sub-humanoid, ignorant, uneducated animals who intend to murder westerners while sucking off western welfare systems, as the resident cmf malfaiteurs keep on yammering.
> 
> what we see in the videos are multitudes who speak english remarkably well although it is a foreign language for them, who keep order among themselves, who queue in families as best they can, who are carrying an astonishing number of children in their arms & on their backs, who are enduring days of starvation, cold, rain, mud, rooflessness & police attack with fortitude.


first as to the issue of "melting" pie, people don't "melt" pie, they fornicate, they **** and eat and they need a place to sleep and they need medical care, if they go to our big cities (and history shows that this is exactly what migrants have done for a long time) they are going to need housing and in many of our big cities, if not most, there is a dire shortage of housing ... do they go the end of line or are they put to the beginning of the line for housing ? ... they will bringing children and old people with them, do the old people go ahead of others for nursing care or behind ? ... do those that need medical care go to front of the end of the line ?

even if some have english the overwhelming majority will not speak english well enough to work right away and some never really grasp it well enough to get good jobs ... they will need welfare, food and all kinds of assistance and will compete with a growing multitude for low skill jobs that are disappearing

the notion that they will be a bright path to fulfilling and happy lives in canada is just false ... there is considerable appropriate concern for the future of low-skilled jobs in western countries with march of technology and robotics

merely questioning our capacity to safely and progressively handle immigrants is good public policy and contrary to your claims is not "bigoted", it isn't "preaching a lynch mob" ....

honestly, take deep breath, don't be a drama queen, dial it back and stop characterizing those who disagree with the notion of accepting syrians en masse in such terms, please ...


----------



## humble_pie

Moneytoo said:


> But if/when the bombs do go off - I hope the kind-hearted will have it in them to admit that they were wrong...



the bombs are going to go off anyhow. Given the scale of misery & violence that is engulfing the world, it's not likely that canada will be able to escape. Any news reader can see that there will likely be more than the slayings of brave soldiers Patrice Vincent & Nathan Cirillo.

this doesn't mean that canada should ostrich herself & pretend that large parts of the world are not on fire. On the contrary, an elevated attention to national security brought on by the screening of a small number of refugees might make us a smarter, better, more alert & more cohesive nation.

it was good of you to voice your i-told-you-so's in advance, though. Generally, i-told-you-so's are not appreciated, so now we know already.


----------



## gibor365

> I am sure there are a couple of Syrian refugees who would smile all day long for the opportunity.


 you are so naive .... 


> I'll try to remain open-minded.


 search youtube , there are many videos (some got deleted) there showing what barbarians doing in Greece, Hungary etc.. All my posts were I published some videos got deleted on other thread.

dlhunter is correct


----------



## gibor365

Never had lawn sign, but will place one next week. Obviously PC . Cannot ignore when in my riding arab-terrorist-supporter leading polls


----------



## Bobbyjohn

If you ask me, there's no winning vote. All the candidates have rather big flaws. I don't think Trudeau is ready to be honest.


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> it was good of you to voice your i-told-you-so's in advance, though. Generally, i-told-you-so's are not appreciated, so now we know already.


I don't have your time & memory to look through all the threads to see what people said, twist their words and through them in their faces, but I thought that when you repeatedly called yourself "a dumb crumb" you were joking...


----------



## humble_pie

^^ takes no time at all, journos have superb memories, i never twist words, surely you can see that extreme anti-refugee sentiments are being voiced only by yourself & your racist-spewing confrere?

i for one have voiced great caution about the refugees, have always posted in favour of the strongest vetting procedures, am in fact the party who first picked up british PM cameron's suggestion that countries accept at least some refugees from existing syrian camps in lebanon etc because dossiers & histories on each person exist ...

there's a difference between prudent caution in refugee selection & insulting good-hearted canadians as "infantile"


----------



## fatcat

*Tom Mulcair Announces $1.8 Billion Health Care Plan For Seniors
*


> VANCOUVER — Tom Mulcair launched another week of his campaign in a key election battleground, where he announced the NDP would spend $1.8 billion over four years to help provinces bolster health care for seniors.
> 
> At a Sunday event in Vancouver, Mulcair said the funding is designed to expand home care for 41,000 seniors, create 5,000 more nursing beds and improve palliative care services.
> 
> The NDP says it would work closely with the provinces to roll out the plan to respect their role in health-care delivery and target resources to areas identified at the provincial level.
> 
> Mulcair has taken aim at Stephen Harper's Conservatives on this file, suggesting the federal government has abandoned a leadership role on health.
> 
> The NDP leader says he plans to release more details on his overall health-care plan ahead of Thursday's debate in Calgary.
> 
> Mulcair's announcement on senior care has been praised by the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.
> 
> Mulcair will spend Sunday evening in Vancouver as he continues to try to shore up support in B.C.
> 
> In 2011, the NDP claimed 12 seats in the province, up three from 2008, and it is now hoping to gain as many as 24 this time around.


thanks tom, i appreciate it but hey we have some new refugees who need health care too ... but ok great 

here in victoria whenever we have an ndp candidate on the radio, the very first thing that comes out of their mouth is something about where we need to spend money but never ever do they follow the line with a line about how it will be paid for

there oughta be a law that requires candidates to follow these grand statements with a revenue generating offset to the effect "and we will get the money to pay for it this way"" ...... blah blah blah

the ndp always know how to spend it but they are not so good on the where-do-we-get-it part


----------



## GoldStone

fatcat said:


> here in victoria whenever we have an ndp candidate on the radio, the very first thing that comes out of their mouth is something about where we need to spend money but never ever do they follow the line with a line about how it will be paid for


What else is new. That's just NDP being NDP.

What's mightily surprising, is that so many CMFers are lining up to vote for them. It's "funny" how people can be financially responsible in their own lives, but completely abandon any financial responsibility when it comes to voting.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

i'm not voting for them
are u voting for them?

even if the NDP wins a minority government the other parties would conceivably vote against nutbar finance

if that would happen i thought sags had good insight when he said there'd be another election in six months


----------



## nathan79

The NDP has said they will release a costed platform before Sept 17th. Already we know they plan to raise corporate tax rate, eliminate tax loophole for stock options, and reduce TFSA.

They actually do plan to balance the budget... meanwhile Trudeau plans to run deficits, and Harper always says he's going to balance the budget but never does.


----------



## GoldStone

humble_pie said:


> i'm not voting for them
> are u voting for them?


Of course I'm not voting for them.

sags insight is weak. nutbar finance can survive for a long time. Greece didn't go bankrupt overnight.


----------



## humble_pie

in what way does canada resemble greece though

we've had plenty of elected gummints turfed out by non-confidence votes, it's one way the canadian & british systems are superior to the US where a president has to be impeached for crying out loud


----------



## humble_pie

any party could off those F35 stealth fighter jets & buy cheaper super Hornets instead

only Harper has got some kind of fetish for the flawed, $50 billion F35s

plus i understand that canadian pilots would all have to be trained in the US of A to fly em? canada would have to phase out most of AFB cold lake alberta even though it's a world class training base where foreign air forces send their pilots to be trained at present?

money saved by *not* buying F35s could buy plenty houses & health care


----------



## GoldStone

humble_pie said:


> in what way does canada resemble greece though


Federal finances are in okay shape, but many provinces are skating on a thin ice. Ontario is the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower. I'd hate to see the problem spread to the federal level.

Ontario is no Greece, but its debt is more than a casual concern

Ontario, More Indebted Than California, Ignores S&P in Borrowing


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

nathan79 said:


> The NDP has said they will release a costed platform before Sept 17th. Already we know they plan to raise corporate tax rate, eliminate tax loophole for stock options, and reduce TFSA. They actually do plan to balance the budget...


But that is the essence of the nutbar finance comment - the prospect of an NDP gov't in power, introducing and balancing their budget will put the brakes on (actually reverse) capital investment in Canada's economy. Would you put your money into an investment that is facing sub-par returns and/or unknown risks when you have more favourable places to invest it?



> ... and Harper always says he's going to balance the budget but never does.


Except we both know that statement is wrong - they have run a deficit in the past, and identified it as that. And they have balanced the budget, and identified it as that. It does help you emphasize your position though.


----------



## mrPPincer

GoldStone said:


> nutbar finance can survive for a long time. Greece didn't go bankrupt overnight.


All the more reason to give the boot to Harper who constantly prattles on about balanced budgets and strong fiscal management but never seems to be able to do it except once, just barely, with the help of a one-time sale of 73.4 million GM shares worth $2.7 billion, coincidentally, just in time to hit the books just in time for the election.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-final-73-4-million-shares-of-gm-from-bailout

I guess it's true that if a lie is repeated enough times even otherwise intelligent people will believe it.
http://www.wimp.com/conformityvideo/ <-(an interesting video discussing some studies on the subject)

Just because they call themselves conservatives doesn't mean the Harper cons are fiscal conservatives, they aren't, and they took the progressive out of PC for a reason. imho


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> there's a difference between prudent caution in refugee selection & insulting good-hearted canadians as "infantile"


There's also a difference between insulting someone and stating something matter-of-factly. Our daughter (who's more Canadian than we'll ever be) is more mature than most of her Canadian-born friends, yet we tease her (good-heartedly ) every once in a while, "At your age (19), we we already married!", "At your age (21), we bought our first apartment" etc. 

I don't know if you have kids (and if you understand the difference between living somewhere and "having friends" there or "visiting" once in a while - I'm sorry, but I believe I know more about Donbass than uptolate or another guy who quoted wiki pages) 

I may not value my own life much (being an overweight smoker and drinker who's idea of excersize is walking a few stops), but it makes me sick to my stomach that my daughter's life might be in danger. So yes, I pay attention to gibor's (and others who are not trying to be politically correct for the sake of looking civilized) warnings.

And yes, it's hard for me to take your position seriously, since you look like yet another old-timer who views Canada the way it was, not the way it is. But I'm willing to do my darnest and be an-open-minded observer. But it's not enough for you, is it? Well, sorry, but it's the best I can do.


----------



## humble_pie

GoldStone said:


> Federal finances are in okay shape, but many provinces are skating on a thin ice. Ontario is the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower. I'd hate to see the problem spread to the federal level]



afaik you are right but my understanding is the feds offloaded programs, tasks, responsibilities & costs onto the provinces, who are now sunk in debt & trying to offload down onto the municipalities, who have nowhere to go except property owners & anyhow no personnel or history in carrying out some of the defunct programs which should be national in scope. I mean, national broadcasting? the provinces can't afford foreign news bureaus, we need a stronger cbc for that ...

me i see no chance that the provinces will be able to boomerang any of their newish responsibiities & costs back onto the federal government (i imagine Davis might be quite happy to hear this though)


----------



## GoldStone

humble_pie said:


> afaik you are right but my understanding is the feds offloaded programs, tasks, responsibilities & costs onto the provinces, who are now sunk in debt...


True, but that's a relatively distant past. Offloading happened under Paul Martin. He is not responsible for the chronic Ontario deficits under McGuinty & Wynne.


----------



## andrewf

That arrangement is a consequence of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments in the constitution. The big resource sinks are all provincial responsibility (health, education, local infrastructure). And I doubt we will see provinces cede jurisdiction to the federal government. Thus, the provinces need to increase their fiscal sustainability be reforming their taxation to broaded the base and increase economic efficiency. Ontario spends much less per capita on public services than most other provinces--is there really a strong argument to be made that it spends too much on health and education (effectiveness is another matter).

All that said, Ontario politics and finances are a side conversation for the federal election.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> All that said, Ontario politics and finances are a side conversation for the federal election.


Not quite. Ontario Liberals and Federal NDP have one thing in common. Both are in bed with the public unions. Unions spend millions campaigning on their behalf. Once they have their desired party in power, they expect a generous payback at the contract negotiation table. Cue never-ending budget deficits.


----------



## protomok

I'll be voting Conservative this year. Main reasons...mostly tax related:

-> TFSA - it seems every other party will decrease TFSA.
-> Income Splitting - No brainer IMHO. I think it's extremely unfair that certain couples are penalized simply because one spouse doesn't make as much money as the other.
-> Increase of First Time Home Buyers plan from 25k to 35k.
-> Balanced budget!

NDP for me is not an option due to $15/hour minimum wage. Not that I'm against gradual minimum wage increases, but that sharp of an increase could cause serious job losses and inflation. Also not a big fan of government day care, corporate tax cuts. I also don't like expanding the CPP, I don't think a "technical recession" is the time to add another payroll tax.

Liberal was an option, especially with their plan to reduce income taxes for some. I also think Trudeau is the most charismatic leader...far more than Harper who I find a bit cold, and Mulcair who's...a bit creepy. But delaying balancing the budget makes me think it will never happen and I'm concerned that they'll follow the Ontario Liberal path of out of control spending. I also don't like expanding the CPP.


----------



## sags

Thomas Mulcair said that he will meet with the Provincial leaders a couple times a year to find solutions to their mutual problems.

Stephen Harper has consistently refused to meet with the Premiers at all.

Canadians need and want a government that works together at all levels, and that is something that Harper has never been interested in doing.

Given a closely monitored minority government, Harper was forced down a narrow path, but once he got a majority................he went way off the rails into the bushes.


----------



## none

protomok said:


> I'll be voting Conservative this year. Main reasons...mostly tax related:
> 
> -> TFSA - it seems every other party will decrease TFSA.
> -> Income Splitting - No brainer IMHO. I think it's extremely unfair that certain couples are penalized simply because one spouse doesn't make as much money as the other.
> -> Increase of First Time Home Buyers plan from 25k to 35k.
> -> Balanced budget!


1) TFSA difference from my perspective is such chump change at the individual level that isn't enough to buy my vote. I'm not that cheap;
2) Income splitting is unfair and yet another way the tax system unfairly penalized single people not to mention single people who don't have kids;
3) This is short sighted and stupid (I've never seen a post that hasn't indicated otherwise) that will make the eventual housing correction all the much more painful and unfairly burden stupid young people who bought into the housing bubble con;
4) Balance budgets, I can't even start. Making balanced budgets a law would cause chaos. Odd that it would come from a party that tends to run more deficits than any other party and the only way they get close is by raiding other pots of money that shouldn't be used for such purposes.

Conservaties are generally math challenged short sighted economic dolts. I just can't support willful ignorance and the stupidity that conservatives display OVER and OVER.


----------



## sags

protomok said:


> I'll be voting Conservative this year. Main reasons...mostly tax related:
> 
> -> TFSA - it seems every other party will decrease TFSA.
> -> Income Splitting - No brainer IMHO. I think it's extremely unfair that certain couples are penalized simply because one spouse doesn't make as much money as the other.
> -> Increase of First Time Home Buyers plan from 25k to 35k.
> -> Balanced budget!
> 
> NDP for me is not an option due to $15/hour minimum wage. Not that I'm against gradual minimum wage increases, but that sharp of an increase could cause serious job losses and inflation. Also not a big fan of government day care, corporate tax cuts. I also don't like expanding the CPP, I don't think a "technical recession" is the time to add another payroll tax.
> 
> Liberal was an option, especially with their plan to reduce income taxes for some. I also think Trudeau is the most charismatic leader...far more than Harper who I find a bit cold, and Mulcair who's...a bit creepy. But delaying balancing the budget makes me think it will never happen and I'm concerned that they'll follow the Ontario Liberal path of out of control spending. I also don't like expanding the CPP.


You are going to vote for everything that positively affects your personal finances...........and there is nothing wrong with that.

Others, who don't benefit from the TFSA increase, income splitting, or other boutique tax cuts will vote for someone else.................and there is nothing wrong with that either.

The problem for the Conservative side is they are outnumbered by 3 to 1.

Depending on the riding by riding results............they might be able to slide up the middle but it looks doubtful they will have another majority government.

For how long Harper would pass Trudeau/Mulcair legislation would be interesting to watch, but alas the PM has said he will step down if he loses.


----------



## humble_pie

guys what are your views on the F35 fighter purchases though. Price is now rumoured to be floating around $50 billion _each. Each plane._

there's more money to be saved there (4 times $50 billion, my dinky little handheld can't even take the digits) than all other budget issues combined.

better try to get a few words in before m3s shows up, he's crazy for those toys


----------



## nathan79

protomok said:


> NDP for me is not an option due to $15/hour minimum wage. Not that I'm against gradual minimum wage increases, but that sharp of an increase could cause serious job losses and inflation.


The $15/hr minimum wage proposal applies only to federally regulated employees. The vast majority of minimum wage earners will see no changes to their wage.

I'm a bit critical of the NDP for using such misleading language -- the average voter is likely to assume that "federal" simply means that $15 wage will be replacing the various provincial minimums.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> The problem for the Conservative side is they are outnumbered by 3 to 1.
> Depending on the riding by riding results............they might be able to slide up the middle but it looks doubtful they will have another majority government.


Well no, the reality is that it remains a fairly close 3-way race. 
And in fact the most recent CBC rollup shows the Conservatives as the only party that could form a majority gov't - see max case, 179 seats. 
The horses will no doubt continue to trade positions throughout the race. Will it be a photo finish ? 
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


----------



## mrPPincer

humble_pie said:


> guys what are your views on the F35 fighter purchases though. Price is now rumoured to be floating around $50 billion _each. Each plane._
> 
> there's more money to be saved there (4 times $50 billion, my dinky little handheld can't even take the digits) than all other budget issues combined.
> 
> better try to get a few words in before m3s shows up, he's crazy for those toys



waste of money obviously.. imho
one thing should maybe be mentioned as well.. these F35s have a single engine as opposed to the twin engine style, ie no backup.
Potentially a really bad idea for a country as vast and sparsely populated as Canada. 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/axing-f-35s-alternative-engine-was-an-incredibly-stupid-1601589678

http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.ca/2013/04/why-does-f-35-have-just-one-engine.html


----------



## protomok

none said:


> 1) TFSA difference from my perspective is such chump change at the individual level that isn't enough to buy my vote. I'm not that cheap;


My workplace doesn't offer a union and my industry is unstable...I have to be cheap  Also I don't think compound tax free growth will be chump change after 20 or 30 years of investing.



none said:


> 2) Income splitting is unfair and yet another way the tax system unfairly penalized single people not to mention single people who don't have kids;


I have yet to hear a good argument opposed to income splitting. Income splitting is just partially fixing our unfair system of penalizing couples for having differences in income. In what way are single people penalized? Agreed that it would be better to have income splitting apply to people without kids...but it was too expensive, as was unrestricted income splitting, hence the 2k cap...both unfortunate but IMHO responsible moves.


none said:


> 3) This is short sighted and stupid (I've never seen a post that hasn't indicated otherwise) that will make the eventual housing correction all the much more painful and unfairly burden stupid young people who bought into the housing bubble con;


? How is expanding the First Time Buyers plan "stupid"? How is allowing people to access their own RRSP burdening them? I think if someone wants to make an irresponsible home purchase they will make it regardless of the HBP.



none said:


> 4) Balance budgets, I can't even start. Making balanced budgets a law would cause chaos. Odd that it would come from a party that tends to run more deficits than any other party and the only way they get close is by raiding other pots of money that shouldn't be used for such purposes.
> 
> Conservaties are generally math challenged short sighted economic dolts. I just can't support willful ignorance and the stupidity that conservatives display OVER and OVER.


EVERY country ran deficits in 2008, it was a recession, liberals, NDP, green...all them would have ran deficits after 2008. Conservatives are just saying deficits should only be used in extreme circumstances and not to fund pet projects and unnecessary programs.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> guys what are your views on the F35 fighter purchases though. Price is now rumoured to be floating around $50 billion _each. Each plane._
> 
> there's more money to be saved there (4 times $50 billion, my dinky little handheld can't even take the digits) than all other budget issues combined.
> 
> better try to get a few words in before m3s shows up, he's crazy for those toys


You might want to post a link to this price quote since it makes no sense. The entire aircraft replacement project was originally budgeted for $14.9B. The flyaway cost was to be around $100M. I can't foresee it costing 500x the original estimate. There were cost overruns for development, but unless they are producing a very low amount of planes, the overruns shouldn't impact the end price that much.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> My son works in construction and they are very busy. It is hard work and they are a couple of people short of full crews. *They can't find anyone who wants to work long days in the muck to earn decent money. New employees tend to not last long.*
> 
> I am sure there are a couple of Syrian refugees who would smile all day long for the opportunity.


I'm sure there're people in other countries who would gladly come on temp work visas for a few months, do the job and go home with much needed money for their families 

(fatcat was so wrong to insult Canadians who'll need Syrian immigrants to wipe their lazy asses when they're old - they need them now so they can go demand higher salaries for less demanding jobs!)


----------



## fatcat

i have spent a lot of time in nursing homes with my old timers and i can tell that *** wiping is a growth industry ... and us boomers ?, oh the humanity ! :cower:


----------



## Moneytoo

Well, my mother-in-law, a doctor with many years of experience back home, couldn't even become a nurse here... So did her share of private ***-wiping (with a smile on her face for the opportunity )


----------



## none

TO proto:
1) After 25 years it would be about $3000 in inflation adjusted dollars. (i did a quick n dirty by compounding 63 per year with a 63$ annual contribution at 4.5%)..... THis might not be right, I'd have to go back and look at this more closely.. *Update*: see post a couple steps down.

2) It's yet another drain on government revenue that takes more than it gives. I'm all for directed tax cuts that spurr innovation or have a good payment on investment and Income splitting is not one of them. It's vote buying to older wealthier conservatives;

3) Perhaps they would but why give them another way to enable them? As a tax payer I have to pay for the risk of home buyers as it is already. Encouraging people to buy their first house in this environment preys on the ignorance that the vast majority of first time home buyers have about risk. If there is a housing correction it will very likely reduce the mobility of skilled personal around the country (as they have to sit in an underwater house) thus being a additional burden on the economy.

4) Sure but conservatives somehow how this fiscal responsibility cred which is wholly undeserved. Conservatives , like republicans, have been shown over and over to be bad for the economy and run deficits far more often than more left leaning government that can see past the next election tax cut.


----------



## Moneytoo

protomok said:


> My workplace doesn't offer a union and my industry is unstable...I have to be cheap  Also I don't think compound tax free growth will be chump change after 20 or 30 years of investing.


Depending on your age and average return, looks like the difference can be quite striking:

First, consider a couple of fortysomethings deciding to max their TFSAs as the primary retirement vehicles. If they start in 2015, contribute the limit thereafter and invest in a balanced portfolio earning a long-term average of 7% (consistent with the last thirty years), here’s how much tax-free money they will have accumulated in 25 years, under these political plans…

Conservative ($20,000 max between them): $1,373,529, of which $853,000 is growth.
NDP ($11,000 max between them): $755,441, of which $469,000 is growth
Liberal ($10,000 max between them): $686,764, of which $426,000 is growth.

Now, for a 25-year old single person who decides to focus only on her TFSA, and is able to make the maximum contribution annually (no inflation adjustment), earning a 7% average investment return over 40 years, here is the scorecard:

Conservative ($10,000 max): $2,146,095 (growth is $1.7 million)
NDP ($5,500 max): $1,180,320 (growth is $954,000)
Liberal ($5,000 max): $1,073,047 (growth is $868,000).

(c) http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/13/choices-11/

(But of course real returns can be lower, and the limits won't be held at these levels forever by any party - but will give them something to promise in the next election.., )


----------



## none

Yeah Garth really dropped the ball on that one. He's really stumping for the conservatives lately.

This is how I think the math you showed above is more fair.

Conservative ($20,000 max between them): $1,373,529, of which $853,000 is growth.

NDP ($11,000 max between them): $755,441, of which $469,000 is growth + Add $9000 year in a non-registered account which you pay 20% tax on gains. THis is the same as making 5.6% per year instead of 7%. Anyway, 9,000 per year at 5.6 for 25 years is 492,000 for a total of $1,248,426. Basically at the end of the day you end up with 10% more cash under the conservative plan. Not the scary numbers that Garth is trying to pass off. It's pretty transparent and lame if you ask me. The vast majority of people lose more each year in mutual fund management fees than they do this TFSA thing.

Lid plan is more less the same as NDP.

People tend to focus on the actual numbers rather than the opportunity cost of lost revenue. IF there was a proposal to raise my taxes 30% so we could cure cancer in the next decade you would bet your *** I would sign up immediately.

It's funny, Garth goes on about realtors use of 'franken numbers' but that guy abuses percentages and takes numbers out of context more than any blogger I know. It's too bad, he would have been a great realtor.


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> You might want to post a link to this price quote ...




will do bgc.

the fig is a total that includes costs of training, maintenance & repair, all of which are to be carried out at US bases, over the lifetime of each aircraft. Add in the premium for US dollars as of today's FX & it's easy to push $50 billion per plane.

me i think the disappearance of canada-based training & maintenance is serious. Are canadian pilots to become drones, trapped in the cockpits of fighter aircraft that are 100% programmed out of US bases?

in all honesty there will be a big expense no matter what, since all parties are agreed that the existing fleet of aging F18 hornets must gradually be replaced. At least i believe the liberals & the conservatives are agreed, not sure what the NDP has to say on this issue.

the problem was & is that the cost of the F35s is significantly higher than, say, the cost of a runup contender such as the Super Hornet, a model that also could marry well with existing facilities at cold lake.

then there were other issues, such as the long history of serious F35 technical problems which some say are not resolved yet. 

another issue is whether canada as a big but thinly populated country really needs superstar aggressor stealth fighter aircraft like the F35s, surely our greatest air force need is surveillance & early detection mechanisms including spyplanes? perhaps we should leave supersonic fighters to the US & to NATO?

then i glimpsed a recent news story saying that a pricing death spiral may have started for lockheed's F35s. As technical problems pile up, countries cancel their orders. Lockheed then faces higher unit manufacturing costs so the price goes up. Rinse & repeat. Death finally comes when the aircraft cannot be sold at all.

oh dear sounds like the bombardier Cseries.


----------



## andrewf

It's not $50 billion per plane. I think that is high by about 2 orders of magnitude. Even $500 million per is quite expensive, given that there are capable aircraft closer to 1/10th that price again.


----------



## Moneytoo

none said:


> Yeah Garth really dropped the ball on that one. He's really stumping for the conservatives lately.
> 
> This is how I think the math you showed above is more fair.
> 
> ...
> 
> Lid plan is more less the same as NDP.


Just had the funniest conversation with our NDP candidate  My daughter and I were coming back from my mom and saw a man with two women knocking on neighbours' doors on our court - two of them didn't open, our house was next. They had orange pamphlets, so I figured who they were, and told them upfront that I plan to vote Conservative to a) support my husband and b) because I don't like their plan to reduce TFSA.

NDP Candidate: Sorry, reduce what?
One of his helpers: Tax Free Savings Account.
NDP Candidate: Oh but we're not reducing it - we're keeping it the way it was!
Me: But you are - it's 10 thousand now...
Him: Oh, no, it would be 10 thousand if Harper wins!
Me and one of the women: Yes, it is 10 thousand already.
Him: So we're keeping it 10 thousand, but not increasing it to 15 thousand like Harper promised because (some gibberish about middle class)

At this point I'm giving up, both of the women explain to him what TFSA room was, is and will be, I'm suggesting that he should talk to my daughter as she didn't make her choice yet and is a student, old enough to vote (at 22, she has a deceivingly innocent face of a 16 year old )

So he talks to her about proposed co-op programs and how it'll make it easier for young people like her to find their first job. She listens and nods politely. In the end of the speech, he asks her what school she goes to. She answers, sheepishly, "Medical school..." Awkward pause. He gives her the pamphlet and they leave.

I stay on the porch for a smoke, come back inside - and smirk when I see the pamphlet in recycle bin :biggrin:

(And will be absolutely fine if she decides to vote red or green  The guy looked very nice though. But I'm definitely voting for Joe Oliver now - hopefully he learned what TFSA is by now lol)


----------



## Moneytoo

none said:


> It's too bad, he would have been a great realtor.


Saw this addition after I posted my reply - this is so true and funny, almost made me cry lol


----------



## gibor365

> Just had the funniest conversation with our NDP candidate


 What do expect from them?! Nuce people, but ... bunch of idiots :biggrin:


----------



## none

Well at least he kept his dick in his pants!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> What do expect from them?! Nice people, but ... bunch of idiots :biggrin:


Shhh, don't insult their target audience or we both will be banned lol


----------



## protomok

none:
Many folks even on the left agree that Income Taxes are the (or one of the) most damaging taxes. Income splitting is just another form of an income tax reduction aimed at fixing a blatant unfairness in our system. Also I don't doubt that all parties are vote buying at the moment  but with a 2k cap I doubt the rich care much about income splitting.

I suspect we're still going to disagree on this, but IMHO ANY income tax reduction is a good idea...which why I also like Trudeau's income tax cut.

For the TFSA I think it's pretty tough to calculate the exact benefit due to so many variables...marginal rate, investment return, indexing to inflation, etc. Likely anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars lost from TFSA reduction 

But actually my main concern is not that the libs/NDP are lowering the contribution. My main concern is that a future government (I'm particularly concerned about NDP) would remove the TFSA entirely. Of course Mulcair has never mentioned killing the TFSA but if he has trouble balancing the budget he'll have to cut something :|

EDIT: Regarding the conservatives being bad at managing the economy I would disagree...I think we weathered the 2008 recession quite well compared to other countries.


----------



## Moneytoo

none said:


> Well at least he kept his dick in his pants!
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797


Hey it's ok to smoke weed or pee in a mug or spit in some jerk's sandwich before you become a candidate, just not after! :biggrin:

Did you share for whom you'll be voting (didn't see it...) or haven't decided yet?


----------



## protomok

sags said:


> Depending on the riding by riding results............they might be able to slide up the middle but it looks doubtful they will have another majority government.
> For how long Harper would pass Trudeau/Mulcair legislation would be interesting to watch, but alas the PM has said he will step down if he loses.


I would agree, I highly doubt we'll see a majority for any party.

Personally I'm quite impressed by the NDPs surge in the polls and in the orange signs everywhere. I see orange signs all over the place...a couple years ago it was nothing but blue and red in our area.


----------



## none

ptoto: I can't agree with what you wrote. By your logic then we should have zero taxes. That obviously makes no sense. Income taxes are a fair and progressive way to maintain society. Sure, some is wasted but I don't think government waste is general is any worse than any other massive business. I've worked for all and in my personal experience, private big company has been more wasteful than government. At least government has people looking over their shoulders all of the time. Of course, this is just my personal experience
As for your TFSA paranoia - NO one has suggested the removal of the TFSA which would be a legal nightmare. I highly doubt that losing the TFSA is ever in the cards. At worst, the NDP has suggested putting it back to indexed 5.5K. Which ironically will be larger more than the unindexed 10K that the conservatives have in about 40 years or so.

There's this: http://business.financialpost.com/p...ount-and-the-federal-election?__lsa=a23a-d1c1


As for moneytoo. I don't know yet. It'll be a strategic thing as the massively disproportionate power that the PMO holds it doesn't really make sense to vote for your candidate b/c youre ultimately voting my a PM and a cabinet that will run everything. I personally like minority governments simply for the dilution of PMO power so I would prefer a Harper minority over a majority of any other party. Of course I would prefer a minority of another party of than conservatives.


For me, the Harper government has given me probably >100K since they started. They made scholarships tax free so I haven't paid taxes for about 6 years which I would have had other parties been given in. I just can't stomach them. For conservatives it's ALL about politics and very little about good governance and the long term good of the country. The way the gutted the fisheries act, interfered with COSEWIC, closed down the experimental lakes in Manitoba (even though it was cheaper to keep it open), cut the GST, made a nightmare of the tax code, the whole Duffy affair is just gross .... the list just goes on and on. Anyway, I just can't vote conservatives. They're just gross. So there you go, NDP or Libs - whomever is leading the poles the night before the election.


----------



## Moneytoo

none said:


> ...it doesn't really make sense to vote for your candidate b/c youre ultimately voting my a PM and a cabinet that will run everything.


Too bad - I looked up our Liberal candidate, and now surprised that I don't see more red signs in the neighbourhood (hell, even I would rather vote for him, even if he doesn't know what TFSA is - which, you're right, is not really such a big deal for us since both my husband and I have lots of unused RRSP contribution room... ):

«A lawyer and family man with deep roots in Eglinton – Lawrence, Marco Mendicino has dedicated his career to keeping our communities safe. As a federal prosecutor for nearly a decade, he fought against organized crime and terrorism. Marco was also the president of a national association representing nearly 3,000 federal prosecutors and Government of Canada lawyers. While in this position, he testified before the House of Commons and Senate to advocate for better laws and access to justice.

An avid community organizer, Marco is committed to improving education and has worked on local school initiatives, like rolling out lunch programs for full-day kindergarten and improving outdoor facilities. He dedicates his time to the John Wanless Childcare Centre, North Toronto Soccer Club and COSTI Immigration Services – an organization that helps immigrants acquire the educational, social and economic skills they need on arriving in Canada.

Marco runs his own law practice, focusing on regulatory, and labour and employment matters. He is adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, a small business owner and soccer coach to his daughters’ teams. Marco and his wife Diana are long-time residents of Eglinton-Lawrence, raising their two daughters in the riding.»

http://marcomendicino.liberal.ca


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> You might want to post a link to this price quote since it makes no sense




bgc you're right, that per plane price is too high, so sorry! thanx for spotting!

cost guesstimates are all over the map as there are so many revisions. Here's one of the links that threw me off. Reuters on a squadron of 12-14 F35s whose software had to be reconfigured. Cost for this squadron, evidently sold to the US DOD, USD $391 billion. This includes training, maintenance, repair & overhaul across an expected life span of 53-56 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL1N0YC2VS20150521

at the opposite extreme, here's a 2012 figure for canada's purchase of F35s. The report was commissioned by the gummint of the day & is now considered out-of-date. Globe's headline says costs could double.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...er-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/

this article covers a report from a UBC international law prof who says that the gummint's estimate of $45.8 billion for 65 aircraft is too low. He ups estimate to $56 billion as of 2012 (no F35s have been delivered yet), but says cost overruns could push final costs to $126 billion. For some reason the canada F35s have much shorter expected life spans, in some cases only 30 years.

bgc, you are knowledgeable about military procurement i believe? how do you see this new generation of SS stealth fighter planes suiting canada, a middle power supposedly non-aggressor nation? whose vast northern regions require advanced surveillance systems?

wouldn't less expensive super hornets suit better? don't our navy & coast guards need new ships? for that matter doesn't canada need drones & radar systems more than controversial fighter aircraft whose engines have been known to spontaneously burst into flames?




http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ver-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378


----------



## gibor365

> and Harper always says he's going to balance the budget but never does.


 So Harper had 2014 balanced budget  

_The federal government posted a $1.9-billion surplus in the 2014-15 fiscal year, balancing the books one year ahead of schedule and providing a boost to the Conservatives on the election campaign trail._
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost

Trudeau Jr as usulal started with his BS , like Harper did 'severe cuts' and blah blah blah.... if you cannot "earn" enough money, you need to cut spendings 

btw, in our family we have high-school student, university student , seniors (our moms) ... and we didn't notice that any cuts Harper did , somehow influenced our family.... actually on opposite... thus, if harper did cuts, there were a good cuts


----------



## celishave

Read on another blog that ndp will institute means testing on cpp/oas. I have not heard mention of that in media. Fact or fiction?


----------



## gibor365

celishave said:


> Read on another blog that ndp will institute means testing on cpp/oas. I have not heard mention of that in media. Fact or fiction?


Those neo-communists can do everything! Their major agenfa "Take from "rich", give to "poor"." and "...nothing esle matters." (C)


----------



## nathan79

gibor said:


> So Harper had 2014 balanced budget
> 
> _The federal government posted a $1.9-billion surplus in the 2014-15 fiscal year, balancing the books one year ahead of schedule and providing a boost to the Conservatives on the election campaign trail._
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost


Mainly due to the government sale of GM shares.

I really don't trust either Harper or Mulcair to deliver on their promise of balanced budgets. Say what you like about Trudeau but least he's being realistic.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Right. They should have kept the GM shares and sold them now that they are down 17%. Or kept them for the long term to provide leverage over GM for jobs and investment - that is the role of government isn't it?


----------



## gibor365

nathan79 said:


> Mainly due to the government sale of GM shares.


not exactly!


> the government recently announced it had posted a $5-billion surplus in the first three months of the 2015-16 fiscal year (April to June), fuelled in large part by the government’s one-time sale of its shares in General Motors


So it's not for 2014



> that is the role of government isn't it?


 exactly


----------



## sags

It is hard to believe that with oil prices in the tank and Alberta in a recession, now would be the time that Canada would spring out of a deficit.

Why didn't that happen when oil was $120 a barrel and Alberta was booming ?

Maybe they missed a zero here or there.............oops.


----------



## gibor365

> Maybe they missed a zero here or there.............oops.


 or maybe they are just smarter than you think


----------



## HaroldCrump

GoldStone said:


> Federal finances are in okay shape, but many provinces are skating on a thin ice. Ontario is the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower. I'd hate to see the problem spread to the federal level.


Yet the premier of Ontario is actively campaigning on behalf of the federal Liberal party - on the taxpayer dime, using provincial budget and time.
She has been attending campaign rallies with Trudeau, sending out dozens of Tweets during working hours criticizing Harper, etc.
In my own riding, the sitting Liberal MPP & staff from their office has been distributing federal election campaign leaflets.

Of course, Kathleeen Wynne realizes that her political survival is entirely contingent on a Liberal govt in Ottawa.
Esp. her success of the ORPP is largely dependent on who sits in 24 Sussex Drive


----------



## sags

Come on folks..........Ontario troubles are in the past.

Ontario is projected to be a "have" Province next year,

Ontario's economy is growing and picking up momentum. Balanced budgets are projected by the Drummond report in the years ahead.

Ontario sends 16 Billion dollars more to Ottawa than it gets back in transfer payments, and receives the lowest per capita payments in the country.

The auto industry has surpassed the oil industry in contributions to GDP.

When Ontario gets firing on all economic cylinders..............it is a sight to behold.

And if that weren't enough...........we are home to one of the Seven Wonders of the World at Niagara Falls, and the Toronto Blue Jays are winning.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

I'm not as confident of that. Recent articles:
Canada’s Budget Watchdog Says Provincial _(read Ontario)_ Debt Unsustainable (WSJ - July 21, 2015)
With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower (FP - July 20, 2015).
Ontario's credit rating downgraded over heavy debt load, budgeting (BNN -July 7,2015)


----------



## gibor365

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I'm not as confident of that. Recent articles:
> Canada’s Budget Watchdog Says Provincial _(read Ontario)_ Debt Unsustainable (WSJ - July 21, 2015)
> With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower (FP - July 20, 2015).
> Ontario's credit rating downgraded over heavy debt load, budgeting (BNN -July 7,2015)


and we are only missing tens thousands of syrian refugees and tens millions spendings on it :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Yet the premier of Ontario is actively campaigning on behalf of the federal Liberal party - on the taxpayer dime, using provincial budget and time.
> She has been attending campaign rallies with Trudeau, sending out dozens of Tweets during working hours criticizing Harper, etc.
> In my own riding, the sitting Liberal MPP & staff from their office has been distributing federal election campaign leaflets.
> 
> Of course, Kathleeen Wynne realizes that her political survival is entirely contingent on a Liberal govt in Ottawa.
> Esp. her success of the ORPP is largely dependent on who sits in 24 Sussex Drive


Were you bemoaning Harper et al campaigning against her, on the federal public dime, during the last election? Harper has burned that bridge--he has made it clear during his tenure that he is not interested in constructive relationships with provincial governments of different political stripes. He refused to even meet with the head of government of Canada's biggest province...


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> at the opposite extreme, here's a 2012 figure for canada's purchase of F35s. The report was commissioned by the gummint of the day & is now considered out-of-date. Globe's headline says costs could double.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...er-programs-life-expert-says/article18325378/
> 
> this article covers a report from a UBC international law prof who says that the gummint's estimate of $45.8 billion for 65 aircraft is too low. He ups estimate to $56 billion as of 2012 (no F35s have been delivered yet), but says cost overruns could push final costs to $126 billion. For some reason the canada F35s have much shorter expected life spans, in some cases only 30 years.


Going up to $50-60 billion for all in costs is plausible. I have an issue on how it can be calculated though, i.e. including maintainer and pilot salaries can inflate the cost, but unless you are comparing to the option of no planes, it becomes somewhat cost neutral against the status quo. Going to $126 billion strikes me as a bit exaggerating.

It's not a question of Canadian F35s having a shorter life span, it's just somewhat common to do a costing for 25-30 years for new equipment. More than likely we would end up extending the life with follow on projects.



humble_pie said:


> bgc, you are knowledgeable about military procurement i believe? how do you see this new generation of SS stealth fighter planes suiting canada, a middle power supposedly non-aggressor nation? whose vast northern regions require advanced surveillance systems?
> 
> wouldn't less expensive super hornets suit better? don't our navy & coast guards need new ships? for that matter doesn't canada need drones & radar systems more than controversial fighter aircraft whose engines have been known to spontaneously burst into flames?


Honestly? It's all about capabilities. There will always be a need for manned aircraft. The last thing we want is to repeat the same mistake with Afghanistan when we didn't deploy with tanks, and they were on the cusp of being mothballed. After all, the cold war was over, the days of fighting against the Soviet hoard was in the past. Who would have foreseen the difficulty of attacking the Taliban in their mud huts? Turns out that tanks still had a role to play, even if the enemy wasn't using them.

Each capability has its own niche, even if there is some overlap. At the moment, Canada has the JUSTAS program that deals with UAVs: http://www.casr.ca/id-justas-project-timeline.htm and it can be done concurrently with the fighter replacement. The new ships are being procured under the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

The problem is that these large budget projects will become political. To a certain extent, you can blame the taxpayer for that. When you have billions being spent, and spent on foreign purchases, some can get vocal. So, we end up with political interference where we always have to ensure some Canadian content. If you read between the lines of the fighter replacement review: http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/flotte-fleet-18-eng.html, you can see that politics were pushing towards sole source since you had a number of Canadian companies already involved with the Joint Strike Fighter project. The obvious problem is that there was no consideration of what is required. A good starting point would be to see how the original CF-18 acquisition was conducted and see if the same requirements exist. Basically, range and survivability would be important, hence the 2 vs 1 engine. Laws of probability would dictate that having 2 engines fail is a lot tougher than 1 engine failing, no matter the mean time before failure. Of course back then stealth wasn't as big an issue, but the question is, is it really a big deal? 

Obviously the F35 isn't the first or last to have political issues: Sea King replacement, LAVs, ranger rifle replacement, etc. 

Would the Super Hornet be better? In the sense that it is here and now and has a set price tag, perhaps. On the other hand, it is better for the requirements dictated by RCAF for the fighter that they want for the next 25 year? I couldn't say since I'm not really in the loop, and don't feel like searching for the statement of work that accompanied the tendering documents.


----------



## gibor365

> He refused to even meet with the head of government of Canada's biggest province...


 He doesn't want to waste time meeting with her and I understand him . He knows perfectly what she wants, and all details can discuss sdvisors... 
but harper met more Mayor of biggest Canadian city, John Tory


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Ontario is projected to be a "have" Province next year


That is based on the equalization formula - it is a zero sum game.
Alberta is losing tax revenue, therefore, Ontario's per capital revenue yield will now be higher.
Just because Alberta is being crushed by falling oil prices, does not mean somehow Ontario's $285B debt & $11B of deficit can be ignored.

BTW, Alberta blew away its wealth down the same pit as Ontario i.e. public sector spending.



> Ontario's economy is growing and picking up momentum. Balanced budgets are projected by the Drummond report in the years ahead


Ha ha...yeah, I am sure a balanced Ontario budget is just round the corner...any day now...



> Ontario sends 16 Billion dollars more to Ottawa than it gets back in transfer payments


That is how equalization is supposed to work.



> The auto industry has surpassed the oil industry in contributions to GDP


The auto sector is leaving the country in droves.
Poloz can go ahead and trash the loonie down to 60c. and it won't make a difference.



> And if that weren't enough...........we are home to one of the Seven Wonders of the World at Niagara Falls, and the Toronto Blue Jays are winning.


LOL, I agree with that.
I am sure the splendor of Niagara Falls is all due to Kathleen Wynne's brilliant governance skills.

BTW, when is the OPP investigation report coming out on the gas plant scandals?
I am sure any day now....


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> He refused to even meet with the head of government of Canada's biggest province...


But hey, Justin Trudeau has made it his top #1 priority to *meet with all the premiers immediately *after becoming Prime Minister and....talk about climate change.
He will also immediately go to Paris to solve global warming.


----------



## mrPPincer

sags said:


> It is hard to believe that with oil prices in the tank and Alberta in a recession, now would be the time that Canada would spring out of a deficit.
> 
> *Why didn't that happen when oil was $120 a barrel and Alberta was booming ?*
> 
> Maybe they missed a zero here or there.............oops.


from gibor's link ->http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...f-1-9-billion-in-2014-15-gives-harper-a-boost
v v v


> Between 2008-09 and 2013-14, the Conservatives accumulated more than *$144 billion* in deficits.


*just in case gibor missed that part.. the Conservatives accumulated more than *$one-hundred-and-forty-four b-i-l-l-i-o-n* in deficits..

nuff said :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

But hey, at this rate, they will repay all the debt they ran up by 2087...


----------



## GoldStone

mrPPincer said:


> Between 2008-09 and 2013-14, the Conservatives accumulated more than $144 billion in deficits.
Click to expand...

2008-09 rings a bell. Something extraordinary happened. I can't quite remember what that was. I just remember it was once in a lifetime event.

mrPPincer? andrewf? Do you happen to remember what that was? Can you please remind me? :rugby:


----------



## andrewf

Was it the recession Harper promised wouldn't happen (if it was going to happen, it would have done so before then), followed the deficit that his government would never run?

You can blame the deficit on the recession, but it is really a failure in planning and fiscal management. When you cut revenues to a bare surplus at the peak of the economic cycle, you are intentionally implementing a deficit policy when the economy weakens, and a big deficit if it weakens significantly. Imagine how much larger the deficits would have been if Canada had been hit by a stronger recession, and had it not been bailed out by high commodity prices and a buoyant housing market.

It is not entirely coincidental that the accumulated deficit since 2008 is roughly equal to the foregone tax revenue from the 2 pt GST cut since it was implemented. Harper chose to increase the federal debt by 33%, placing a burden on future generations, to fund current consumption.

You can't credit Harper with a tiny balanced budget--an accounting trick induced by selling assets bought with borrowed money a few years ago and booking it as revenue--while excusing him the accumulated deficit 100x the size.


----------



## mrPPincer

haha.. Goldstone, nice rebuttal :rugby:
on the other hand, why weren't we paying down the bills when Canada was on track to be an "energy superpower"... again, ...


sags said:


> Why didn't that happen when oil was $120 a barrel and Alberta was booming ?


With oil currently kicking around $40 and talk of it hitting possibly as low as $20 maybe the systematic killing of a diversified economy isn't such a great idea any more?


----------



## andrewf

Betting everything on resource extraction and real estate was a great economic strategy.


----------



## humble_pie

phew i was worried that the liberal proposal to spend $200 million on syrian refugees might look a trifle grand but now i can see that in the vast scheme of PC deficits across six years $200 million isn't even a drop in the bucket.

from liberal dot ca:

_A Liberal government would:

Expand Canada’s intake to 25,000 refugees from Syria through immediate, direct sponsorship by the Government of Canada. We will also work with private sponsors to intake even more;

Invest at least an additional $100 million this fiscal year to increase – without reducing standards – refugee processing, as well as sponsorship and settlement services capacity in Canada; and 

Provide an immediate $100 million new contribution to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to support the critical relief activities in Syria and the surrounding area._


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Betting everything on resource extraction and real estate was a great economic strategy.


So do you think that : bringing 100K syrian refugees, increasing income and corporate taxes (how many corporation will move out ?!), creating artificial work places, subsidizing unions, wasting money on "climate change" (btw, where "global warming" ... we have "global freezing" here ), spending billions on bureaucratic programs etc - gonna boost Canadian eceonomy?! :stupid:




> Expand Canada’s intake to 25,000 refugees....


 indeed , bunch of idiots!

P.S. In case, need to renew our Israeli passport 
P.P.S. Nice  my wife's former boss , invites her to work in Denmark....are any syrian refugees over there?!



> A Liberal government would


 Liberal goverment can burn in hell! lol


----------



## Moneytoo

Damn, and I thought I came up with original ideas: number of votes should be incremental to taxes paid (both income and property) and/or IQ. But alas:

«An MIT- and Harvard-trained venture capitalist has proposed a system in which the votes are proportional to the wealth, more precisely to the total income taxes you paid last time.
...
Well, I've been also thinking about stronger votes for voters with a higher education, but...

– but I have gotten used to it) that rich and formally educated people may do and believe some very stupid things – sometimes it looks like they are more brainwashed, more gullible, and so on. 

As Richard Lindzen sometimes says in the context of the global warming gullibility, ordinary people have sense but academics don't. Sometimes it seems that the most stupid, atrocious concepts arise in the heads of the most educated and wealthiest people (like the Hollywood "celebrities"). It may be ironic but there's surely some anecdotal evidence that this is the case.

So let me return to the wealth-dependence of the strength of votes. It's a more defensible proposal, I think.»

http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/02/many-votes-for-those-who-pay-higher.html

Would be ineresting to see statsistics or a poll "taxes paid vs voting for"...


----------



## andrewf

gibor, seeing as you really don't seem to care about Canada, why are you engaging in the political process? Canada is just a convenient place for you to live until you move back to Israel, mother Russia or I guess Denmark.

By the way, if the Liberals in Canada upset you, I think you would become apoplectic at the political landscape in Denmark.


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> P.P.S. Nice  my wife's former boss , invites her to work in Denmark....


Damn, my company only has offices in the States, India and Singapore... But I hear it's very cheap to become a citizen of Punta-Canada lol:

«The Citizenship by Investment Programme allows foreign investors to obtain full legal citizenship and passports for an investor and their family where that investor has made a significant investment in Dominica which qualifies under the Citizenship by Investment Regulations. Presently the qualifying investments are a contribution to the Government Fund of a minimum amount of US$100,000 or *the purchase of a property to the value of US$200,000*.»

http://cbiu.gov.dm/faqs/


----------



## andrewf

Moneytoo said:


> Damn, and I thought I came up with original ideas: number of votes should be incremental to taxes paid (both income and property) and/or IQ. But alas:
> 
> «An MIT- and Harvard-trained venture capitalist has proposed a system in which the votes are proportional to the wealth, more precisely to the total income taxes you paid last time.
> ...
> Well, I've been also thinking about stronger votes for voters with a higher education, but...
> 
> – but I have gotten used to it) that rich and formally educated people may do and believe some very stupid things – sometimes it looks like they are more brainwashed, more gullible, and so on.
> 
> As Richard Lindzen sometimes says in the context of the global warming gullibility, ordinary people have sense but academics don't. Sometimes it seems that the most stupid, atrocious concepts arise in the heads of the most educated and wealthiest people (like the Hollywood "celebrities"). It may be ironic but there's surely some anecdotal evidence that this is the case.
> 
> So let me return to the wealth-dependence of the strength of votes. It's a more defensible proposal, I think.»
> 
> http://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/02/many-votes-for-those-who-pay-higher.html
> 
> Would be ineresting to see statsistics or a poll "taxes paid vs voting for"...


So... feudalism?


----------



## Moneytoo

andrewf said:


> So... feudalism?


No, his version is very soft: "So non-payers and tiny payers would have 3 votes, those who pay at least $10,000 and more would have 4 votes, those who pay $100,000 or more would have 5 votes, and so on." I had a more extreme idea: not paying any taxes? Shut your pie hole... And an increment of 5K per vote. But of course it's not gonna fly, so let's keep building communism together


----------



## andrewf

And we can make some have three fifths the votes based on skin tone...

More seriously, the wealthy already have far more influence than the average voter. Does this really need to be skewed further? Apparently this guy thinks the persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime is almost as bad as what the wealthy face in America. Where's that rolleyes emoticon?


----------



## Moneytoo

andrewf said:


> And we can make some have three fifths the votes based on skin tone...
> 
> More seriously, the wealthy already have far more influence than the average voter. Does this really need to be skewed further? Apparently this guy thinks the persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime is almost as bad as what the wealthy face in America. Where's that rolleyes emoticon?


Did you all go to the same journo school where they teach you writing for tabloids technique?  Why try to understand what the other person is saying - let's just put more extreme words in their mouths? If I wanted to quote the nazi comparison - I would've done it myself. And if my husband and friends (especially those who lived in Germany) agreed to join the forum and honestly write what they think - maybe they'd explain better why many are considering "So long, and thanks for all the fish" emergency escape.

It upsets me that Canada seems to be determined to repeat other countries' mistakes - instead of learning from them (the latest is US housing crash) And I wouldn't want to be here when millions of boomers who didn't save enough for retirement won't be able to sell their houses to millions of millennials who can't find jobs, with millions of those whose jobs are no longer needed and they can't keep making their ridiculously high mortgage payments renewed at higher interest rates - with thousands of refugees in between who'd be completely forgotten if not blamed... Yes, it's a lot to take in for someone who stayed out of politics most of her life


----------



## gibor365

> Canada is just a convenient place for you to live


 True! And I support party that represents our interests! If we decide that in other country it will be better for us, we'll move....  , however, we prefer to stay.... but who knows what NDP/Libs will do if they win (God forbid!). Maybe they decide that after syrian refugees, they want to bring all Palestinian refugees ... 

In any case, if we move to Israel, we won't pay foreign taxes for 10 years 


> Exempt income and related assets do not need to be reported to the Israel Tax Authority for the entire 10 years. All types of income and capital gains are covered by the exemption if they are derived from non-Israeli sources, such as income from salary, business, pensions, investments, etc.





> More seriously, the wealthy already have far more influence than the average voter.


 Really?! You said that we're reach...we pay probably more than 100K in taxes and what freaking influence do we have?! Exactly same that families that pay 0 .



> if the Liberals in Canada upset you, I think you would become apoplectic at the political landscape in Denmark


 Didn't check yet, as we still don't have serious intentions to move.....however, at least they have free high education (my daughter want to study medicine and ask Money2 how much does it cost here)


----------



## gibor365

> Damn, my company only has offices in the States, India and Singapore


Mine practically has offices only in India (Chennai)  , but considering my wife's job title and experience, she can easily find good job in any developed country... 



> Yes, it's a lot to take in for someone who stayed out of politics most of her life


 still, you have a very good understanding of politics lol ... and you are certainly right! We have business relationship with Canada, they let us live here and we pay huge taxes. If life will be Hell here, why should we suffer and pay even higher taxes?!
P.S. The problem is how to preserve our saving as majority of it in CAD petro-dollars :frown: and Canadian equities that crushing already several years ( if you look at it in neutral currency) Big mistake that didn't convert CAD$ into USD$ several years ago


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> still, you have a very good understanding of politics lol ... and you are certainly right! We have business relationship with Canada, they let us live here and we pay huge taxes. If life will be Hell here, why should we suffer and pay even higher taxes?!


I had to refresh my memory on Ukrainian Orange Revolution - now I understand why some people will never vote NDP (just by colour association alone...) Anyways, when I told my husband about the videos that you posted in another thread (that were deleted), he said yep, Gibor's right - so let's see who wins in October (Red October Revolution? We have so many bad historical associations... lol) 

As for medical schools, our daughters will have a choice:

«If this election is about financial security for you and your family, well, that’s another dog. Your choice could have big long-term consequences. For example, the Liberals want to drop taxes by 7% for people earning between $45,000 and $89,000, which would yield a tax cut (they state) of about $650 per person per year. To finance that they’d raise taxes by 13% on the paltry 313,000 people in Canada who earn more than $200,000. They’d pay an extra $9,600 each, which means over 50% of wages would be removed in tax.

By the way, about one-third of all those higher-income earners are doctors, who make an average of $328,000. If your community is lacking in medical care, don’t expect that taxing them more will make it a whole lot better. (An orthopedic surgeon in the US earns $440,000, compared to $208,000 in Canada and $324,000 in Britain – all in US$.)»

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/13/choices-11/

And looks like some people will never learn...


----------



## gibor365

> An orthopedic surgeon


 I already waiting more than 3 weeks that An orthopedic surgeon will call me for appointment and after they call , need to wait about 6 months for 10 min consultation. Amazing healthcare!



> I had to refresh my memory on Ukrainian Orange Revolution - now I understand why some people will never vote NDP (just by colour association alone...)


 just yesterday was thinking about this analogy 



> the Liberals want to drop taxes by 7% for people earning between $45,000 and $89,000, which would yield a tax cut (they state) of about $650 per person per year.


 we gonna lose on income split $2,000 right away...and to tell the truth , I very doubt they gonna reduce any taxes at all....they will find some excuse...


----------



## humble_pie

the NDP are saying they'll welcome 46,000 syrian refugees & they'll allocate more than $348 million in resettlement costs.

some NDPers are calling for 100,000 syrian refugees, with a large number to be housed in mixed residential/commercial/light industrial communities like mississauga so they'll have easy access to schools, jobs & social services :wink:


----------



## sags

You can't have it both ways Gibor............

You want to cut taxes and you want better government services.

The only way to do that is to increase the national debt.................and that is exactly what Harper has done.

If Harper has been a good steward of the economy............then so have all the people who racked up their credit lines and credit card debt.

It is time for a change. We can't afford Stephen Harper "putting it on the tab" any longer.


----------



## Sampson

Moneytoo said:


> they’d raise taxes by 13% on the paltry 313,000 people in Canada who earn more than $200,000. They’d pay an extra $9,600 each, which means over 50% of wages would be removed in tax.


That's not how taxes in Canada work, no one pays an average income tax rate of 50 on the full amount of income. Also, to assume the average tax paid by those that earn more is high is a little short sighted. I know many people who earn over $100k that pay around 10% in taxes, deductions and credits, and deferring paying income by building waltz within a company go A LONG way to reduce taxes.


----------



## Moneytoo

Sampson said:


> I know many people who earn over $100k that pay around 10% in taxes, deductions and credits, and deferring paying income by building waltz within a company go A LONG way to reduce taxes.


They must be "true Canadians" - the only deductions my husband and I are using are for RRSP contributions.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

what about your daughter's student & tuition deductions? she probably doesn't earn enough income to bbe in a high tax bracket herself & possibly could all transfer student deductions to you


----------



## Moneytoo

Didn't see any student deductions that were applicable (but I've been doing our taxes myself)


----------



## Eclectic12

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I'm not as confident of that.
> 
> Recent articles:
> With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world’s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower (FP - July 20, 2015)...


I'm not confident either ... at the same time, my California relatives have been saying for years that the "official" California debt is the tip of the iceberg. 
There's lots of web sites listing far higher numbers for California with detailed explanations yet the FP article seems to be taking someone's word for it.

I can't help but wonder if someone's cherry picking the numbers and without details, there's really no way to evaluate it.


Cheers

*PS*

The California and Ontario debt clocks say California has the bigger debt.


----------



## humble_pie

she should be receiving tax slips as a full-time student plus another one for tuition from her educational institution. They will each have a part where she can sign them over to you. Then you'd claim them under Other deductions.

if, in fact, you've been entitled to these credits all these years, you could claim adjustments retroactively. Even if, officially, these would be deductions that can't be carried back retroactively, you could still try on the grounds that, as a new & hard-working canadian, it takes time to learn how the blessed country operates.

there is a period of several years after filing due dates when all revisions are possible. If there's some glitch about this one being retroactive - assuming you are entitled to offspring's student deductions - you could even seek to enlist the help of your MP.

if i were a bureaucrat, i'd be highly sympathetic to working parents who are new canadians who happened to overlook a legitimate tax matter because they just didn't know about it yet.

one of the nice things i hope you'll learn about canada is that canadians are, on the whole, pretty positive & flexible about situations like that.

re other deductions, by chance have you made any charitable donations? these have to be a registered charity, but the tax credits are substantial. Nearly all churches, synagogues & some of their related programs qualify.

if you have a non-registered investment account, you'd want to cluster canadian stocks with eligible dividends there. The tax credits are significant.


----------



## Moneytoo

Try to understand - we don't mind paying higher taxes (and won't try to save every $100 here and there). We consider them to be payment for safety and comfort of living. What we do mind is... sorry, need to work


----------



## humble_pie

^^


really? from being tax-obsessed & opposed to any form of central or socialized government, you're now too grand to be bothered with income tax deductions?


----------



## Moneytoo

well i didn't worry before how our taxes are spent as everything seemed good. Now i do. are you suggesting that if we save on taxes we'll care less about what the government does with it?


----------



## peterk

humble_pie said:


> ^^
> 
> what about your daughter's student & tuition deductions? she probably doesn't earn enough income to bbe in a high tax bracket herself & possibly could all transfer student deductions to you


But these are just credits, not deductions, aren't they? The only advantage of transferring to the parent is you (the family) gets the money now instead of waiting a couple years. There is no consideration to make of who earns more money in what tax bracket.

Students should be aware that transferring tax credits to their parents is simply them giving their money to their parents. It's not "sticking it to the tax man" or any such thing that I think a lot of people believe it is.

Perhaps some percentage of parents are giving this money immediately back to their children, but on the balance the tuition credit transfer is yet another wealth transfer from the youth to the boomers.

I wonder how many 23 year olds realize when they are working their first jobs, earning 30k, with 30k in student debt, that they are missing out on 20k in tuition credits that has put ~5k into nearly-retired dad's pocket instead of their own empty pockets.


----------



## humble_pie

re dad's heavy pocket & other family injustices, wiser parties have provided the solution to this problem here in cmf forum.

the solution is to always bring your parents up properly.


----------



## Moneytoo

peterk said:


> I wonder how many 23 year olds realize when they are working their first jobs, earning 30k, with 30k in student debt, that they are missing out on 20k in tuition credits that has put ~5k into nearly-retired dad's pocket instead of their own empty pockets.


Oh thank you, peterk. So maybe we're not that stupid after all...


----------



## andrewf

I had several peers whose parents essentially 'stole' their tuition tax credit. They paid for their own tuition, parents did not help with school at all, and Mr Accountant transferred the credit to dad without informed consent of student and without compensation from Dad to student.


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> if i were a bureaucrat, i'd be highly sympathetic to working parents who are *new canadians* who happened to overlook a legitimate tax matter because they just didn't know about it yet.


We've been here for 21 years (and until recently, I thought that we were more Canadian than thou )



> re other deductions, by chance have you made any charitable donations? these have to be a registered charity, but the tax credits are substantial.


Yes, I finally made my first "large" donation to the only charity that I always wanted to support - Toronto Cat Rescue, which is "100% volunteer, with no paid employees (even the Executive members are volunteers!)" Didn't receive the receipt, and don't care if I do - again, it's not about saving taxes for me (yes, how very un-Canadian of me... ), it's about supporting what seems a good cause and opposing what seems like a waste of money...

But I'll get off high horse - I'm not perfect (none of us are), and can be quite horrible


----------



## gibor365

> some NDPers are calling for 100,000 syrian refugees, with a large number to be housed in mixed residential/commercial/light industrial communities like mississauga so they'll have easy access to schools, jobs & social services


some NDPers are readical muslims, antisemits and terrorists-supporters .... obviously they want to bring as many as possible "shahids" and convert it to muslim country, especially big cities like GTA.... They are doing it in England and pretty successful




> Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from Philippines to Africa to Europe to US. Political correctness makes for denial and hypocrisy.





> Rupert Murdoch, The News Corp boss took to Twitter at 2am on Saturday morning to claim Muslims “must be held responsible” hours after French police killed three Islamist hostage-takers at a Jewish supermarket and printing warehouse.


and now I see that many Canadians are digging their own grave


----------



## gibor365

> I finally made my first "large" donation to the only charity that I always wanted to support - Toronto Cat Rescue


 Why only "cats" , don't you like other animals?! :biggrin:
btwm heard on 680 news that Korean company offers to clone your dead pat for $120K.... interesting how many clients they gonna get


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> Why only "cats" , don't you like other animals?! :biggrin:


I didn't like other charities :biggrin: But yes, love cats more than dogs...


----------



## gibor365

Moneytoo said:


> I didn't like other charities :biggrin: But yes, love cats more than dogs...


and Korean opposite :biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101

Voting for the least evil of the three evils ... and if this guy doesn't get his job back, ain't gonna to vote for the party that ousted or keep him ousted:

*André Marin out as Ontario ombud (for now), as Liberals tap deputy as fill-in*
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/15/andr-marin-out-as-ontario-ombud-for-now-as-liberals-tap-deputy-as-fill-in.html


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> You can't have it both ways Gibor............
> 
> You want to cut taxes and you want better government services.
> 
> The only way to do that is to increase the national debt.................and that is exactly what Harper has done.
> 
> If Harper has been a good steward of the economy............then so have all the people who racked up their credit lines and credit card debt.
> 
> *It is time for a change. We can't afford Stephen Harper "putting it on the tab" any longer.*


Perhaps. Although one of the alternatives has already stated they will put more on the tab, and while the other hasn't stated this it seems quite likely they cannot do what they say they will without putting more on the tab. And perhaps much more revealing is the fact this alternative has remortgaged their same home 11 times over a 26 period, ballooning initial debt of $56K to $300k. I suspect only the most financially incompetent of us would put ourselves in this situation. Since this alternative candidate will not disclose why the extreme frequency and large amounts of refinancing one can question what has gone so wrong. 

Is this in any way a leading indicator of where the country is headed under the great financial stewardship of this shining example? At very least it should be concerning to all Canadians. I can only think of - be careful what you wish for.


----------



## gibor365

> You can't have it both ways Gibor............
> 
> You want to cut taxes and you want better government services.


Yes, we can! Stop spending money on different BS, like refugees, supporting unions, increasing number of useless government jobs etc.


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> Yes, we can! Stop spending money on different BS, like refugees, supporting unions, increasing number of useless government jobs etc.


Blue Revolution lol: the rich-er minority doesn't want to pay higher taxes to finance what poor-er majority wants (or was convinced they want)


----------



## gibor365

[
Holy s***! What a mess in Europe...

_Refugees detained by Hungarian police as Serbia tells Budapest: We're not a concentration camp_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ary-border-as-Isil-could-infiltrate-live.html

We were planning on march break to visit 1 week Budapest and 1 week Vienna ...... not any more


----------



## GPM

gibor said:


> Yes, we can! Stop spending money on different BS, like refugees, supporting unions, increasing number of useless government jobs etc.


...and stop losing govt income from Income splitting, spousal RRSP's to decrease taxes for grey hairs, TFSA's, and everything else they can think of to throw at old people for votes; wasting it on GIS, old age security, welfare, Indian Affairs(I'm very Pro Indian affairs and Wellfare I'm afraid-The only "true" Canadian is a First Nation). Aren't we all supposed to be be good little capitalists and do it ourselves with no social programs or unions to protect us? Now I'm being facicious here, but these are all what make Canada the greatest country in the world - moderate socialism. I guess Ageism wins votes, but immigration built this country,and many were war refugees. Some even worked after arrival. We don't have the Statue of Bigotry guarding our border. We can let people in.

As for the single - were are their heads. Possibly the most discriminated against group in Canada. Tax breaks for each child, child tax credit, children's allowance if it still exists, maternity leave, child activity credits because parents won't get their fat kids off the couch. Now fifteen dollar a day, day care on the horizon (My favourite was harpers beer and cigarette refund last election, I mean help with daycare) . Coupled with student loans for education that inflation adjusted is three times as much as the 80's and 90's, and no tax benefits, YOU are suffering from both ageism and family ism. TIME TO SPEAK UP! It comes from your taxes, and it's THEIR fault they have kids. Why the subsidies. It was THEIR lifestyle choice.

As a greying family man, I love the above. Just making a point. But I'm also of the opinion that if people don't like canada, they can let their feet do the talking  No countries a utopia and all politicians in all of them are parasites.

Jeez Gibor, will it even be safe enough to visit Budapest by then. It is a mess. The borders are now closed. When will the real violence start? I hope your trip goes ok. I know it would generally be a fabulous trip, but yikes! Oh just noticed you cancelled (wiping of brow).


----------



## gibor365

GPM , Long post with many disputable points.... 
but coulnd't ignore 


> or unions to protect us


Is it some joke?! Unions doesn't protect us, Unions protect Unions on everyone else account! Unions are parasites!



> Singles...Possibly the most discriminated against group in Canada.


First of all, who gonna contribute to budget when those singles retired and getting CPP/OAC/GIS?! Secondly, imho, the most discriminated against group in Canada are families with kids and with modest income that doesn't give them 99% of children related credits! Except this year, when we got $2000 becuase we have kids (thanks to Harper) and some taxable UCCB , we've never got ANYTHING! (ohhh..forgot child activity credit ....misery $75 per year)... 
I just can tell you that in our financial situation, if we wouldn't have kids, long time ago we could've retire (like Jon_Snow did) and had 2-3 mil in savings


----------



## peterk

andrewf said:


> I had several peers whose parents essentially 'stole' their tuition tax credit. They paid for their own tuition, parents did not help with school at all, and Mr Accountant transferred the credit to dad without informed consent of student and without compensation from Dad to student.


It's certainly an issue. I remember transferring credits in my first year of university. By the next year I smartened up and realized what was going on. But then I was always interested in math and money... I'm sure most didn't have a clue what was up. 

I wonder how many parents though have not understood / been misinformed and think what they are doing is tax efficient for the family and thus OK. There's probably more of those parents than ones that understand how the tax credit work, use it anyways, and choose not to inform their kids of the underhanded money transfer.

Kinda hard to blame 18 year old college kids for not knowing intimately how the tax system works... particularly when a parent or parent's accountant is typically involved in helping prepare the tax return.


----------



## gibor365

> Jeez Gibor, will it even be safe enough to visit Budapest by then.


 I don't think it will be safe to visit ANY Europen country for some time.... except maybe Azores 

So, looks like:
- ion Xmas - as usual, Cuba (long time tradition)
- in spring break or Easter time - back to Jamaica 
- in summer , finally , Canadian Rockies  planned many times, but never went there



> But I'm also of the opinion that if people don't like canada, they can let their feet do the talking


 Typical Soviet mentality! If people don't like, they can try and change it! I don't like orange or red Canada, and I'll do anything I can that canada will stay blue


----------



## peterk

gibor said:


> Secondly, imho, the most discriminated against group in Canada are families with kids and with modest income that doesn't give them 99% of children related credits! Except this year, when we got $2000 becuase we have kids (thanks to Harper) and some taxable UCCB , we've never got ANYTHING! (ohhh..forgot child activity credit ....misery $75 per year)...


That's because you're a responsible nuclear family who works hard to earn a living and are raising your children to do the same. Progressives don't like that, and don't want to encourage that type of behavior! You need to be a single mother with no education or prospects, raising her child to expect to live on the dole and vote for socialism. _That_ is the kind of person progressives want having more children... give her more tax credits so she can keep pumping out more socialist babies! What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> we have kids (thanks to Harper)


Careful there lol: http://memegenerator.net/instance/46908453


----------



## gibor365

peterk said:


> That's because you're a responsible nuclear family who works hard to earn a living and are raising your children to do the same. Progressives don't like that, and don't want to encourage that type of behavior! You need to be a single mother with no education or prospects, raising her child to expect to live on the dole and vote for socialism. _That_ is the kind of person progressives want having more children... give her more tax credits so she can keep pumping out more socialist babies! What could possibly go wrong?


True! And I'm very surprised you vote NDP :upset:


----------



## peterk

gibor said:


> I don't think it will be safe to visit ANY Europen country for some time.... except maybe Azores


And I got my trip in just in time back in July! Went all through southern German, Austria, and the west Balkans. Never made it to Vienna though. Looks like I missed my chance


----------



## peterk

gibor said:


> True! *And I'm very surprised you vote NDP *:upset:


Hahaha. Commie Tommy? As if. Rotley will be gone shortly, too.


----------



## Moneytoo

GPM said:


> As a greying family man, I love the above. Just making a point. But I'm also of the opinion that if people don't like canada, they can let their feet do the talking


Yay you can do smiley faces now!  Glad to see you in this thread


----------



## GPM

peterk said:


> That's because you're a responsible nuclear family who works hard to earn a living and are raising your children to do the same. Progressives don't like that, and don't want to encourage that type of behavior! You need to be a single mother with no education or prospects, raising her child to expect to live on the dole and vote for socialism. _That_ is the kind of person progressives want having more children... give her more tax credits so she can keep pumping out more socialist babies! What could possibly go wrong?


Hmm, considering you just described my family to a tee, except managing to keep off welfare, you could end up with a doctor, dentist, nurse and IT tech, ( job protected by a union) that have some compassion for people stuck in those situations trying to work there way out. Never had stability until a series of remarriages. Also, we have no need of any social programs obviously, yet I am a huge supporter of them. You can never generalize. Go figure


----------



## Moneytoo

Ok, I just wanted to post "something" as my 800-th post - remembered the saying "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain" - and read about its origin: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head 

(Wonder how NDP could be squeezed in... lol)


----------



## mrPPincer

congratz on post #800, and a good one at that!
I'd always had the idea that the quote came from Winston Churchill, but now it seems he was only repeating a meme generated as early as 1875, interesting


----------



## GPM

Moneytoo said:


> Ok, I just wanted to post "something" as my 800-th post - remembered the saying "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain" - and read about its origin: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head
> 
> (Wonder how NDP could be squeezed in... lol)


I'm none of the above except over 35. Just a successful capitalist with a socialist bend - within reason. Have to survive in a heartless world controlled by money after all. I actually consider myself to be quite brilliant. Not sure about what any one else I know thinks. However, I am still trying to find any redeeming qualities in any of the parties. A conundrum wrapped in a paradox and tied with a bow.


----------



## gibor365

_Mulcair called Toronto "Canada's most important city" while answering a question at a campaign event in Vancouver, B.C._ Nice! Keep it up Tom!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elec...oronto-canada-s-most-important-city-1.2563810


----------



## mrPPincer

^ouch! wowsers, what were you thinking Mulcair..
and he was talking about supporting the TO olympic bid, which they (TO) decided against doing, very wisely I might add imho
dangit! and I was hoping for an orange minority or even a coalition majority.. ohwell, we'll see


----------



## andrewf

Is it really controversial that Toronto is Canada's most important city?


----------



## mrPPincer

Ask *any* Vancouverite that question lol
just out of curiousity how is it more important? fiscally? culturally? environmentally? socially? artisticly? every way? all of the above?
One thing we can be sure of.. they don't call it The Big Smoke because of anything green


----------



## GoldStone

CTV News headline of the day:

Manifesto backed by NDP supporters calls for overhaul of capitalist economy



> OTTAWA -- Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party's highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country's economy.


Tom's reaction:


----------



## andrewf

mrPPincer said:


> Ask *any* Vancouverite that question lol
> just out of curiousity how is it more important? fiscally? culturally? environmentally? socially? artisticly? every way? all of the above?
> One thing we can be sure of.. they don't call it The Big Smoke because of anything green


Yes, yes, *shrug*, yes, yes.

Quite interesting that London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Beijing, etc. are not important because they have less than perfect air quality.


----------



## mrPPincer

Ok, arguable no doubt, but it boggles the mind why he would say that particular comment in Vancouver..
jet lag? did he forget what city he was in? lol
Maybe not such a big deal as it looks to me, we'll see..


----------



## Moneytoo

Well saw a toooon of Andrew Cash orange signs today on the way to work - didn't see or didn't notice them before, at least not that many for sure... The signs themselves are larger than red and blue ones, too... So maybe they promised torontonians to say it on tv? :biggrin:

Neighbourhood where I live all of a sudden got redder... But still no orange, and now that I actually like our liberal candidate more than conservative - maybe I'll decide that I'm still "young at heart" and "vote strategically" :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Is it really controversial that Toronto is Canada's most important city?


This is not politically correct and simply stupid . It's like Spanish candidate to be PM coming to Barcelona and telling that Madrid is the most important city, or Portuguese coming to Porto and tell that the most important is Lisbon, or Israeli coming to Tel Aviv and telling same about Jerusalem or Russian coming to St-Petersburg and telling it about Moscow 
QC guys also will be "very happy" about this remark


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Is it really controversial that Toronto is Canada's most important city?


Actually it is, and that's what people have an issue with.
Sure Toronto is important, it's the largest population center in Canada.

They honestly feel entitled to massive amounts of Provincial and Federal funding for issues that are clearly municipal responsibilities.
They have legislative/regulatory powers that aren't granted to any other municipality.

They also waste massive amounts of money, while subsidizing their citizens. Why is it that Toronto has one of the lowest property tax rates in the country, but they blame lack of Provincial/Ontario funding for their budget problems. All while wasting money in a shocking number of ways.

Having been into Toronto twice in the past 5 years, I really don't care much about what is going on there, but every minor issue seems to be thought of as if it were national significance, when really most of it is simply municipal stuff.


----------



## mrPPincer

worst traffic on the face of the planet ring a bell?
I really enjoyed options education day in TO last year, but the drive was damn intense.. especially when driving a car without a power-steering/AC belt.
Different car now, but as much as I'd like to go, pretty much sure I've decided it ain't worth risking my life on those roads, sadly, still not 100% decided.


----------



## Moneytoo

humble_pie said:


> re other deductions


HP, I lied - my husband received ~2K of his taxes back as a "caregiver amount" (for his parents who live with us ) I had no recollection of claiming it (thanks to Turbotax that did - and to CRA that decided to audit my husband because of it, reminding me that we also got something back! )


----------



## andrewf

Seeing as the City of Toronto has a bigger budget than several provinces, greater Toronto has a larger population than any province except Quebec and Ontario, Toronto has more corporate head quarters than any other city, etc. It is not only important, but more important than any other city in Canada. That doesn't mean it has an effective government or that it is even a 'good' place. If anything, the hate attracted by Toronto from the rest of Canada is a good indicator of its importance.


----------



## Moneytoo

mrPPincer said:


> worst traffic on the face of the planet ring a bell?
> ...
> Different car now, but as much as I'd like to go, pretty much sure I've decided it ain't worth risking my life on those roads, sadly, still not 100% decided.


Now that both my husband and I work downtown and he drives us both to work in the mornings (I take ttc on the way back), I don't need to go to Wonderland that often - getting my Behemoth thrill every day... lol

Still miss the first few days of PanAm games though - the streets were so empty ('cause most were afraid that the traffic would get worse and worked from home), took us 15 minutes (instead of usual 20-25) to get to work... :biggrin:


----------



## sags

Well, I am starting to load up on election night goodies.

I think it is going to be an "all nighter" and this time it won't be decided before they vote out west.

So far, we went to Costco to get jumbo packs of chicken wings, bags of chips and the fabulous "Chicago Mix", a delicious blend of cheese popcorn and caramel popcorn.

The wife has stocked some wine, and I will get some beer. We picked up pop and coffee, cheese and crackers, and some nuts...........so I think we will be okay.

We are still working on the gigantic boxes of Kraft dinner and assorted porridge mixes that I bought months.........or maybe years ago. So they are available in a pinch.

I have cleared my agenda for the day after the election, which wasn't hard because I am retired and have no life.............so I am free to stay up all night.

I put this event right up there with staying up all night to watch Neil Armstrong step on the moon.

I remember that after Armstrong walked on the moon, we all went outside to have a look at it.

Why do I think on election night, after the results are in.............Conservatives will go out and howl at the moon ?

It is going to be a historic day in Canada.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> I put this event right up there with staying up all night to watch Neil Armstrong step on the moon.
> 
> It is going to be a historic day in Canada.


Now I know why you remind me of my father-in-law - it's always hard for me to tell for sure whether he's serious or joking (mother-in-law usually says that he's joking, but I'm not sure that even she knows for sure... )


----------



## sags

LOL..........sorry I added two lines as you posted..........


----------



## sags

We can't take ourselves too seriously. After all, we have but one vote each and the results will be the collective wisdom of a lot of Canadians.


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> LOL..........sorry I added two lines as you posted..........


Oh thank god - maybe I'll believe my mother-in-law next time (that her husband has a weird sense of humour, that's it :biggrin


----------



## Moneytoo

sags said:


> We can't take ourselves too seriously. After all, we have but one vote each and the results will be the collective wisdom of a lot of Canadians.


How 'bout I'll vote Liberal and you'll vote Conservative? :rugby: (I'm actually serious - I like our liberal candidate more, but promised my husband I'll support him this time... )


----------



## sags

LOL............that is why I always laugh when I hear the media saying........the people wanted a minority government, as if we all call each other and work out who we will vote for.


----------



## Moneytoo

Yeah media is like medium - knows the future :biggrin:

View attachment 5865


----------



## Eclectic12

peterk said:


> It's certainly an issue. I remember transferring credits in my first year of university. By the next year I smartened up and realized what was going on. But then I was always interested in math and money... I'm sure most didn't have a clue what was up.


Interesting that it's shifted ... when I went to university decades ago, most of my fellow students were getting help from the parents so they didn't mind something going back to them.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> ... If anything, the hate attracted by Toronto from the rest of Canada is a good indicator of its importance.


Not really .... some of the hate are for silliness like some of the corporate decisions "ten years of profitability plus our own reps saying it's a good loan is suspect compared to Toronto staff/competitors having concerns". Some of it too is the "if it's good for Toronto - that's all that matters" attitude.

... and that's ignoring the blatant silliness of ignoring the NFL commissioner's statement and continuing to state that the main barrier to an NFL team is the bush league CFL team.


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> Well, I am starting to load up on election night goodies.
> 
> I think it is going to be an "all nighter" and this time it won't be decided before they vote out west.
> 
> So far, we went to Costco to get jumbo packs of chicken wings, bags of chips and the fabulous "Chicago Mix", a delicious blend of cheese popcorn and caramel popcorn.
> 
> The wife has stocked some wine, and I will get some beer. We picked up pop and coffee, cheese and crackers, and some nuts...........so I think we will be okay.
> 
> We are still working on the gigantic boxes of Kraft dinner and assorted porridge mixes that I bought months.........or maybe years ago. So they are available in a pinch.
> 
> I have cleared my agenda for the day after the election, which wasn't hard because I am retired and have no life.............so I am free to stay up all night.
> 
> I put this event right up there with staying up all night to watch Neil Armstrong step on the moon.
> 
> I remember that after Armstrong walked on the moon, we all went outside to have a look at it.
> 
> Why do I think on election night, after the results are in.............Conservatives will go out and howl at the moon ?
> 
> It is going to be a historic day in Canada.



luv this, luvvit.

i'll be loading up on the nibbles, too. Some fresh fruits & veggies, though? otherwise your menu looks like a fright warning for the heart & stroke foundation?

last time my candidate looked like a shoo-in. The riding has always been liberal. He'd been a superb member of parliament, the best. Why would we even bother turning out to vote yada yada, he was going to be unstoppable yada.

i always vote no matter what, though, in order to build the popular vote statistics.

last federal election night, we sat up. A nail-biter. An orange tsunami was sweeping over quebec. NDP waitresses who'd never been to ottawa were suddenly being elected to federal jobs paying at least $130,000. In the heart of rural quebec, the polls said that voters were electing an NDPer who couldn't speak french, gasp.

our nationally prominent candidate was losing to an unknown NDPer who'd never been heard of. I think she might have been some kind of social worker. No history in politics 

sometime after 1:30 am, the incumbent liberal conceded defeat, left his campaign office & went home to bed. We voters stayed up, the NDP victories in quebec were so stunning. Just before 2 am, as the final polls were counted, the numbers began to turn in our riding. The liberal candidate was climbing. Poll after poll, 100% of all the last-counted polls went solidly red. When Marc Garneau woke up early that morning he was back in parliament again.

this time it'll be a cliff-hanger in the riding because the NDP is - very smartly - not running a nebbische candidate. The orange candidate this time has muscle.

there must be a PC candidate but nobody has ever heard of him.


----------



## peterk

What shift are you referring to? Destruction of family closeness I suppose? I'm not sure what is the greater indicator of family closeness though:
The child's willingness to contribute back to the family, or the parent's willingness to not take the money and continue to give to the child? Both sentiments are probably decreasing due to decreasing family closeness over the decades... Of course the comparison can't be made in a vacuum. Today's youth are not facing the same world as 2 decade's ago's youth, nor with the same parents.

I'm not so concerned about them making the decision either way though. There is no moral qualm with willingly giving or receiving or refusing, no matter who is doing which. My concern is that I think a great number of people are unawares of what is going on. Some parents are taking advantage of the youngsters with their children unawares, and some parents are unaware of how the tax credit works and are mistakenly under the impression that what they are doing is saving the family as a whole more money from the tax man.


----------



## Eclectic12

peterk said:


> What shift are you referring to?


It's not to hard to recall students who were receiving cash, food, paid for tickets home for the holidays etc.
In several cases, the student was covering 50% of the yearly costs and the parents covered the rest.

For me to think the transfer of credits to be "an issue" - I'm assuming the value of the credits outweigh the assistance.
Or am I missing something?




peterk said:


> My concern is that I think a great number of people are unawares of what is going on.
> 
> Some parents are taking advantage of the youngsters with their children unawares, and some parents are unaware of how the tax credit works and are mistakenly under the impression that what they are doing is saving the family as a whole more money from the tax man.


The bigger picture is always better ... but as I say, for a good chunk of my fellow students, it seemed the family aid was equal to or worth more than the credits.
Not that I was doing an official study or anything.


Cheers


----------



## sags

Great story on Marc Garneau's close call Humble..........I hadn't heard that before.

I will take heed of the advice on fruits and veggies.......and hopefully convince the wife to make some of that crab dip.........like she used to make

I don't want to croak in the chair and have the newspaper headlines say........"Man dies of shock at Harper victory".............


----------



## RBull

^Little chance of a Harper victory. I think your 11x primary residence re-mortaging hero will likely prevail. 

Fortunately that will likely be a short lived victory once Canadians get a sniff of them in action.


----------



## Davis

sags, I think it is pretty bold to predict that the election will be an all-nighter, or even close. Election Day is still more than a month away. I would put even odds at this point on Peter Mansbridge calling a majority government twenty minutes after polls close in the eastern time zone. I just have no clue which party would be forming that majority government, although I would feel reasonably comfortable in predicting that it wouldn't be the Greens. But only reasonable comfortable, not absolutely certain. Anything could happen: Harper calling a senior in a wheelchair lazy, Trudeau getting caught toking up, or Mulcair kissing a portrait of Leonid Brezhnev. Polls don't mean that much at this point. It's going to be a fun month.


----------



## sags

LOL...........if Trudeau got caught toking up...........we would know he will win BC and go to bed...........


----------



## Moneytoo

Watching republican presidential debates... Omg... I love Canada! lol

(Talking about pot now btw - brother Bush just admitted "toking up" when he was young (and I had to look it up in urban dictionary lol))


----------



## GPM

Jeez I'm old. That's what people did when I was in high school!


----------



## humble_pie

so far, i think mulcair's approach to ISIL is more coherent than trudeau. Mulcair says all canadian forces out of kuwait immediately, stop the flow of arms to ISIL, stop the flow of funds to ISIL.

i've long believed that canada should do more re the last 2. At least assist with the investigations.

the liberals' anti-ISIL platform is more waffling.

mulcair loses my vote re refugees though. My understanding is the NDP is calling for 10,000 syrian refugees to be settled in canada immediately, no special screening procedures but instead haste to process them.

this is not right, i read polls saying that 7 out of 10 canadians are in favour of syrian refugees but screening procedures have to be strict even if it takes longer to process refugee claimants. Same polls are saying that only 3 in 10 canadians favour fast low-investigation refugee admission with inadequate controls.

i'm with the 7. Since all parties even the PC are accepting some refugee admissions, why doesn't immigration start up those special protocols for 2015 emergency refugee screening? at least optimize the procedure in a way that any party can carry on after the election.


----------



## HaroldCrump

An absolute Harper victory seems highly unlikely at this time.
Chances are better for an NDP minority govt.
Next up are chances of a minority Harper govt.
I don't think the Liberals can win a minority govt, let alone a full majority at this time.

That being said, recall how in the UK elections this past spring, all the polls and mainstream media was predicting a strong showing for Ed Miliband led Labor Party.
There was talk of minority Labor govt. at the very least, or even a majority govt.
David Cameron was being written off.

However, the actual election results stumped everyone.
Cameron won a thumping majority.
Miliband & Labor was wiped out.

And not just Labor, both hard left (Lib Dems) and hard right parties like Nigel Farage's UKIPs were wiped out.

All 3 opposition party leaders resigned - Miliband, Farage, and Clegg.

From what I could tell, all 3 had played to their strengths and to their core messages.
Miliband didn't really make too many mistakes.
He struck to script, didn't foul up anything, played to his bases, etc.
The only explanation that came through was that he was "weak".

This is just a recent example of how even the best polls and surveys can get it totally wrong, so who knows.


----------



## gibor365

Intersting developing 



> Tragic Aylan Kurdi’s father was the PEOPLE SMUGGLER driving doomed boat, claims survivor





> Yet some have begun to pick holes in Mr Kurdi's story, with some claiming the images were manipulated and Aylan's body had been moved in order to take a more effective photos, according to the French newspaper Le Monde.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/604535/Aylan-Kurdi-father-people-smuggler-refugee-crisis

Welcome to Canada?! :stupid:


----------



## gibor365

> Poland has agreed to take in 2,000 refugees over the next two year, far less than the 12,000 proposed under the EU system, but enough to provoke right-wing protests in several cities with demonstrators holding signs reading “today’s refugees, tomorrow’s terrorists.”





> Slovakia has said it will take in only a few hundred refugees and only Christians, as Muslims were “not going to like it





> In the Czech Republic, 94 percent of the population says the EU should return refugees to where they came from





> Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for the refugees to be kept out in order to “keep Europe Christian.”





> Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has suggested, in the face of most available evidence to the contrary, that the vast majority of the refugees are actually economic immigrants


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ch_more_antagonistic_to_syria_s_refugees.html


----------



## fatcat

gibor said:


> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ch_more_antagonistic_to_syria_s_refugees.html


the magnitude of this problem is finally hitting home after the initial shock of the pictures has faded somewhat ... predictable

this is really a eurpoean problem since they face the brunt of the refugees

they should develop a plan to confront isis militarily simultaneously with a plan to cope with the refugees or the queue of "refugee" or job seekers and or possible terrorists will not stop

money won't be enough to solve this problem

regarding the new labour leader jeremy corbyn, it is incumbent on me to point out that exactly like adolf hitler, he is a vegetarian and a teetotaler .... we have been warned :hopelessness::biggrin:

he appointed a vegan to be in charge of farm policy, enough said, enjoy those big macs while you can boys and girls


----------



## HaroldCrump

Who is going to be his equivalent of Rudolf E. Havenstein?
Certainly not Carney, but maybe Poloz.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> Who is going to be his equivalent of Rudolf E. Havenstein?
> Certainly not Carney, but maybe Poloz.


i'm no british polticis genius but i suspect this guys at becoming pm are not strong though anything can happen, (he wants to sell the nukes and de-royal her majesty) ... maybe he will recruit paul krugman ? :biggrin:


----------



## humble_pie

gibor said:


> Intersting developing
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/604535/Aylan-Kurdi-father-people-smuggler-refugee-crisis
> 
> Welcome to Canada?! :stupid:




this was discussed days ago
there's no proof pro or con
story makes no difference to the refugee reality
why would anyone waste time re-hashing old, stale, dead news


----------



## sags

Debate tonight..........a real yawn fest.

Nothing like the Republican debate for entertainment value.

The Republicans spent 3 hours talking about Fiorina's face, deporting 11,000,000 illegal immigrants, building a Berlin style border wall, and Hillary Clinton.

Our leaders talked about boring stuff..........like taxes, programs, job creation..........stuff like that.


----------



## sags

Hillary Clinton's campaign team responded to the Republican debate with this hilarious ad.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9347989/hillary-clinton-ad-republican-debate


----------



## fraser

I think the Canadian media are spinning their wheels when speaking of the election outcome.

Far too early in the game for polls or pundits to have any real insight. Anything can happen in the next.several weeks to tip the scales in a particular direction. It only takes one event, one screw up, one poor message.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Terrible debate. Poorly moderated, too.
There were only two noteworthy moments, IMO.
One was Mulcair's jab at Trudeau for this "puffs of smoke" comment.
I wish Mulcair would show his sense of humor more often.
The other moment was Harper expressing condolences to the family of the murdered child at the very beginning.


----------



## andrewf

What was with the buzzer? I agree that the moderator did a poor job. He was even occasionally snarky with the candidates. I think Paul Wells did a much better job with his debate, even if there were fewer fireworks (described as boring). I am not entertained by them shouting over each other. The purpose of a debate is not to be entertained. 

This most recent debate made me pretty uneasy with Trudeau as PM due to his communication style. I don't really want any of them to be PM, but unfortunately that is not an option.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

Still looks like my vote is going to Mulcair after most recent debate. I agree very badly moderated, I found it was hard to watch at some points.


----------



## sags

The election campaign is too long.

All we are hearing at this point is the leaders regurgitating the same policies over and over and over.

Nothing they are saying is earth shattering news. Pretty much the status quo...........which is okay, but let's just get on with it then and vote.


----------



## Moneytoo

Sad: http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/18/the-dilemma-3 ...


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The election campaign is too long.
> 
> All we are hearing at this point is the leaders regurgitating the same policies over and over and over.
> 
> Nothing they are saying is earth shattering news. Pretty much the status quo...........which is okay, but let's just get on with it then and vote.


100% right. It's costing more money and the extra long time doesn't help us make a better voting decision.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Moneytoo said:


> Sad: http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/18/the-dilemma-3 ...


At least the self-described "_irritating little pecker_" recognizes that his old boss is the wisest choice for PM.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Still struggling who to vote for.

I don't like Harper.

JT is going to put us into a huge deficit and debt hole. Sure, we need infrastructure spending but I don't want to pay for it for the next 50 years. 

Mulcair is going to cap the TFSA, let alone roll it back to $5,500.


----------



## GoldStone

Pakistan-born Tarek Fatah:

Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau, are appeasing the Islamofascists



> For someone like myself who has been on the Left all my life, spent time in prison as a socialist, fought for gay rights in hostile Islamic communities and who lives under death threats, Mulcair’s words were a betrayal.
> 
> ...
> 
> As for that other man seeking to replace Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s positions on Canada’s and the West’s national security reflect his fear of offending Islamofascists.


----------



## gibor365

My Own Advisor said:


> Still struggling who to vote for.
> 
> I don't like Harper.


You don't have to like PM, but now he's the only one who can be PM


----------



## andrewf

I think we should be careful not to blow Trudeau's deficit proposal out of proportion. He's talking about a cumulative deficit about 20% of what Harper added since 2008. The debt to GDP ratio would continue to fall. For context, at a 3%nominal growth rate, the debt to GDP ratio falls for any deficit smaller than about $20 billion per year.


----------



## gibor365

If Harper can do w/o deficit leaving TFSA 10K and income split, why we need JT with 10 bil deficit, big cuts to middle class and artificial work places?!


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> I think we should be careful not to blow Trudeau's deficit proposal out of proportion. He's talking about a cumulative deficit about 20% of what Harper added since 2008. The debt to GDP ratio would continue to fall. For context, at a 3%nominal growth rate, the debt to GDP ratio falls for any deficit smaller than about $20 billion per year.


3% nominal growth rate? It's been less than that in 2012, 2013 and 2014. And it's sure to be less again in 2015.

But anyway, I get it Andrew. You accept deficits as long as it's your guy running them.


----------



## RBull

My Own Advisor said:


> *Still struggling who to vote for.*
> 
> I don't like Harper.
> 
> JT is going to put us into a huge deficit and debt hole. Sure, we need infrastructure spending but I don't want to pay for it for the next 50 years.
> 
> Mulcair is going to cap the TFSA, let alone roll it back to $5,500.


You are certainly not alone.

There really isn't any one party that works for me.


----------



## sags

gibor said:


> If Harper can do w/o deficit leaving TFSA 10K and income split, why we need JT with 10 bil deficit, big cuts to middle class and artificial work places?!


Harper hasn't achieved anything without deficit spending. He is the King of Deficits...............


----------



## sags

The NDP have moved more to the middle politically, than some long time NDP supporters would like, but Mulcair understands that a Christmas list is something to hope for, but it doesn't mean Santa is going to put everything on the list under the tree.

Harper has been telling Canadians for years, what they will be getting for Christmas............take it or leave it.

And Trudeau will buy Santa a new sleigh.............to make sure he can deliver the presents.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> Harper hasn't achieved anything without deficit spending. He is the King of Deficits...............


If you thing that after 2008-9 big recession anyone could've been not to run deficit, you live in illusion 
However, 2014 budget had surplus, and 2015 gonna have surplus.... So why do we need JT running deficit for next 3 years in the best case and cut a lot of benefits?! MDP is just blah, blah, blah... typical populists ...


----------



## GPM

Pharmacare LIKELY bought my vote. I will be watching closely to see its form and extent. I spend the cost of a small car on medications every year. Not big on NDP, but they are more centrist now. Otherwise will vote for whoever can beat the local Western Alliance member.

Harper could run a surplus of trillion dollars and I still wouldnt vote for him. I hate the guy with such a deep burning rage, that I can't even look at his face, little own vote for the B------d. Never experienced such distaste for an individual, little own hate someone. I used to waver between the real Conservatives and Liberals in the old days. 

Pity the Western Alliance never have a leadership vote. Reminds me of Zimbabwe


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

GPM said:


> Pharmacare LIKELY bought my vote. I will be watching closely to see its form and extent. I spend the cost of a small car on medications every year... Never experienced such distaste for an individual, little own hate someone.


Did you see the news that pot is now a deductible expense? Maybe you need a bit (more?) to sooth your rage.


----------



## GPM

Heh, heh. Maybe! . Never tried. It could help me save my TFSA.

I actually don't like any of the leaders. Maybe I exaggerated my dislike a little (maybe a lot). However, he really does gets under my skin. Just making a point. A trillion dollar surplus would get my attention though.

I'm really struggling to find a reason for any of the parties. Pharmacare struck a chord, but how to pay for it?

By the way, why all the surplus talk like he an Mulclair are heroes if they do it? Every household has to do it. Where is any talk of the debt? It is conveniently ignored always.


----------



## andrewf

GoldStone said:


> 3% nominal growth rate? It's been less than that in 2012, 2013 and 2014. And it's sure to be less again in 2015.
> 
> But anyway, I get it Andrew. You accept deficits as long as it's your guy running them.


Canadian nominal GDP growth for the past ten years has been 4.3%.

I am okay with the government borrowing for long term investments in infrastructure, especially when it has capacity to borrow for historically low rates. Not so sure about deficits to finance current consumption or tax credits for granite countertops.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> The NDP have moved more to the middle politically, than some long time NDP supporters would like, but Mulcair understands that a Christmas list is something to hope for, but it doesn't mean Santa is going to put everything on the list under the tree.
> 
> Harper has been telling Canadians for years, what they will be getting for Christmas............take it or leave it.
> 
> And Trudeau will buy Santa a new sleigh.............to make sure he can deliver the presents.


Mulcair is an elf and Santa wannabe. The only thing Mulcair understands is to say and do *anything* with the party right now to get elected. That is why the significant "apparent" shift to the centre. Their platform costings are thin at best. I've experienced a reckless NDP provincial govt. led by another lawyer, that broke every promise they made. 

You may not like it but Harper has done what he said he would with the deficits. I shudder to think what Mulcair & NDP would have done through 08 & 09. 

Any person (let alone a highly paid lawyer/bureaucrat with a professionally employed wife) with a $56K mortgage in 1983 that refinanced it 11 times ballooning his mortgage to $300K instead of paying it off (and refusing explanation) deserves to have their financial smarts questioned. I cannot in good conscious seriously consider someone for leader with such a poor personal financial record. I wouldn't trust him with a nickel of my money.


----------



## GPM

I lived under an NDP government almost my whole life. Saskatchewan. A have province. Always stable. Started Medicare.

The conservatives went to jail when I was a kid. Not sure why. Maybe it was for selling off sask potash. 

Anyhow, not saying I'm voting NDP, but they are now a centre party. I'm definitely watching after living in a dictatorship for too many years now. Harper is a spiteful man with no redeeming qualities as a human being. That doesn't make great leader. Leaders don't hide in closets. I'm embarrassed to have him as the face Canada.

And unending support of Isreal. When Nelson Mandela calls it Apartheid, it's Apartheid. Where are the sanctions. Oh yeh,none, because he's evangelical. Always great to mix religion and politics. It's always worked so well in the past. We should be cutting the ties, not supporting. Talk about inviting terrorism.

I support a state of Isreal, but abhor apartheid.


----------



## fatcat

i'm not evangelical and i sure support israel, they are surrounded by people who insists on regularly trying to kill them

i am endlessly entertained by the canadian left's unholy alliance with islam where liberalism and islam are now conflated (ala cupe and cupw) except ... wait until you find out what they (the muslims) think of gay people or any number of near and dear liberal axioms

the ndp has a thin veneer of centrism, let them govern and that veneer will wear off quickly


----------



## GPM

The same as what evangelicals and righties think of our gay people and the Canadian alliance think of our freedom and liberalism. 

I'm neutral on gays, and other "liberal ideas" like women's right to choose. . They have no affect on my life.

There are now evangelical unions in Alberta. They exclude non evans. A client could only fake it for so long and quit.

The U.S.A does very little right. But 2 term leaders should have been be brought to Canada years ago. The liberals should never have been allowed to rule under Chretian as long as they did, and the same with Harper's Western Alliance.

Ah yes, "they". The root of all conflict. Harpers divisionism setting in permanently in Canada. Every immigrant is a terrorist. They could never be searching for a better life style. Luckily we aren't letting in rapists and murders like the states.

The undercurrent of right wing evangelicals flowing across Canada, is far more dangerous to our freedoms than Muslim immigrants - at the core, they are both the same.


----------



## Moneytoo

«The Papineau poll flap is a cautionary tale for so-called progressive voters who are being urged by various groups to vote strategically for the opposition party best positioned to defeat Harper’s Conservatives. National poll numbers tell voters nothing about the dynamic in individual ridings and riding polls aimed at helping them make a more educated decision can be badly flawed or misleading.»

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...redibility-of-their-industry/article26445781/


----------



## Moneytoo

andrewf said:


> Not so sure about deficits to finance current consumption or tax credits for granite countertops.


Which reminds me - our house is getting older (like us ), will need to replace windows and the roof in a few years... and our builder-basic main bathroom and kitchen cry for a renovation (and yes, might have to install granite countertops - to have a chance to sell it for top dollar when the time comes ) 

So yeah, Conservatives it is...


----------



## GPM

Interesting article. Indeed, it is dangerous. Gorilla polling. Borders on undemoctatic. Maybe even crosses it. 

I have never trusted polls much. I try to follow the issues, but even then you need to read both righ and left wing newspapers to get an even view. 

If no party can jump out at me, I will wait until the numbers start coming in. 

Unfortunately, the best candidate for a persons riding, may belong to a party that's not best for Canada.

Like you I will try and vote for what's best for me. Selfish I know, but necessary and smart. Unfortunate not everyone can agree, but not conservative for me. Life issues over ride my countertops, although I wouldn't mind granite 

Funny, before Harper, Conservatives, always had a chance with me.


----------



## Moneytoo

GPM said:


> Unfortunately, the best candidate for a persons riding, may belong to a party that's not best for Canada.


I give up trying to understand what would be best for Canada  I like our Liberal candidate the most, and will most likely vote for him next time. Conservative Joe Oliver is 75, I think this is his last election... Have nothing personally against Harper (didn't even know how he looks couple months ago lol), and keeping promises is high in my books (especially if they benefit me personally ) I like how Justin looks, but that's about it lol


----------



## gibor365

> I support a state of Isreal, but abhor apartheid.


 What "apartheid" you are talking about?! I served in police together with Arabs and Bedouins , my boss in police was Bedouin. In army my commander was Druze. There are several Arabs who are member of Knesset. In Israeli national soccer team playing Jewish, Arabs, Circassians... 
Maybe you read too much Arab News?!

Harper is the first PM who has balance politics toward Israel...


----------



## gibor365

If Tarek Fatah says this


> according to Tarek Fatah, Islamists flood into the Party since Layton is the leader.


 , the situation probably even worse...


----------



## Karen

I have never understood people who base their vote on whether they "like" or "hate" the party leader or, even worse, on their opinion of his or her looks. I must admit that I don't like Harper as much as I did in the past, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision as to whom I plan to vote for. I have strongly considered what it would be like to live in a Canada led by either Mulcair or Trudeau, and both options send shivers down my spine. Yes, Harper has done things I don't approve of, but there is no such thing as a political leader who will never do anything we disapprove of, and the realities of a democracy force uf to choose on the basis of who will lead the country most successfully. To my way of thinking, in spite of his failings, Harper has brought us through a period of economic disasters in many countries of the world in relatively good shape - much better than either of the other leaders would have done - and I will therefore be voting Conservative this time. (Unfortunately, in order to do that, I will have to hold my nose and vote for a local candidate that I have no use for, but that can't be helped - the alternatives are worse!)


----------



## sags

The Harper government has simply made too many enemies along the way. From military veterans to scientists to union members.........he has poked and prodded them all.

Now he asks them for their support, and it isn't going to happen.

The chance to get rid of this government is there, and the targets of Harper's vindictive policies have only one thing on their mind..........making him go away.


----------



## gibor365

> From military veterans to scientists to union members


 list is pretty big: antisemits, radical muslims, government workers, weeds consumers, sexual minorities etc


----------



## Eder

The only problem with democracy is that we all get a vote...I guess we will end up with the government we deserve and I will be fine with whatever we collectively choose. As for my kids, I told them to vote Conservative if they want to holiday in Cuba, not live in it.


----------



## gibor365

> As for my kids, I told them to vote Conservative if they want to holiday in Cuba, not live in it.
Click to expand...

 Ha ha ... a good one  ... Both my kids are more Conservative that we're


----------



## GPM

gibor said:


> What "apartheid" you are talking about?! I served in police together with Arabs and Bedouins , my boss in police was Bedouin. In army my commander was Druze. There are several Arabs who are member of Knesset. In Israeli national soccer team playing Jewish, Arabs, Circassians...
> Maybe you read too much Arab News?!
> 
> Harper is the first PM who has balance politics toward Israel...


Ahhh, Gibor, I was hoping you'd peek in and give a first hand view instead of newspaper view. Still don't like Harper or his Mid East policies though!

I agree with sags. Vindictive policies. However, its those vindictive policies are the ones that I can't stand and are important to me.

Karen I respect your opinion not voting on looks! I am more shallow, having liked Belinda Stromach.  Harper looks like a serial killer, but that is irrelevant. Nonetheless, the fallout from his "steady hand" is yet to be felt. Disaster on the horizon, with his housing bubble. I hope this fallout happens during his reign, I mean term. The leader is ultimately who you are voting for, so it does matter what they are like. In Harpers case, no one outside the the cabinet, likely even his office is relevant.

And I too am glad everyone gets a vote. Canada gets what the majority asks for, good or bad, and I don't think we are as crooked as the U.S.... yet. But getting their.

We are Cuba. A country controlled by the U.S - like all the other Banana Republics. Cuba just broke free and paid the economic price based on US policy. I don't see how our dependency on the evil empire changes with political affiliation. We are just a pawn. The joke of the G7.


----------



## GoldStone

Karen said:


> I have never understood people who base their vote on whether they "like" or "hate" the party leader or, even worse, on their opinion of his or her looks. I must admit that I don't like Harper as much as I did in the past, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my decision as to whom I plan to vote for. I have strongly considered what it would be like to live in a Canada led by either Mulcair or Trudeau, and both options send shivers down my spine. Yes, Harper has done things I don't approve of, but there is no such thing as a political leader who will never do anything we disapprove of, and the realities of a democracy force uf to choose on the basis of who will lead the country most successfully. To my way of thinking, in spite of his failings, Harper has brought us through a period of economic disasters in many countries of the world in relatively good shape - much better than either of the other leaders would have done - and I will therefore be voting Conservative this time. (Unfortunately, in order to do that, I will have to hold my nose and vote for a local candidate that I have no use for, but that can't be helped - the alternatives are worse!)


Well said, Karen. That's my thinking as well.


----------



## gibor365

GoldStone said:


> Well said, Karen. That's my thinking as well.


imho, this is thinking of all CMF members who votes Conservative


----------



## Moneytoo

I didn't like Garth that much before - now I dig what he's saying:

«Well, there you have it. The vote that’s all about loaves and fishes, in which people are being told a handful can suffer so the multitudes may prosper, championed by two members of the 1% who live on public incomes. At least we dig irony.»

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/20/the-rich-the-rest-2


----------



## GPM

Moneytoo said:


> I didn't like Garth that much before - now I dig what he's saying:
> 
> «Well, there you have it. The vote that’s all about loaves and fishes, in which people are being told a handful can suffer so the multitudes may prosper, championed by two members of the 1% who live on public incomes. At least we dig irony.»
> 
> http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/20/the-rich-the-rest-2


Well, Garth isn't always my cup of tea, but an interesting read at times, and a real old days conservative. However same article:

"For Stephen Harper’s part, his record also sucks – almost eight years of deficits, $170 billion more in public debt, an active role in creating unaffordable house prices and a recession. He earns $327,400 as prime minister and calls 24 Sussex Drive home. Also free. I’ve been there, too. Very cool."

Good leader? Matter of opinion. I am questioning it.
I can respect the vast majority of the forum being conservative.

Like I asked, where's the discussion on the debt? No one seems to care. 170 billion is a lot compared to his little surplus everyone crows about. What's our total debt and more importantly TOTAL DEBT PAYMENT.


----------



## Sasquatch

I have been doing my "Harper your time is up" dance ever since he called the election in the early 1800s.
IMHO he is the worst prime minister we have ever had and he is an embarrassment to Canada as a whole.
He might be the best choice as far as steering our economy, or lack thereof but this is totally cancelled out by his and his party's alarming lack of morals, total lack of respect for the average Canadian citizen, his open mockery of our democratic system and his slow, methodical dismantling of our democracy by taking away more and more power from the MPs and concentrating it in his PMO with him in charge.
Sad thing about all this is the fact that he did have a majority for the last 4 years. Due to the total control of his blue MPs ( a bunch of seals clapping their flippers at his every word comes to mind), he has been able to do all of this relatively unobstructed. 
I have great hopes that a majority of my fellow Canadians are recognizing what is going on and will vote accordingly to get this menace out of here once and for all.
Personally I will vote for the best of a questionable lot and I will certainly pay attention to the polls of my riding and vote strategically with the single purpose of A B C ..... anybody but Conservative. If Bugs Bunny ran in my riding and he'd have the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate, he'd have my vote for sure.
For me having an ethical and open government and leader who is truthful with Canadians trumps his possible superior economic skills compared with the other leaders 1000 : 1 

Can't wait for the election to show Harpo and his trained seals the door.

BTW, did I make it clear that I don't think the Conservatives should get another 4 years in power? ;-)


----------



## fatcat

GPM said:


> We are Cuba. A country controlled by the U.S - like all the other Banana Republics. Cuba just broke free and paid the economic price based on US policy. I don't see how our dependency on the evil empire changes with political affiliation. We are just a pawn. The joke of the G7.


pay the price ? the little commie bastards pointed nukes right at us ... f### them ... whatever batista's ills (and there were many) he would have preferable to almost 60 years under castro's boot ... absent fidel it probably would have followed hawaii for statehood


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

GPM said:


> What's our total debt and more importantly TOTAL DEBT PAYMENT.


I can't vouch for the accuracy of the numbers but here is taxpayer.com's debt clock link. If you want a real scare however, follow the link to the Ontario provincial debt clock - the $100's on it are moving too fast to read. Canada's is at least more modest in its rate of growth.
http://www.debtclock.ca/

Now don't get too paranoid though, I had an acquaintance who was convinced Canada was going to go -i-'s up in the early 90's who pulled up stakes and put everything into Japan's economy. Sadly we all know how that worked out.
Here is a table of debt from Wikipedia. Doesn't look too scary to me yet - unless we are negligent in electing a gov't that wants to keep adding to it 
View attachment 5937

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt


----------



## GPM

fatcat said:


> pay the price ? the little commie bastards pointed nukes right at us ... f### them ... whatever batista's ills (and there were many) he would have preferable to almost 60 years under castro's boot ... absent fidel it probably would have followed hawaii for statehood


Well, the U.S. was pointing nukes at the CCCP from Turkey first. Countermove , and a shrewd one at that. Never made the news that CCCP wouldn't remove the nukes unless USA did? The USA are always the tough guys apparently, or have to portray it. Back room deal by Kennedy, obviously. I thought everyone knew. Of course communist lives were of no importance, so they had no right to protect themselves.

Hawaii? They would have been lucky to have even been the next Puerto Rico. The whole country was controlled by the United Fruit Co. Hence the name Banana Republic. Except for the parts run by the mafia. 

Prostitution and picking fruit on American owned farmers were the main employment. 

Why would the U.S. have made them a state when they could have slave labour? You're under the impression the USA are the good guys.

This was pretty much the state of all South America. Under the control of the evil empire and Britain.

uh...I don't consider the U.S. be "us". What an insult.


----------



## GPM

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I can't vouch for the accuracy of the numbers but here is taxpayer.com's debt clock link. If you want a real scare however, follow the link to the Ontario provincial debt clock - the $100's on it are moving too fast to read. Canada's is at least more modest in its rate of growth.
> http://www.debtclock.ca/
> 
> Now don't get too paranoid though, I had an acquaintance who was convinced Canada was going to go -i-'s up in the early 90's who pulled up stakes and put everything into Japan's economy. Sadly we all know how that worked out.
> Here is a table of debt from Wikipedia. Doesn't look too scary to me yet - unless we are negligent in electing a gov't that wants to keep adding to it
> View attachment 5937
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt



Thanks! Cool links. I noticed they aren't going down though! Don't worry, or to many peoples disappointment, I have no intention of pulling up stakes. Canada, with its problems is still the only place to live.


----------



## humble_pie

news, possibly good:

trudeau says canada under the liberals will *not* buy C35 fighter jets but will open competition for a new generation of less expensive planes. Canada would invest the $$ saved in 8 new arctic vessels for the navy. Present plans call for 6 ships.

also british PM David Cameron says england will accept 20,000 syrian refugees, but only from the existing refugee camps in turkey, lebanon & jordan. England will not accept any of the refugee migrants now streaming in europe, cameron says.


----------



## GPM

très intéressant. 

However, I believe it was Denmark or Norway that tried to back out of the deal, and the states informed them that all intelligence would be cut off. Therefore, it may be difficult to do. 

Humble pie, you have very interesting insights as well as many other members. I attempted some rudementary french on media hypnosis, as you are always writing in English. It is not my strong point. I hope you found time to finish the thread.. 

Last post.

It has been a good read on the forum and I learned a lot. I didn't regret joining. However, I came to learn about financial matters, not argue politics, religion or history. Continue to have fun and keep learning!


----------



## humble_pie

i think the message about the C35s & the 8 new arctic vessels is bang on the economy, though, since building the ships will mean starting up canada's mothballed shipyards once again.

alas it's only an election promise from a party that probably won't win, but it does put the message out there in black & white. Message: those expensive C35s with their costly stateside maintenance & training requirements are not appropriate for this country, which needs to concentrate instead on its northern region & arctic waters.


----------



## gibor365

> Muslim Petitions To Cancel Oktoberfest In Germany As Munich Police Plan To Keep Refugees and Revelers Apart
> 
> 
> oktoberkest
> 
> If you needed any more proof that the muslim invasion aka caliphate is coming…this is it: A muslim man put up a petition on the internet to BAN Oktoberfest in Munich:
> 
> Ban the Intolerant and Anti-Islamic event of Oktoberfest
> 
> Dear City council of Munich,
> 
> I am writing this letter to bring to your attention something that I
> and many Muslims believe is unfair and requires attention. I would like to inform you that the Oktoberfest is an Intolerant and Anti-Islamic event. We tried to ignore the event, but there too many Un-Islamic acts done at the Oktoberfest. Such as alcohol consumption, public nudity etc.
> 
> We understand that the Oktoberfest is a yearly German tradition, but we, Muslims, can not tolerate this Un-Islamic event, because it offends us and all Muslims on the earth. We are requesting the immediate cancellation of the upcoming Oktoberfest event.
> 
> We also believe that the Oktoberfest might also offend all the Muslim refugees coming from Syria, Iraq,
> Afghanistan. The cancellation of the Oktoberfest event will help refugees not to forget their Islamic history. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Morad Almuradi


http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/09/1...ice-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/
Won't be surprised if similar request will be regarding Kitchener Octoberfest


----------



## Moneytoo

Hm didn't know this: "Ostriches don't really bury their heads in the sand, as is often thought. They sometimes put their heads to the ground if they sense danger in the distance, and when they do so their bodies can look like mounds of earth. They do this so well, in fact, that it's sometimes possible for you to come very close to an ostrich before you see it."

http://m.wikihow.com/Survive-an-Encounter-with-an-Ostrich


----------



## sags

You must be speaking of Joe "Ostrich" Oliver ?

After missing in action the whole election campaign, Finance Minister Joe Oliver pops up at a Blue Jays game..............and jinxed them.

Why doesn't he just go answer reporter questions on the economy or something..........if Harper says he can.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/20/joe-oliver-blue-jays_n_8167322.html


----------



## Moneytoo

Sure, why not


----------



## humble_pie

gibor said:


> http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/09/1...ice-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/
> 
> Won't be surprised if similar request will be regarding Kitchener Octoberfest




oh for crying out loud, please get serious.

the quoted message is a fake. It was no more written by a native speaker of arabic or a native speaker of german than was this message. Transparently, it was written by a native english speaker. An american or possibly even a canadian, i would guess (certain inflections are not british.)

there's no link to any so-called "internet petition." In fact there is no internet petition. The story is a send-up.

gibor your leg has been pulled so often in this forum that one has to wonder how you are managing to walk these days.


----------



## bgc_fan

My Own Advisor said:


> Still struggling who to vote for.
> 
> I don't like Harper.
> 
> JT is going to put us into a huge deficit and debt hole. Sure, we need infrastructure spending but I don't want to pay for it for the next 50 years.
> 
> Mulcair is going to cap the TFSA, let alone roll it back to $5,500.


I'm biased because I like infrastructure spending. Anything physical will decay over time, so we either pay now or later. The problem with paying later is that it can be more expensive if it is due to structures collapsing. Paying earlier means that it can be budgetted and managed proactively instead of being reactive which tends to be more expensive.

A related note, the government is patting itself for the lapsed spending in DND as great money management to produce a surplus. The truth is, unless the capital projects are being cancelled, lapsed spending is bad. Basically, you're kicking the can down the road so that with inflation, or currency fluctuations we now have less money to spend as things get more expensive.



humble_pie said:


> i think the message about the C35s & the 8 new arctic vessels is bang on the economy, though, since building the ships will mean starting up canada's mothballed shipyards once again.
> 
> alas it's only an election promise from a party that probably won't win, but it does put the message out there in black & white. Message: those expensive C35s with their costly stateside maintenance & training requirements are not appropriate for this country, which needs to concentrate instead on its northern region & arctic waters.


Well, I'm not sure if he has added anything new. The only troubling part is that he discounted the F-35 acquisition which can lead to a court challenge by Lockheed Martin for unfair tendering.

When it comes to ship building, you have to realize that the CAF isn't big enough to sustain a company. One of the issues is that after the Halifax frigates were built, there was no more work for the shipyards. So unless the Liberal plan is to help find an export market for the shipyards, and follow the same path as GDLS with the LAVs, it will not really do a whole lot.



gibor said:


> http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/09/1...ice-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/
> Won't be surprised if similar request will be regarding Kitchener Octoberfest


You know, you really have to vet some of your news sources with other more mainstream sources.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/truth-revealed-behind-petition-ban-6459561

Or to respond to your previous one about the refugees waving ISIL flags

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-police-goes-viral-and-is-a-lie-10501290.html

Unless you want to make a case that it is a big mainstream media conspiracy and they planted video 3 years ago to discredit.

Then again, you probably think that Will Smith's middle name starts with O.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelblackmon/will-o-smith


----------



## fatcat

gibor said:


> http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/09/1...ice-plan-to-keep-refugees-and-revelers-apart/
> Won't be surprised if similar request will be regarding Kitchener Octoberfest


have to agree with others gibor, calling fake on this one ... classic false flag move


----------



## Moneytoo

fatcat said:


> have to agree with others gibor, calling fake on this one ... classic false flag move


Here's a "true story"  There used to be an Adult Video store in my neighbourhood - and, from afar, it's still there on google maps:

View attachment 5945


But now it's Islamic Community Center:

View attachment 5953


View attachment 5961


Just sayin'


----------



## bgc_fan

Moneytoo said:


> Here's a "true story"  There used to be an Adult Video store in my neighbourhood - and, from afar, it's still there on google maps:
> 
> View attachment 5945
> 
> 
> But now it's Islamic Community Center:
> 
> View attachment 5953
> 
> 
> View attachment 5961
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


Just saying what? That in the age of Internet porn that adult video stores go out of business and leave some cheap land to be bought up and used for any which way?


----------



## Moneytoo

bgc_fan said:


> Just saying what? That in the age of Internet porn that adult video stores go out of business and leave some cheap land to be bought up and used for any which way?


Just sayin' that we bought a house almost 20 years ago in Portuguese/Italian neighbourhood - and enjoyed the diversity on our street (different races/nationalities) Not sure how I feel about Islamic Community Center. Guess you'd be happy if you had one nearby as you embrace "any which way" whole-heartedly?


----------



## bgc_fan

Moneytoo said:


> Just sayin' that we bought a house almost 20 years ago in Portuguese/Italian neighbourhood - and enjoyed the diversity on our street (different races/nationalities) Not sure how I feel about Islamic Community Center. Guess you'd be happy if you had one nearby as you embrace "any which way" whole-heartedly?


Well, there are a number of Christian churches and other community centers nearby, so adding another one really wouldn't make too much difference.


----------



## sags

The Fraser Institute which is a conservative lobby group, rate Islamic schools among the highest ranked schools in Ontario.

In our local school board they rank as the top schools.

I doubt Muslim parents and teachers are serious about education so their children can become better educated militant terrorists.

http://ontario.compareschoolrankings.org/elementary/SchoolsByRankLocationName.aspx


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> When it comes to ship building, you have to realize that the CAF isn't big enough to sustain a company. One of the issues is that after the Halifax frigates were built, there was no more work for the shipyards. So unless the Liberal plan is to help find an export market for the shipyards, and follow the same path as GDLS with the LAVs, it will not really do a whole lot



i see your point, although i'm not sure what CAF is. You are saying that economies of scale wouldn't permit only 8 ships to be built in canada? they'd have to be bought offshore? one of the mothballed shipyards is in quebec i believe ...

still, i'm happy to see the emphasis being placed on the arctic. With global warming, those frozen seas are opening up. They say the ancient european explorers' dream of a northwest passage is now reality.

there's huge mineral, fossil fuel & lumber wealth in canada's north. There are also fragile first nation cultures to be protected. It's too bad we've already sold so many north-of-60 companies to the chinese, the time is now IMHO to call ownership of the greater part that remains, before it's too late.


----------



## sags

Agree with the GDLS manufacturing LAVs, as an example of what Canada is capable of manufacturing.

I worked at the London plant in the 1980s when it was owned by General Motors. They purchased the rights from the Swiss.

We also built Terex trucks (world's largest that are used in Alberta oil sands), diesel locomotives, articulated coach buses, and school buses at the plant.

There were 4,000 workers when I was there. I believe it is all gone now, except for the remaining LAV production.

Canada is still home to manufacturing of big machinery, but there is not enough emphasis on supporting and expanding the industry.

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to come to Canada, buy a big manufacturer and then sell it off in pieces and leave.

If we can't or don't want to restrict the sales, the Canadian government should get involved in ownership of the companies and continuing to operate them for profit.

If instead of loaning bankrupt GM billions of dollars, the Canadian government could have purchased the Canadian rights to the corporation, and we would have had a profitable domestic vehicle manufacturer today. Instead all the decisions on the Canadian plants are controlled by US owners.

We have to get past the "branch plant" mentality and develop our own industry.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> i see your point, although i'm not sure what CAF is. You are saying that economies of scale wouldn't permit only 8 ships to be built in canada? they'd have to be bought offshore? one of the mothballed shipyards is in quebec i believe ...
> 
> still, i'm happy to see the emphasis being placed on the arctic. With global warming, those frozen seas are opening up. They say the ancient european explorers' dream of a northwest passage is now reality.
> 
> there's huge mineral, fossil fuel & lumber wealth in canada's north. There are also fragile first nation cultures to be protected. It's too bad we've already sold so many north-of-60 companies to the chinese, the time is now IMHO to call ownership of the greater part that remains, before it's too late.


Sorry, CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) is relatively small. The U.S. can sustain their military industries domestically since their forces are much more larger than ours. OTOH, once we've gone through the process of upgrading shipyards and completed the construction of new vessels, what do we do with the shipyards? Mothball them again? Ideally, the shipyards should have some sort of continuous building project so that they are always in use and the industry can sustain itself. Exporting finished vessels would be the way to do this. 
Maintenance work on the completed vessels will provide some work, but no where near the same as manufacturing new vessels.

There will be a race for the resources in the Arctic. The Russians have already started, and the Americans are going to stake claims as well. Without any real power to back up our claims, we will end up getting pushed aside.


----------



## fatcat

Moneytoo said:


> Here's a "true story"  There used to be an Adult Video store in my neighbourhood - and, from afar, it's still there on google maps:
> 
> View attachment 5945
> 
> 
> But now it's Islamic Community Center:
> 
> View attachment 5953
> 
> 
> View attachment 5961
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


insert joke about virgins here ______


----------



## Moneytoo

fatcat said:


> insert joke about virgins here ______


http://www.sickipedia.org/other/irony/personally-id-love-to-see-the-look-on-a-suicide-856296 :biggrin:


----------



## fatcat

Moneytoo said:


> http://www.sickipedia.org/other/irony/personally-id-love-to-see-the-look-on-a-suicide-856296 :biggrin:


OUCH ! :cower:


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> ... There will be a race for the resources in the Arctic. The Russians have already started, and the Americans are going to stake claims as well. Without any real power to back up our claims, we will end up getting pushed aside.




yes i thought that's what you meant about the shipyards. But since JT isn't going to be majority party PM anyhow, no need for us to settle right now what should be done about the canadian shipyards prob!

the arctic is another story. It wounds me to see you say that "we will end up getting pushed aside." why pushed aside? wherefore pushed aside?

obama visited alaska recently & demonstrated albeit in a whirlwind tour that the US will stake its presence in the arctic. But canada owns so much, including all the coastline of the northwest passage plus the newly ice-free passage to europe from hudson's bay.

in northern quebec, a silent Plan Nord has been underway for many years. The lumber companies have cut a vast network of gravel roads through the northern forests & are hauling out timber in vast quantities.

i'm still not sure to which nations these lumber companies belong ... if anyone knows i'd be grateful to hear. The fact that they are importing workers from all over the planet including from africa, suggests to me these lumber companies are not the traditional canadian or american lumber barons this country has welcomed in the past ... perhaps they are chinese lumber companies?

there have been years of complaints from the Cree of quebec's north, since the raw clear-cutting plus the noise of the machines & vehicles have destroyed the traditional animal habitats, on which the trappers lived for something like 10 or 20 thousand years ...


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> the arctic is another story. It wounds me to see you say that "we will end up getting pushed aside." why pushed aside? wherefore pushed aside?


I was referring mainly to the Northwest passage and territorial waters. Some, like the States are pushing to have the passage declared as international waters with all countries having right of passage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic

Unless we actually have some muscle to enforce our claim that the Northwest passage is Canadian territorial waters, we could end up with lots of foreign ships going through without the right to restrict passage, but we still have to pick up the tab for enforcement of fisheries, smuggling and all the other stuff.


----------



## humble_pie

doesn't the international law of the sea define continental shelfs & territorial waters, though. I'm guessing (didn't look this up) but i'm thinking it's something like 200 nautical miles offshore?

i am aware that canada's claim to high arctic islands such as Ellesmere can be contested, on the grounds of no habitation. Still, at least that means no other nation has inhabited them either.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> doesn't the international law of the sea define continental shelfs & territorial waters, though. I'm guessing (didn't look this up) but i'm thinking it's something like 200 nautical miles offshore?
> 
> i am aware that canada's claim to high arctic islands such as Ellesmere can be contested, on the grounds of no habitation. Still, at least that means no other nation has inhabited them either.


Yes, there is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that defines the different zones, out to 200 nautical miles. Do you want to guess who hasn't ratified it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea


----------



## humble_pie

i see. It's the US of A? they won't ratifiy Part XI of the law of the sea convention? something to do with archipelagic islands like canada's arctic & high arctic islands?

hmmmmn one can definitely see where a 100-year legal war could be waged ...

thanks so much bgc fan for offering all this knowledge. Always something new to be learned in cmf forum!


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I think we should be careful not to blow Trudeau's deficit proposal out of proportion. He's talking about a cumulative deficit about 20% of what Harper added since 2008. The debt to GDP ratio would continue to fall. For context, at a 3%nominal growth rate, the debt to GDP ratio falls for any deficit smaller than about $20 billion per year.


The thing with deficits is that they can get out of hand real fast.
It always starts with a "small" 2% deficit.
Then, stuff happens...a mild recession, some BOP issues, currency devaluation, etc.
And before you know it, the small 2% deficits becomes larger and larger.
After a while it assumes a life of its own and very hard to bring it down.

On the spending side, every small cut is fought tooth and nail by the entitlement groups.
On the revenue side, new taxes are unpopular and cause unintended consequences and/or kill growth over time.

BTW, during the Globe debate, Trudeau claimed several times that this is a great time to borrow-and-spend because our "debt-to-GDP" is low.
Eh, what?
Our debt to GDP is _not_ low compared to pre-recession levels.
Secondly, if it is indeed low, how is that not a credit to Harper, who has been PM for nearly 10 yrs now?
Can't have it both ways....

Also, when making decision to take on significant more debt, it is not just the debt-to-GDP ratio that counts.
They have to look at debt servicing as a % of revenue too.
The picture is not as pretty as JT would have us believe....


----------



## gibor365

Greece election's results
Syriza won just over 35%, slightly down on its previous result and still short of an overall majority.

But it will renew its coalition with the nationalist Independent Greeks. Opposition New Democracy gained 28%.

Far-right Golden Dawn came in third with 7%, slightly up on January's poll


----------



## Moneytoo

Hilarious lol: Jabs, jokes and zingers: The best off-the-cuff moments from The Globe debate


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> The thing with deficits is that they can get out of hand real fast.
> It always starts with a "small" 2% deficit.
> Then, stuff happens...a mild recession, some BOP issues, currency devaluation, etc.
> And before you know it, the small 2% deficits becomes larger and larger.
> After a while it assumes a life of its own and very hard to bring it down.
> 
> On the spending side, every small cut is fought tooth and nail by the entitlement groups.
> On the revenue side, new taxes are unpopular and cause unintended consequences and/or kill growth over time.
> 
> BTW, during the Globe debate, Trudeau claimed several times that this is a great time to borrow-and-spend because our "debt-to-GDP" is low.
> Eh, what?
> Our debt to GDP is _not_ low compared to pre-recession levels.
> Secondly, if it is indeed low, how is that not a credit to Harper, who has been PM for nearly 10 yrs now?
> Can't have it both ways....
> 
> Also, when making decision to take on significant more debt, it is not just the debt-to-GDP ratio that counts.
> They have to look at debt servicing as a % of revenue too.
> The picture is not as pretty as JT would have us believe....



From the ministry of finance. Most of the work on debt:gdp reduction happened under Chretien and Martin. Harper has more or less maintained it (by growing the debt by ~35% while GDP grew by slightly more).











I would like there to be a separate capital budget that could be amortized as government expenses over a longer period. Asset sales would be applied against this budget, since disposing of assets shouldn't be used as cover for current deficits.

I hear you about debt:GDP getting out of control suddenly, but usually that is due to crisis like bailing out private banks in countries with oversized financial sectors (Ireland). The number to pay attention to really is debt to GDP, rather than current year deficit. On that count, countries like Japan may not think they have much of a problem vs countries like Australia or Canada that have capacity to support debt. And in these comparisons, it is important to keep in mind the provincial debt burdens as well.

A grown-up fiscal policy should target medium-term (over the business cycle) debt:GDP at a low, stable number (perhaps 30% or 25%), and adjust fiscal policy to achieve that goal over the medium term. If the federal goverment always run surpluses, eventually it would pay off its debt, and then subsequently amass all wealth (communism). So at some point it is desirable to maintain a given debt:GDP rather than always reducing debt (increasing savings) in absolute terms.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> From the ministry of finance. Most of the work on debt:gdp reduction happened under Chretien and Martin. Harper has more or less maintained it (by growing the debt by ~35% while GDP grew by slightly more).


Hmm...your data is slightly difference than what I was looking at.
This is what I see. *Source*.










Perhaps they are including provincial debt as well.
Either way, I wouldn't categorize the debt burden to be "low".
Sure, low when compared to Japan etc. but we don't want to use Japan as the standard.



> I would like there to be a separate capital budget that could be amortized as government expenses over a longer period. Asset sales would be applied against this budget, since disposing of assets shouldn't be used as cover for current deficits.


Agreed.
But in the same spirit of transparency, all levels of govt. need to start declaring their unfunded liabilities, too - pensions, health care, etc.
Very few public advocacy groups are paying any attention to these issues.
To make matters worse, different accounting rules exist for public sector vs. private sector.

Australia has recently undergone a significant reform of its public pension system.
Govt workers are no longer a part of carte blanche defined benefit pension plans.
Their unfunded liabilities are a lot less than Canada's, I suspect, although their debt to GDP ratio is higher than Canada's.



> If the federal goverment always run surpluses, eventually it would pay off its debt, and then subsequently amass all wealth (communism). So at some point it is desirable to maintain a given debt:GDP rather than always reducing debt (increasing savings) in absolute terms.


I am not in favor of permanent surpluses, either.
Budget surplus simply means govt. is taking more out of the economy than it is putting back in.

It is the nature of society & politics that fiscal measures and tax breaks instituted during recessions are very difficult to claw back.
Things like fitness tax credit, home renovation tax credit, etc. were instituted during the 2008/9 recession.
But they are still continuing.
The federal home buyers incentive was instituted during the recession and housing crash of early 1990s.
20+ years later, not only is it still going strong, it is now being expanded.

Really hard to withdraw such incentives, yet that is exactly what is required during "normalized" times.


----------



## humble_pie

tiny factoid, sorry to intrude in this lofty conversation on gummint debt ...

i did speak today to an impeccable source who was travelling in sub-arctic northern quebec a few weeks ago. He said the lumber companies are all still canadian-owned. Enduring names like domtar, kruger, tembec, resolute. He's aware that many mining companies across northern canada have already been sold to chinese enterprises, though.


----------



## sags

Another scandal incoming.......Harper's government ministers were meeting in public venues with KPMG, a year after they were told the CRA was investigating the accounting firm for fraud.

The matter has been tied up in courts, as the KPMG lawyers are claiming they are in private "discussions" with the Harper government to settle the matter "out of court".

Heck no...........I don't think so. 

Let the matter go to court. Release the names of the fraudsters. Why is Harper protecting alleged criminals ?

The story has been revealed to the public "exclusively" by the CBC. This is why a properly funded CBC is important to Canadians.

It sounds like this will be yet another case of the PMO claiming Harper didn't know what his Revenue Minister Findley knew.

Apparently, Harper is "out of the loop".................

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cab...ile-firm-s-tax-sham-under-cra-probe-1.3234876


----------



## gibor365

> This is why a properly funded CBC is important to Canadians.


 Not "properly funded", but independent. Last couple of years CBC is clearly pro-liberal, CBC a Liberal propaganda outlet.... maybe because they are afraid that Conservatives will cut budget....


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> Not "properly funded", but independent. Last couple of years CBC is clearly pro-liberal, CBC a Liberal propaganda outlet.... maybe because they are afraid that Conservatives will cut budget....


I think people confuse being critical of the government with being critical of the Conservatives.

Either that or reality has a liberal bias.


----------



## bariutt

I think that many Canadians are looking for change however I personally do not see an alternative in either the NDP or the Liberals. I do not trust an NDP government to handle the finances of Canada (as I remember the Bob Rae disaster here in Ontario).

As for Justin Trudeau - I would not trust him to handle the proceeds from a girl guides lemon aid stand. If you took away the famous name Justin would not even make the grade to get elected as an MP on his own merits. I have closely followed the campaign and watched both debates. Justin's handlers have propped him up with a bunch of "slogans" and this is all he can recite. Take away the slogans and all you see is a blank stare on this guys face.

It scares me to even think that Justin Trudeau might get elected as the Prime Minister of Canada.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The story has been revealed to the public "exclusively" by the CBC. This is why a properly funded CBC is important to Canadians.


CBC specializes in unmasking scandals, but only if they are related to Harper's party and any other right-leaning political parties or groups.
They are happy to look the other way when it comes to Liberal or left-leaning party/group scandals.
And esp when it comes to wrong-doing by their own employees, they are more than happy to sweep matters under the rug.

Compare CBC's reporting on Duffy scandal vs. their reporting on Ben Levin, gas plant cancellation, Ornge scandal, Sudbury election rigging, and a whole host of Liberal scandals.
Where are they on the NDP's spending scandal?
Why is Amanda Lang still employed by the CBC even though there is clear evidence she attempted to suppress valid news stories criticizing certain corporations that she had a vested interest in?
Why was Evan Solomon fired, but Mansenbridge & Lang were not, even though it's clear Solmon's conflict of interest was less severe than Lang & Mansenbridge?

Duffy trial & Ben Levin trial were more or less running in parallel.
There were at least a dozen CBC journalists present at the Duffy trial, live tweeting.
Not one present at the Levin trial.

These journalists clearly have a political bias.
There is clear conflict of interest since their union is an active donor for the Liberal party.
In all recent elections, the *union has aggressively campaigned against conservative parties* (with a small "c").

In the upcoming election, *the Canadian Media Guild *has signed up a donor & third-party contributor for the Liberal party.
It represents 6,000 journalists including all CBC ones.



> Apparently, Harper is "out of the loop"


Is he more out of the loop than Dalton McGuinty was re. the gas plant cancellation and the email deletion?
More out of the loop than Wynne was re. the Sudbury election rigging?
What about the Ornge scam?
Was ex premier in or out of the loop?


----------



## Eder

I agree the CBC has been a thinly disguised liberal propaganda machine...it has failed it's mandate long ago and other than "The Beachcombers" has been a waste of my money.


----------



## fatcat

bgc_fan said:


> I think people confuse being critical of the government with being critical of the Conservatives.
> 
> Either that or reality has a liberal bias.


cbc's reality has a liberal bias, we need to stop paying for it ...


----------



## Karen

bariutt said:


> ...As for Justin Trudeau - I would not trust him to handle the proceeds from a girl guides lemon aid stand. If you took away the famous name Justin would not even make the grade to get elected as an MP on his own merits. I have closely followed the campaign and watched both debates. Justin's handlers have propped him up with a bunch of "slogans" and this is all he can recite. Take away the slogans and all you see is a blank stare on this guys face.
> 
> It scares me to even think that Justin Trudeau might get elected as the Prime Minister of Canada.


My thoughts exactly, Bariutt. And Mulcair is just as scary!


----------



## gibor365

Karen said:


> My thoughts exactly, Bariutt. And Mulcair is just as scary!


If Tarek Fatah is "scared" of current NDP that "islamists flooded this party", obviously we are scared too ....


----------



## sags

And yet, it would seem Trudeau's inexperience, and Mulcair's ideology............are more acceptable to voters than Harper's experience and ideology.


----------



## nathan79

sags said:


> And yet, it would seem Trudeau's inexperience, and Mulcair's ideology............are more acceptable to voters than Harper's experience and ideology.


+1


----------



## nathan79

fatcat said:


> cbc's reality has a liberal bias, we need to stop paying for it ...


The reality is that Canadians lean to the left, the CBC merely reflects that.

I know it's hard to imagine on a forum filled with righties such as this one.


----------



## GoldStone

nathan79 said:


> The reality is that Canadians lean to the left, the CBC merely reflects that.


CBC mandate is to provide an objective, non-partisan coverage. It's not supposed to be a propaganda tool for any particular ideology.


----------



## nathan79

GoldStone said:


> CBC mandate is to provide an objective, non-partisan coverage. It's not supposed to be a propaganda tool for any particular ideology.


It's not, they just tend to cover more liberal viewpoints than conservative ones, because more Canadians are liberal. It's not realistic or possible to give equal airtime to every viewpoint.


----------



## GoldStone

nathan79 said:


> It's not, they just tend to cover more liberal viewpoints than conservative ones, because more Canadians are liberal. It's not realistic or possible to give equal airtime to every viewpoint.


Not true. They are blatantly biased. See Harold's post #355 for some examples. And that's just scratching the surface.


----------



## gibor365

nathan79 said:


> It's not, they just tend to cover more liberal viewpoints than conservative ones, because more Canadians are liberal. It's not realistic or possible to give equal airtime to every viewpoint.


Thus the trend is going CCCP coverage :biggrin: when 99%+ procent voted Communist party, why other viewpoints are needed?!


----------



## RBull

HC, I apologize for taking some liberty with your statement above, but I think still quite appropriate.



> *
> Sags*, specializes in unmasking scandals, but only if they are related to *Harper*, Harper's party and any other right-leaning political parties or groups.





> And yet, it would seem Trudeau's inexperience, and Mulcair's ideology............are more acceptable to voters than Harper's experience and ideology.


Possibly to "some" voters, although your statement is far less than proven at this point. If change happens it's almost certainly a simple matter of what normally happens with a long serving government - voters see the grass as greener on the other side. The real test will be if there is a government change how long before voters tire of Mulcair or Trudeau.


----------



## gibor365

> how long before voters tire of Mulcair or Trudeau.


I'm already tired from both of them


----------



## fatcat

nathan79 said:


> The reality is that Canadians lean to the left, the CBC merely reflects that.


ok, fine, i take comfort in the fact that it isn't a particularly competent left (even with the cbc's help) since we keep electing conservative governments ... perhaps we should increase cbc's funding ...


----------



## gibor365

I'm not really impressed by Conservatives' election campaign. Everyone (include Justin) , for a long time, understands that "He is not ready yet!"  . In their ads, PC need to talk more positive things they did for working Canadians.... I talked to several co-workers and was surprised that they don't have any idea about income split, even though they benefit from it .... they say "accountant doing out taxes, we noticed that we got a little bit more refund, but not sure why " ...


----------



## sags

My son's girlfriend moved in with him.

He earned $43,000 and she earned $10,000.

They used the income split provision and she lost child care benefits of $300 a month.

She moved back home and will have her benefit reinstated after 3 months.

No more income splitting for them.

They blame Harper.........even though income splitting had nothing to do with it. They won't vote for him because of it.............so I won't bother explaining it to them.

Combined income is based on the assumption everyone gives half their income to the other spouse, or pay all their bills jointly.

A lot of couples don't have their finances set up that way, and it creates conflicts about money.

It would be better if people filed separately and paid their own taxes based on what they earned.


----------



## gibor365

> Combined income is based on the assumption everyone gives half their income to the other spouse, or pay all their bills jointly.


 Isn't what family is about!



> A lot of couples don't have their finances set up that way, and it creates conflicts about money.


 A lot?! I don't know even 1 family like this... than why to get married at all?!
Family has an option not to split income, if somebody wants it...


----------



## gibor365

> My son's girlfriend moved in with him.
> 
> He earned $43,000 and she earned $10,000.
> 
> They used the income split provision


If she is only GF, they shouldn't be eligible for income split


----------



## andrewf

Not an NDP fan, but was amused by this NDP 'parody' of the CPC's Trudeau interview ads. Particularly liked the snark at the end about the 'nice hair'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=IpSLtS0Jlis


----------



## GoldStone

I don't have cable. I'm missing all the mud slinging.

NOT!


----------



## andrewf

I don't have cable either, I got that on youtube.


----------



## GoldStone

My point was, it's nice to go through an election campaign without a TV at home.


----------



## sags

It seems everyone is concerned about Justin Trudeau's fine head of hair..............but nary a word on Mr. Harper's carefully crafted coiffure ?

It is time to draw back the curtain and reveal the secret.......

When you look upon Mr. Harper's hair.......you feast your eyes on probably the most exciting invention since atomic energy.

It is a simulated silk hair reproduction so fabulously conceived as to mystify even the ancient Chinese manufacturers.

With an almost unbelievable attention to detail, it is a magical work of weaving.

A product with the tensile strength of steel, yet as fragile and delicate as Shantung silk. 

Imagine if you will, the backbreaking research and labour to develop this, the absolute ultimate in strength, with the softness of a kitten's fur.

And what would you expect to pay for this fabulous, incredible, amazing development of the weaver's art ?

Would you pay well ? Very well you might, if you were attempting to purchase at one of the world's finest men stores.

But this fantastic product is not available in stores !

It is smuggled in by Oriental birds especially trained for ocean travel, each carrying a bit quantity in a small satchel located underneath their ruby throats. 

It takes 832 ocean crossings to supply enough thread to go around one spool, and tonight for a special CMF get acquainted introductory mid September, hot autumn sale.........

I offer you this fabulous product at not $20,000 dollars a spool, not at $10,000, not at $5,000, but at the ridiculously low price of $2,500 a spool.

The phone lines are open and operators are standing by at............1-800-HAIR or visit our website www.getmesomeofthatcoolhair.com

(With all due respect to the Twilight Zone.........episode 3.)


----------



## sags

And in other developments, both Trudeau and Mulcair say they will absolutely not support a Harper led minority.

Which if the polls hold up until election day..........probably means an NDP/Liberal coalition government or another election soon after.


----------



## humble_pie

sags u are getting awesomer & awesomer in retirement.

for some reason i'm good at spotting hair pieces so i've seen for years that harper has a quality rug.

what's remarkable about the prime ministerial coiffure is that the colour is so correctly done. Yes, he's gone gray while wearing a piece. Every few new gray hairs meant a new piece that had to be coloured to match. But he's kept up. The colour job has been exquisite.

lucien bouchard in quebec, though, that was a horror story.


----------



## sags

I love when Steve wears a ball cap............it just kind of sits on the top.


----------



## andrewf

GoldStone said:


> My point was, it's nice to go through an election campaign without a TV at home.


I will agree with that. I only know about the Trudeau interview ads because of media commentary on them.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> And in other developments, both Trudeau and Mulcair say they will absolutely not support a Harper led minority.
> 
> Which if the polls hold up until election day..........probably means an NDP/Liberal coalition government or another election soon after.


Could also mean a non-Harper CPC minority, though I will admit that is unlikely. Harper is too toxic for either of the other two parties to prop up.


----------



## andrewf

humble_pie said:


> sags u are getting awesomer & awesomer in retirement.
> 
> for some reason i'm good at spotting hair pieces so i've seen for years that harper has a quality rug.
> 
> what's remarkable about the prime ministerial coiffure is that the colour is so correctly done. Yes, he's gone gray while wearing a piece. Every few new gray hairs meant a new piece that had to be coloured to match. But he's kept up. The colour job has been exquisite.
> 
> lucien bouchard in quebec, though, that was a horror story.


It is definitely Harper's real hair. And he even has a staff hairstylist to keep in check, brought along with him on the public dime.



> In fact, the taxpayer has picked up bills in the past for another Harper stylist, and around the same time period. Michelle Muntean travelled around the world with Harper, applying makeup, styling hair, selecting clothing and trimming nails.
> In 2007, Harper’s office told The Canadian Press Muntean’s expenses were covered by the Conservative party.
> But the Public Accounts of Canada, the government’s annual spending report, tell a different story: the Department of Foreign Affairs paid her travel expenses, including flights, meals and accommodation. The records for 2009-2010, for example, show she travelled with Harper on 13 different trips.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...hts-stephen-harpers-use-of-makeup-artist.html


----------



## humble_pie

andrewf said:


> It is definitely Harper's real hair. And he even has a staff hairstylist to keep in check, brought along with him on the public dime.




no, it's definitely a hairpiece! you can see the proof in your linked photograph.

look at that netherlands picture via the link. See how the hairpiece is that darker wedge in front, at the top of his forehead, while the rest of his hair has turned whiter since the piece was fabricated?

that's exactly what i was talking about. It's rare to see this phenomenon - darker aging wiglet not matching the colour of prime ministerial hair that is rapidly graying into ever-paler & paler silver - because, as sags pointed out, it's an expensive hairpiece.

plus the PM has taken pains to look after his tonsorial add-on beautifully, including changing the colour frequently to match his changing hair colour. But this one time, on the netherlands trip, there was the tiniest of slips. I guess his stylist didn't catch it. Maybe she never expected he'd be photographed while gazing downward at the ground.


----------



## gibor365

Finally! After I was promoting Conservative agenda for last several months 


> For the first time since the election call, a poll has the Conservatives on the verge of a majority win.
> 
> With just 24 days until the election, the federal Conservatives have 35.4 per cent support across the country, according to an Ekos poll conducted for La Presse newspaper.
> 
> Those numbers are as good as they were during the final weekend of the 2011 majority win. As of Thursday morning, the Liberals are nine points back with 26.3 per cent support, and just barely ahead of the third-place NDP. Only two points separate Justin Trudeau’s Liberals from Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party.





> Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are enjoying huge support in Ontario, with 37 per cent support. That’s a full seven points ahead of the Liberals and 18 points ahead of the NDP.
> The federal Conservative lead in Ontario could be tied to support for the provincial Progressive Conservatives, another poll found.


 Sure! People finally started to understand that wynn and liberals are destroying our province

http://www.680news.com/2015/09/24/conservatives-on-verge-of-majority-win-poll/


----------



## fatcat

i think the economy, the state of the stock market and the refugee crisis are all helping the conservatives


----------



## mrPPincer

or maybe it's the newest hairpiece?


----------



## RBull

Another poll for what its worth. Believe what you will, but at least this is a lot more interesting and relevant than Harper's hair. 

Here are the final party standings of the GreaterFool poll of over 7,000 readers: Cons 45.5%, Libs 25.0%, NDP 19.3%, Greens 10.2%.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/09/24/a-tory-harvest/


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> Finally! After I was promoting Conservative agenda for last several months
> 
> 
> Sure! People finally started to understand that wynn and liberals are destroying our province
> 
> http://www.680news.com/2015/09/24/conservatives-on-verge-of-majority-win-poll/


I think this is what you call confirmation bias. This poll is unusual in that it is quite divergent from the others published by other organizations (it shows a doubling of Green support, for instance). In other words, don't pop the cork yet.


----------



## Eder

At least Harper knows Auschwitz is not a schnitzel gruben.


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> I think this is what you call confirmation bias. This poll is unusual in that it is quite divergent from the others published by other organizations (it shows a doubling of Green support, for instance). In other words, don't pop the cork yet.


agree, a little over 3 weeks is eons in political time ... i am not completely happy with harper by any means, i just do not want the ndp to form government ... i can live with trudeau if i have to ... i will be voting green in my riding to try and knock out the ndp guy since blue will likely come in last where i live

i guess we are all required to weigh in on the hair, i say its real ... no way he could wear a rug all these years and not have it the airwaves


----------



## GoldStone

You can see all polls in one place, updated daily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> I think this is what you call confirmation bias. This poll is unusual in that it is quite divergent from the others published by other organizations (it shows a doubling of Green support, for instance). In other words, don't pop the cork yet.


Obviously that nothing is for sure  , but similar results gave 3 different research firms..



> i just do not want the ndp to form government ... i can live with trudeau if i have to ... i will be voting green in my riding to try and knock out the ndp guy since blue will likely come in last where i live


I cannot live with any of them  , don't really like harper (esp. after his anti-russian actions), but he's the only choice for me...
In you position, I'd boycott election and encourage other to do so...
In our riding more or less 3 way tie.... hopefully Butt will kick *** of Sikh (Lib) and extremist muslim Arab (NDP)


----------



## cashinstinct

Trudeau does in 1st French debate the same thing he apparently did in English: throwing lines he knows by heart, no matter if they have any relation or not with the questions asked.

In the first hour of the French debate, Trudeau talked about millionnaires more than 5 times, saying that government would send no cheques to these people. Good to know...

When asked specific questions, Trudeau says generalities that seem rehearsed, more than others.


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> Obviously that nothing is for sure  , but similar results gave 3 different research firms..


Really? Which? Next highest polling was 33%. Popping the cork on the champagne based on the poll with the most extreme result is pure confirmation bias. And a recipe for disappointment.


----------



## kcowan

Just remember that the polls sample people who are
- at home
- answer the phone
- like to do work for no pay (answers survey)
- probably watch TV on cable
Not typical of our country anymore. People today increasingly:
- use smartphones
- use the phone infrequently
- watch Netflix/Youtube
- do not communicate with strangers except online

(Sent from Positano on my laptop)


----------



## HaroldCrump

From last night's debate.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May :

"It is useless to bomb the Islamic State
The war is not created by the Islamic State, 
the humanitarian crisis is not caused by the Islamic State"

Ignorant nutbar would be putting it mildly.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Socialism for us
Capitalism for the rest

*Alberta NDP hikes takes & gives itself a 7.5% raise in the midst of a recession*.

Expect more of the same if they form federal govt.


----------



## bgc_fan

HaroldCrump said:


> Socialism for us
> Capitalism for the rest
> 
> *Alberta NDP hikes takes & gives itself a 7.5% raise in the midst of a recession*.
> 
> Expect more of the same if they form federal govt.


Interesting click-bait and misleading on your case. 
They did not vote themselves a pay increase. The pay increase is for senior legislative officers.
Here's a link on what they are: http://www.revparl.ca/30/1/30n1_07e_D.Hamilton.pdf

Basically, they are ombudsmen, and auditors, etc, that are meant to provide third party review on the activities of the government. You know, the ones that are supposed to keep the government in check on our behalf.

Timing for the raise is bad, but the article doesn't give any context on why the rational for the raise.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> From last night's debate.
> 
> Green Party leader Elizabeth May :
> 
> "It is useless to bomb the Islamic State
> The war is not created by the Islamic State,
> the humanitarian crisis is not caused by the Islamic State"
> 
> Ignorant nutbar would be putting it mildly.


and to think i'm actually going to vote for elizabeth khadrs party


----------



## HaroldCrump

bgc_fan said:


> Interesting click-bait and misleading on your case.
> They did not vote themselves a pay increase. The pay increase is for senior legislative officers.


So...public sector workers - the core vote bank for the NDP.
They are indistinguishable.



> Basically, they are ombudsmen, and auditors, etc, that are meant to provide third party review on the activities of the government. You know, the ones that are supposed to keep the government in check on our behalf


Hilarious.
Why do they need a 7.5% raise?
And why now?



> Timing for the raise is bad, but the article doesn't give any context on why the rational for the raise.


After years of coddling the public sector workers, the Alberta conservatives soured.
They started talking about freezing public sector salaries, pensions etc.
So the govt. workers kicked them out and installed a more amenable govt.

One by one, all the public sector unions in AB will be rewarded with above average salary hikes over the next year or two as and when their contracts renew.
I believe AUPE already secured 2.50% annual increase for its members for 2015 - 2017.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

It was long to watch and the translation was inconsistent - a challenge to translate I'm sure with all the cross-chatter. JT's translator was quite excitable with lots of added emphasis, May and Harper's were poor. 
If the main audience was Quebec, I think Mulcair's niqab position may hurt him. Duceppe has always struck me as a succinct speaker, too bad he represents the antithesis of Canada. 
I don't think the rest of Canada heard/saw anything new, even with May and Duceppe on the stage.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> So...public sector workers - the core vote bank for the NDP.
> They are indistinguishable.
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> Why do they need a 7.5% raise?
> And why now?
> 
> 
> After years of coddling the public sector workers, the Alberta conservatives soured.
> They started talking about freezing public sector salaries, pensions etc.
> So the govt. workers kicked them out and installed a more amenable govt.
> 
> One by one, all the public sector unions in AB will be rewarded with above average salary hikes over the next year or two as and when their contracts renew.
> I believe AUPE already secured 2.50% annual increase for its members for 2015 - 2017.


this is what the NDP DOES


----------



## bgc_fan

HaroldCrump said:


> So...public sector workers - the core vote bank for the NDP.
> They are indistinguishable.
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> Why do they need a 7.5% raise?
> And why now?
> 
> 
> After years of coddling the public sector workers, the Alberta conservatives soured.
> They started talking about freezing public sector salaries, pensions etc.
> So the govt. workers kicked them out and installed a more amenable govt.
> 
> One by one, all the public sector unions in AB will be rewarded with above average salary hikes over the next year or two as and when their contracts renew.
> I believe AUPE already secured 2.50% annual increase for its members for 2015 - 2017.


I don't believe that they are part your normal public sector workers, i.e. I doubt they are unionized or are part of any collective bargaining agreements.

As for why now? I'm not going to speculate since the article doesn't go into it, but it would be nice to know. Of course all of you who hate the NDP just latch onto the fact that it is because they were elected.

You'll be complaining again pretty soon because the federal public service agreements have expired over the past few years. Basically, there will have to be a settlement sometime and I'm sure there will be some raises. If anyone but the Conservatives win and they settle, you'll complain that it's because the NDP/Liberal caved and they got raises. But if the Conservatives win and they settle, you'll complain that the unions forced the Conservatives to negotiate raises.


----------



## HaroldCrump

bgc_fan said:


> You'll be complaining again pretty soon because the federal public service agreements have expired over the past few years. Basically, there will have to be a settlement sometime and I'm sure there will be some raises. If anyone but the Conservatives win and they settle, you'll complain that it's because the NDP/Liberal caved and they got raises. But if the Conservatives win and they settle, you'll complain that the unions forced the Conservatives to negotiate raises.


The CPC has tabled several other measures to reduce overall compensation costs in the federal public sector.
Such as changes to sick leave, performance evaluations, pension changes, absenteeism, etc.

It is expected that if some of those reforms are implemented, the unions may be rewarded with slightly better than average wage increased.
I think some of those measures are good, but some are marginal/cosmetic, such as the performance evaluations.


----------



## sags

It looks like it is just a committee recommendation.

I would hope that Rachel Notley would squash it. If not.............shame on her and the NDP.

Albertans are struggling and the government has to show an example of restraint.

As to the PCs tabling some changes. They had 4 years of majority government to make changes and failed to do so.

I don't agree with taking away from people, as it doesn't raise the bar for other people.............but there definitely could be a freeze implemented until the private sector catches up.

But I must say, it reminds me of Pierre Trudeau's "wage and price controls" legislation, which Canadians found froze their wages but prices kept going up.


----------



## humble_pie

lol the national treasure who was judged the surprise best speaker after the first round of debates has already become an ignorant nutbar . :biggrin:

it's only 25 september. Think how this place will reek by 19 october.


----------



## protomok

It's also interesting seeing the other party members (i.e. not the party leaders) discussing issues. The debates are fun but you can only stare at 3 old white guys for so long lol.

I saw this discussion on CBC Power and Politics about the second debate and the economy - http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2675824151/.

I really like this Michelle Rempel, she's quite feisty, not afraid to put the libs and NDP on the spot to explain their numbers. Maybe we can put Rempel in charge of the Conservatives when Harper retires


----------



## sags

Some polls have Harper ahead.........other polls show a three way tie.

All of the polls show that it is unlikely any party will win a majority government.

What happens then is anyone's guess.

We could even have Stephen Harper shut down Parliament again, as he did when challenged in 2008.

Boring as it is now............the day after could certainly be interesting.


----------



## sags

The first person, a member of the Toronto 18, will have their Canadian citizenship revoked under the new law.

It is purely political that it was announced now. 

I find it very disturbing that a public official has complete power to make such decisions, with no right to appeal.

If it is a penalty that Canadians feel the need to implement, I believe it should be a power of the court during sentencing.

The revocation will start a long Constitutional battle that eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.


----------



## gibor365

sags, I hope you don't feel sorry for him?!


> The federal government has revoked the citizenship of an Islamic extremist who masterminded a plot to bomb downtown Toronto in an effort to terrorize Canadians and cripple the economy.
> A member of the so-called Toronto 18, Zakaria Amara was sentenced in 2010 to life in prison with no chance of parole until 2016 after admitting his role in the plan aimed in part at forcing Canadian soldiers to leave Afghanistan.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> The first person, a member of the Toronto 18, will have their Canadian citizenship revoked under the new law.
> 
> It is purely political that it was announced now.
> 
> I find it very disturbing that a public official has complete power to make such decisions, with no right to appeal.
> 
> If it is a penalty that Canadians feel the need to implement, I believe it should be a power of the court during sentencing.
> 
> The revocation will start a long Constitutional battle that eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.


i think this is such a good idea ... so great to see this terrorist thug get his kicked out the country to some squalid hole in the ground when he gets out

i have issues with removing citizenship form anyone born here, regardless if they acquired another citizenship ... you should only be able to surrender your birthright citizenship voluntarily, no matter what you did wrong

secondary citizenship doesn't matter as much to me


----------



## GoldStone

I agree with fatcat.

Immigrants who acquire Canadian citizenship have to take Oath of Citizenship:

"I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second,
Queen of Canada,
Her Heirs and Successors,
*And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada*
And fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Any criminally convicted naturalized citizen is effectively in violation of the Oath. 

Criminally convicted terrorist? I see no need for another court hearing. Kick them out.


----------



## humble_pie

are we having a kangaroo court?

if so i will say Yes w fatcat & goldstone

no need to encumber canada with the costs of a supreme court hearing or any kind of additional court hearing if they've already been convicted of a crime


----------



## gibor365

I'm just not clear.... now this terrorist in Canadian prison? If he gets out of the prison, he will be deported? and if he doesn't get parole, he will die in Canadian prison?


----------



## gibor365

imho it's not a good idea to refer to Oath of Citizenship 


> I swear (or affirm)
> That I will be faithful
> And bear true allegiance
> To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second,
> Queen of Canada,
> Her Heirs and Successors


because if you're not faithful and not bear true allegiance to British Queen and her family, you also violate the Oath


----------



## sags

gibor said:


> sags, I hope you don't feel sorry for him?!


No, I feel sorry for Canadians, who are incrementally losing more of the rights that people in previous wars gave their lives to protect.

Why bother defending rights we are so eager to give away ?

Why deport a terrorist, who would then have the freedom to train others and plot against us ?

What if a convicted terrorist demands to be deported back to a country that will release him ?


----------



## gibor365

> Why deport a terrorist, who would then have the freedom to train others and plot against us ?


 doubt it would be better if he can " to train others and plot against us " here , in Canada


----------



## andrewf

So immigrants should be treated as second class citizens? I think a citizen is a citizen.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> Why deport a terrorist, who would then have the freedom to train others and plot against us ?
> 
> What if a convicted terrorist demands to be deported back to a country that will release him ?



sags are u arguing that deportation laws & regulations should be stricken from the books?


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> So immigrants should be treated as second class citizens? I think a citizen is a citizen.


not anymore when we live in age where great damage can be inflicted by individuals where before it required coalitions and states

yes, absolutely, birthright citizenship holds (and should hold) more protection than acquired citizenship

sags, what right are you talking about ? ... i now see us all receiving greater and more expanded rights than ever based on our "identity"

trying wearing a burga to swearing ceremonies in the 1950's in canada


----------



## sags

I am saying it is more complicated than simply stripping away citizenship and booting them out.

Canadians may feel safer at home, but Canadians travel all over the world. Would they be a particular target for such a terrorist led group ?

I am also saying that IF Canadians decide it is a policy they want, deportation should be included in sentencing options for a Judge..........not decided by an "official" with no public persona.


----------



## humble_pie

sags said:


> Canadians may feel safer at home, but Canadians travel all over the world. Would they be a particular target for such a terrorist led group ?
> 
> I am also saying that IF Canadians decide it is a policy they want, deportation should be included in sentencing options for a Judge..........not decided by an "official" with no public persona.



i think canadians are already, to a certain extent, targets. There is hardly a nation whose citizens are safe when they travel in either dangerous or even not-so-dangerous countries nowadays.

as for the 2nd, i see your point about a decision by Immigration, but are they not a tribunal with public attendees? idk, this decision is perhaps made in an office by one bureaucrat?

on the other hand, if deportation is to be also ruled upon by the original sentencing judge, then almost automatically we have a 2-tier system of justice. One for native born canadians. The other for new canadians, whose serious federal crimes could lead directly to deportation.


----------



## sags

The Minister of Immigration, can make the decision or appoint someone to do it.

This is no more than pure political theatre, which explains the timing of the announcement.

Constitutional lawyers agree that the law will not pass Constitutional testing, which is probably why the Harper' government went around the courts.

The US found such laws unconstitutional more than 50 years ago.........

[IThe words of ]United States Chief Justice Earl Warren remain as true today as they were in 1958: “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior . . . And the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.”[/I]


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> The US found such laws unconstitutional more than 50 years ago.........
> [IThe words of ]United States Chief Justice Earl Warren remain as true today as they were in 1958: “Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior . . . And the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.”[/I]


You should familiarize yourself with Perez v. Brownell and several later decisions before assuming that this apparently weighty quote should be used to defend a Jordanian terrorist (Amara) who gained dual citizenship as a Canadian of convenience, then plotted because of his hate for the West to kill as many innocent Canadians as possible before fleeing to Pakistan/Afghanistan. It would be a travesty of justice to believe such a person had some inherent right to remain a dual Canadian citizen.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> So immigrants should be treated as second class citizens? I think a citizen is a citizen.


As far as I remember, the bill talks about possibility of revoking citizenship if person has (or able to obtain) citizenship of another country...


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> As far as I remember, the bill talks about possibility of revoking citizenship if person has (or able to obtain) citizenship of another country...


Keep in mind that because of that wording, second generation citizens can be affected. 

For a sake of argument, we are revoking the citizenship of people who were planning to do something and hadn't done it. On the other hand we have a person who has killed three people in a day, but this isn't an issue for him. Maybe the bar is misplaced?


----------



## humble_pie

never mind this stuff about maybe going to activate an old right to british citizenship through a grandparent

surely the canada statutes call for deportation in cases of treason & sedition?


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> No, I feel sorry for Canadians, who are incrementally losing more of the rights that people in previous wars gave their lives to protect.


That terrorist was no Canadian...my dad who fought in Europe for our rights and freedom would agree that is not why he fought there. 
Harper is the only one that realizes that refugees need screening to weed out as many of these a**holes as possible before they get here.


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> never mind this stuff about maybe going to activate an old right to british citizenship through a grandparent
> 
> surely the canada statutes call for deportation in cases of treason & sedition?


I think the penalty is life in prison. At any case, deportation may make sense when you are doing something on behalf of a state actor. When you deal with terrorism, unless you can point towards a country sponsoring the action, you don't really have someplace to logically send them, unless you just want to randomly send them somewhere.


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> Keep in mind that because of that wording, second generation citizens can be affected.


Not only 2nd generation.... everyone who has at least one Jewish granny can obtain Israeli citizenship and their Canadian citizenship can be revoked even if they never lived in Israel. , I think similar rule for Germans or Italians....
The government just cannot make such bill applicable to every citizen, as there is no place to depart them  

imho, it's obvious that this bill target muslim-radical terrorists... 



> Harper is the only one that realizes that refugees need screening to weed out as many of these a**holes as possible before they get here


 I think not only Harper realizes it, but others don't give a sh** as they just want to gain political capital


----------



## Karen

I believe that acquiring Canadian citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It is conditional on fulfilling your obligations as a Canadian citizen; otherwise , why bother with the oath that new citizens are required to take? At the very least, if new citizens want their citizenship to be unconditional, they should have to give up their citizenship in the country they came from before they are allowed to become Canadian citizens. What happens if Canada should end up at war with the new citizen's country of origin and those new Canadians owe their allegiance to two different countries?


----------



## sags

Thomas Mulcair is a dual citizen of Canada and France.

This is what PM Harper said about it...........

_“Obviously, it’s for Mr. Mulcair to use his political judgment in the case,” the Prime Minister observed in Saguenay, Que. “In my case, as I say, I am very clear. I am a Canadian and *only a Canadian*.”_

PM Harper recently used the term "old stock" Canadians.

If you are an immigrant, refugee, or first or second generations of immigrants or refugees............you may not fit his definition of "old stock" Canadian.

Obviously, Mr. Harper has problems accepting anything beyond his own narrowly defined version of who a Canadian is.

This citizenship and deportation law is nothing but the worst kind of fear mongering and divisive politics, and Canadians are tired of it.

Just add it to the growing list of things that are going to be rescinded or rolled back by the next government.

OAS qualifying date back to 65..........TFSA back to $5500........Corporate tax cuts raised back up........mandatory sentencing rescinded.........etc.


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> PM Harper recently used the term "old stock" Canadians.


And...?

"Old stock" is a classic sociological term. Outside of an election campaign, no one would have noticed it. It does not imply that "old stock" Canadians are superior to "New Canadians". People who made an issue out of it were playing divisive politics. Which is very ironic, because the very same people accuse Harper of being divisive.

sags: can you suggest a politically correct antonym to "New Canadians"?

BTW, I'm a new Canadian myself. "Old stock" doesn't offend me in any way.


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> Obviously, Mr. Harper has problems accepting anything beyond his own narrowly defined version of who a Canadian is.
> 
> This citizenship and deportation law is nothing but the worst kind of fear mongering and divisive politics, and Canadians are tired of it.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## GoldStone

In audio recording, Trudeau says Bill C-24 makes citizenship conditional upon 'good behaviour'

Trudeau said:

"There are penalties for anyone convicted of a terrorism or an act of war or offence against Canada -- they end up locked up in jail for the rest of their lives."

Reality check:

"But one member of the Toronto 18, convicted of being involved in the plot to bomb the city, has already been paroled. *The so-called mastermind behind the plot is eligible for release next year*, and the government announced Friday plans to revoke his citizenship and deport him to Jordan – the first such case in Canada since the new law was enacted."


----------



## sags

You are right............Canadians will speak for themselves in a few weeks.

In other news, the National Post............not considered a lefty newspaper by any means, posted this article.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...atlantic-canada-theyre-in-danger-of-losing-10

The Conservatives could lose 10 of the 13 current seats they hold in Atlantic Canada.

The big issues for them............changes to EI benefits and health care transfers haven't even been discussed much this election.


----------



## humble_pie

perhaps we should do everything.

deprive them of canadian citizenship if they have 2nd citizenship or if they have a bubbie, an oma or a zaydie; we should hold them in prison without trial while awaiting deportation; then upon release we should fire these stateless persons off to mars on that one-way rocket, like the british used to send all their convicts to australia.


----------



## sags

The British sent their convicts to Australia ?

Sort of like when the US was demanding Cuba let people out.............so they sent boatloads of their worst criminals to the US.


----------



## andrewf

I do resent the 'old stock' Canadian framing. Apparently I am less Canadian than Harper, as a second generation Canadian.

Pardon my language, but this sh!t pisses me off.


----------



## GoldStone

Muclair thinks that "old stock" is fine. He used it in a speach too. 

Quote:

“This is a political game being played on the backs of all Canadians who have different origins than old-stock Canadians and I am going to stand up against it.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...cision-to-revoke-citizenship/article26554739/

Muclair is "progressive" so it must be okay.


----------



## none

That's not how it works. The context of words is important.


----------



## GoldStone

The context is pretty much the same.

There is no real difference between how Harper and Muclair used "old stock". Both used it to describe Canadians who are not "New Canadians".

Again, it's an accepted sociological term.


----------



## andrewf

Why is it necessary to make the distinction? We are Canadian, no? It's adding another layer of division in addition to born Canadians vs immigrants.


----------



## none

Maybe you're right - I think I knew what both of them meant and I didn't really feel that it was, or was meant to be, offensive.

I personally interpreted to mean any canadian over 60 - regardless of race etc.

I still think Harper is an incompetent dolt though. at least THAT hasn't changed.


----------



## fatcat

he's just throwing a bone to the base, all us old stockers
making sure we get out and vote
there was nothing casual about that comment
the guy knows how to play the game of politics


----------



## andrewf

'Old stock' to me, is code for white, mostly British (and French) Canadians, vs 'the rest' that came later.


----------



## GoldStone

You make the distinction for emphasis, to underscore the fact that both new Canadians and "not new" Canadians enjoy the same rights and freedoms. There is nothing wrong with that.

I hate this part of election campaign where politicians twist words to portray each other as "divisive" or "intolerant". It's an ugly game, and you guys seem all too happy to join it.


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> Not only 2nd generation.... everyone who has at least one Jewish granny can obtain Israeli citizenship and their Canadian citizenship can be revoked even if they never lived in Israel. , I think similar rule for Germans or Italians....
> The government just cannot make such bill applicable to every citizen, as there is no place to depart them
> 
> imho, it's obvious that this bill target muslim-radical terrorists...
> 
> I think not only Harper realizes it, but others don't give a sh** as they just want to gain political capital


Basically, you're agreeing that this bill is pretty much done to divide up Canadians. Otherwise you wouldn't mind if your grandchildren decided to join in an anti-Palestanian group to bomb mosques and if they get caught, they get their citizenship revoked and sent to Israel.

Give me a break about the security screening. None of the others have mentioned dropping all screening and just taking in refugees. They all support screening, it's just that there was some bureaucratic stumbling block that the Conservatives put in regarding the definition of refugee status, which they have since removed to speed up the process. http://www.citynews.ca/2015/09/19/h...w-canadians-with-promise-of-maple-leaf-award/


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> Basically, you're agreeing that this bill is pretty much done to divide up Canadians.


This is an over-the-top rhetoric used by politicians to inflame political passions. The spin is more divisive than the bill itself.

The bill doesn't divide up all Canadians. It divides up Canadians who happen to be convicted terrorists.


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> This is an over-the-top rhetoric used by politicians to inflame political passions. The spin is more divisive than the bill itself.
> 
> The bill doesn't divide up all Canadians. It divides up Canadians who happen to be convicted terrorists.


Except for the fact that it is probably going to be applied unevenly. 

For example, what about that Halifax attack that was going to be conducted by "misfits"? Only one is Canadian, the other is American, but why wasn't it considered terrorism? Some would say that it fits the bill.

Ideologically it was about white supremecy, and oddly enough CSIS had determined that was going to be the likely source of lone wolf type attacks.

So how do we go about stripping Randall Steven Shepherd of his citizenship if he is convicted?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ge-isn-t-considered-terrorist-event-1.2958628


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> lol the national treasure who was judged the surprise best speaker after the first round of debates has already become an ignorant nutbar .


I was referring to Ms. May's position on ISIS.
Yes, I think she is completely ignorant of what's at stake here.
She may have a great environmental policy, but if those are her views on international affairs, she cannot be trusted as a PM.

Can you imagine her cooperating with Obama with those kinds of views, let alone Putin or (gasp) future President Trump?
Canada will be shut out of all international negotiations related to the Middle East (if not already).
We will be stuck with the consequences (i.e. refugees and foreign aid), but have no role in decision making.


----------



## gibor365

> Only one is Canadian, the other is American, but why wasn't it considered terrorism?


 Not familiar with this story.... probably it wasn't considered terrorism because court decided other way 
imho, there should be exact list of offences from criminal code ....

btw, I don't really support this Bill ...it should be , at least, amended.... but imho there are more important topics regarding election than this bill


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> Not familiar with this story.... probably it wasn't considered terrorism because court decided other way
> imho, there should be exact list of offences from criminal code ....
> 
> btw, I don't really support this Bill ...it should be , at least, amended.... but imho there are more important topics regarding election than this bill


It's still in the court and I don't think terrorism was one of the charges, but the fact is the Justice Minister made a point of saying that it wasn't terrorism, because there was nothing "cultural" that was a factor. Aside from the fact that culture has never been a criteria to define terrorism, it seems that terrorism is being defined however the government wants it to be defined. Which is fine if you fall in one of those "safe" demographics, but not so fine if you don't.


----------



## Karen

HaroldCrump said:


> I was referring to Ms. May's position on ISIS.
> Yes, I think she is completely ignorant of what's at stake here.
> She may have a great environmental policy, but if those are her views on international affairs, she cannot be trusted as a PM.


I couldn't agree more, Harold. She is a one-issue candidate and, as important as her one issue might be, it is far from the only issue that matters in this election. Frankly, I find her an embarrassment and can't understand why she has been so well-received in the debates she has taken part in ... I thought she just showed her ignorance.


----------



## humble_pie

has anybody got the foreign policy debate on? i haven't found it yet ...


----------



## mrPPincer

Looks like it's restricted to paying saps but here's what I've found so far
https://www.munkdebates.com/video
I'll keep searching for the free version


----------



## gibor365

> She is a one-issue candidate


 Don't understand why you are discussing Ms.May.... she's nobody  if by fluke her party will get 1 seat -> it's a huge success 
btw, finally, today, 1st time in my life, lawn sign of Brad Butt was installed on my front yard


----------



## mrPPincer

eff it I'm not paying money to watch those clowns I'm out g'night all


----------



## mrPPincer

Tried again here
https://www.google.com/search?q=munk+debates&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
site seems broken


----------



## mrPPincer

ok here we go..
http://munkdebates.com/livestream


----------



## nathan79

The debate is on CPAC for those who have cable or satellite.


----------



## sags

It was broadcast live on CHCH Hamilton as well.

From my perspective...........

Mulcair looked just okay, Harper stood his ground well, and Trudeau walked away with the debate victory.

As I support the NDP, I was a little disappointed. Mr. Mulcair is getting bogged down in the minutia and is struggling with the spending and balanced budget equation.

Trudeau has most definitely "upped" his game of late, and his poll numbers in battleground Ontario are showing it.

All of the parties WILL run deficit budgets in the coming year or so. There is simply no way to avoid it with low oil prices and a weak Canadian economy.

Trudeau is the only leader willing to say the Liberals will run deficits...........even if they are estimated lower than they probably will be.

On foreign affairs issues, nothing much was gained or lost. All the leaders maintained their positions.

The debate spent a lot of time on cap and trade, and trade negotiations with the US. 

Mr. Harper didn't fare well in those discussions, with the concerns raised on the auto sector and dairy jobs.

On BNN today a trade expert made the observation that auto and dairy jobs will be lost, but will be offset by jobs in the service sector.

When pressed on what service sector jobs they would be.............he replied in the insurance and banking industries.

I was left wondering how a bank opening up in another country creates jobs for Canadians at home.


----------



## andrewf

It might well be jobs in a lot of different sectors. Canada has competitive industries beyond the big ones that come to mind, and they could prosper if given easier access to foreign markets. Meanwhile, Canadians will benefit from cheaper imports.


----------



## fraser

I want a change. Not because I support another party or for ideological reasons. I simply think that after 10 or so years in power a party, any party, becomes stale, entitlement sinks in, and they use the levers of Government to reduce the flow of information.

The three parties are all fairly close to the centre. That is the way it is in Canada. Plus, what they are saying and promising now is probably a very long way from what they will do when elected. I seem to recall the current Goverment waxing poetic about veterans and strengthening our armed forces. So now Veteran's funding has actually been reduced, offices closed, and our defence spending as a percentage of GNP is at its lowest level in 50 odd years. Under one percent.

So, I want a change and a fresh look at things. I have no issue with either of two other candidates. I am certain that they have good team members and fairly good advisors. My world won't come to an abrupt end with change. And a minority Government may be a good thing after all.


----------



## bariutt

I watched the debate last night and statements made by both Mulcair and Trudeau horrified me (which will prevent me from voting either NDP or Liberal on October 19) 

Mulcair stated that if elected he NDP will triple Canada's contribution to foreign aid at a cost of over $9 Billion. Where will all this money come from???

Trudeau stated that convicted terrorists with dual citizenship should retain their Canadian citizenship. Is this guy for real??????


----------



## fraser

Do you actually believe what any of these three say during an election?

Last night Harper claimed that he had a special relationship with President Obama. I almost fell off my chair laughing. 

It may be special alright....but only insofar as Harper's prepared speaking points that his staff provided. It was a bold lie.

In reality our U.S. relationship is at it's lowest point in decades.

So why believe any of the. Each of them would do anything to secure a riding or two, or...


----------



## humble_pie

fraser said:


> I want a change. Not because I support another party or for ideological reasons. I simply think that after 10 or so years in power a party, any party, becomes stale, entitlement sinks in, and they use the levers of Government to reduce the flow of information.
> 
> The three parties are all fairly close to the centre. That is the way it is in Canada. Plus, what they are saying and promising now is probably a very long way from what they will do when elected. I seem to recall the current Goverment waxing poetic about veterans and strengthening our armed forces. So now Veteran's funding has actually been reduced, offices closed, and our defence spending as a percentage of GNP is at its lowest level in 50 odd years. Under one percent.
> 
> So, I want a change and a fresh look at things. I have no issue with either of two other candidates. I am certain that they have good team members and fairly good advisors. My world won't come to an abrupt end with change. And a minority Government may be a good thing after all.




+1. when all is said & done, this is probably the majority canadian position. It'll be enuf to elect a minority gummint.


----------



## humble_pie

sags you thought trudeau walked away with it?

me i'm voting liberal because my candidate is among the most excellent of liberal members of parliament ever (john macCallum is another btw.) These are wise, experienced senior statesmen with no need for personal income or even any need for personal glory. They have to perfection what may be a vanishing old-fashioned quality. They are imbued, to the marrow of their bones, with a desire for good public service. Plus they have the ability to deliver the same. Canada is fortunate.

ok enuf of the soapbox, sorry. I'll vote for my liberal candidate & thank him most gratefully for being willing to serve encore une fois. But i'm doubtful about trudeau in this election. He seems to be modelling himself too much on the long-gone myth of the fiery, dashing, romantic early pierre elliott trudeau. Justin doesn't seem to have found his own voice yet. I absolutely do not want to hear justin trudeau saying MisterHarperDoesn't in that angry, accusing voice, not even one more time.

last night the 3 candidates didn't really have much to say on foreign policy in the middle east that was new, other than almost subliminal hints that i've also picked up elsewhere. The hints say that canada may be putting more troops on the ground as "trainers." Right now reportedly 59 canadians are based near Erbil in kurdistan, training kurdish fighters, it may be 58 since one was lost in a tragic friendly fire incident.

canada has also placed a larger number of special forcers as trainers on the ground in ukraine without fanfare or hysterics, presumably that successful introduction is the model. Presumably also, such a strategic shift in iraq would mean a reduction in bombing. Finally - presumably also - the US would or should be part of such a shift, although i haven't seen a word out of washington to this effect.

i'm happy to see the trans-pacific partnership coming out into the open & would like to thank dogcom for raising this issue in cmf forum. Hey dog, if you happen to pass by here, thankx!

the trans-pacific is another nafta/cafta type trade agreement. The trojan horse in all of these agreements is always their Chapter 11s. These recite how a foreign corporation can sue any party within a signatory if such corporation believes that its right to earn profit in that signatory has been thwarted or injured in any manner. There are already numerous bizarre, even horrifying, cases before the ICSID, which is the washington-based World Bank court that adjudicates nafta & cafta disputes.

we should think about this. For example, would we really want to give a korean car company with a canadian manufacturing subsidiary the right to sue a canadian province for billions of $$ in lost sales/profits - & win such lawsuit - because the province raised minimum wage (thereby boosting all other wages) or changed its environmental emissions standards?


----------



## HaroldCrump

All CPAC debates are being aired on CHCH.
It is channel 1211 on Bell HD.

Regarding last night, I am surprised nearly 1/3rd of the time was spent discussing/arguing environment on a supposedly foreign policy debate.
If that was the agenda, Elizabeth May should have been invited (even though she is irrelevant from an election perspective).

I think it is a distraction that we are arguing about how the world perceives our environmental record - it is not a foreign policy issue, it is purely a domestic/local issue.
We need more transit, widened roadways, etc. to reduce traffic congestion & pollution, but from a global warming/climate change perspective, it is a miniscule issue.

We think that adding 4 new lines to Go Transit or expanding the 401 would cost billions of $$, which is a big % of our infrastructure budget.
However, from the global environment perspective, it is a rounding error.

I thought a 3rd of the time was wasted in the debate last night.


----------



## humble_pie

the moderator was excellent. Who is that guy, somebody who directs Munk's foundation? they should get him into politics

what surprised me was how badly the instant translation went. When the candidates were speaking in french, if one was watching the english version. The sound team didn't lower the volume of the speakers' voices enough during sponteneous translaton, so what we heard sounded like 2 loud competing sound tracks. 

i would much rather have heard the actual audio, switching naturally as it did between the 2 languages.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> the moderator was excellent. Who is that guy, somebody who directs Munk's foundation? they should get him into politics


Yes, that was Rudyard Griffiths.
He is a regular guest on the Lang Exchange business show, used to be called the Lang O'Leary Exchange.
We have a thread on that show under General Dsicussion I think.


----------



## humble_pie

actually i've never seen the lang o'leary show, i really don't watch tv at all

what does rudyard have to say, in general?


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> actually i've never seen the lang o'leary show, i really don't watch tv at all
> what does rudyard have to say, in general?


He is a balanced commentator, although not as interesting as some of the other, more financially savvy guests.

I recall that he is a great Putin fan.
By that I mean that he believes the West needs to work with Putin, not against him.
Putin can be a very valuable ally in the fight against radical Islam.
I cannot agree more with him on that.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> I recall that he is a great Putin fan.
> By that I mean that he believes the West needs to work with Putin, not against him.
> Putin can be a very valuable ally in the fight against radical Islam.
> I cannot agree more with him on that.



i really like this


----------



## andrewf

Disagree that environment is not relevant to foreign policy. Canada's (at least perceived) poor environmental record/reputation is used as an excuse to block our exports and reduces our influence among countries for which GHGs are very important. This failure has made it easy for Obama to block Keystone XL.


----------



## mrPPincer

humble_pie said:


> the moderator was excellent. Who is that guy, somebody who directs Munk's foundation? they should get him into politics


Rudyard Griffiths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Griffiths
he, along with Peter Munk (founder of Barrick Gold), was co-founder of the Munk debate series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munk_Debates

He's a guest in this (sep.8th) Amanda Lang's show
jump to 'the last word', 35 minutes in..
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Exchange+with+Amanda+Lang/ID/2675138336/


----------



## fraser

Apart from all of the election nonsense, I have a very difficult time voting for a party that sends out instructions to it's candidates to NOT attend any meetings/debates. Just read that every Conservative candidate in Ottawa will fail to appear at a city sponsored all candidates meeting. Only one was polite enough to respond.

Nor do I want to vote for a party where my elected MP cannot stand up, speak his mind, or pose a question during Question Period in the House without first getting his exact text vetted and approved by non elected hacks in the PMO office. same goes for Cabinet Ministers except for a few brave souls like Kenney and the late Finance Minister Jim. Flaherty.

Anyone heard or seen anything of substance from Joe Oliver during the campaign. The economy is high on Harpers bragging list yet Joe Oliver seems to be hidden. We have a new Joe Who? 

How about Alexander, our sad excuse for an External Affairs Minister? Notta. Not permitted to speak.

I would suspect that Harper ordered a double batch of duct tape for the election and each candidate seems to be sporting a large patch over their mouthes. Just my impression from following the news.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> Apart from all of the election nonsense, I have a very difficult time voting for a party that sends out instructions to it's candidates to NOT attend any meetings/debates.
> ...
> I would suspect that Harper ordered a double batch of duct tape for the election and each candidate seems to be sporting a large patch over their mouthes


That statement is factually incorrect.
In my own riding, there is a leaders' debate being conducted by the local chamber of commerce.
All the 3 main candidates, including the CPC candidate, are attending.

Can't speak for Ottawa, of course, but your statement sounds like partisan rhetoric lifted from some left-leaning newspaper or media outlet.


----------



## AMABILE

at the all candidates meeting last night for york south weston
only the incumbent ndp and the green party were there
absent were the liberal and conservative candidates


----------



## humble_pie

^^


there's an all-candidates night in my riding tomorrow night. Five parties will be present. The PCs, the libs, the new dems, the bloc & the greens.

in the past we've had candidates from the communist party of canada, from the rhinoceros party, from a splinter communist group. It was a chance to tell their story.


(signed)
rhetorical left-leaning partisan


----------



## humble_pie

i know the ROC might have a hard time believing this, but tis a fact. No less than three party leaders out of the five federal parties are running in montreal ridings.

justin trudeau in papineau
thomas mulcair in outremont
gilles duceppe in laurier-sainte-marie

in 2011, duceppe lost in laurier-sainte-marie to NDP hélène laverdière, a former federal diplomat & the only politician i've heard of who refuses, categorically, to ever speak ill of her competition. As incumbent, she's running again in 2015 but duceppe says he'll run in laurier-saint-marie anyhow because, he says, he "likes the riding."

mme laverdière might be my favourite federal politician ever. Not only diplomatic, she's the NDP deputy foreign affairs critic. She's been active as advocate for social housing, in favour of low-cost distribution of medications in developing countries, in favour of canadian withdrawal from the iraqui bombing coalition, in favour of better funding for CBC/Radio Canada, opposes cuts in canada post services.

http://helenelaverdiere.ndp.ca/


----------



## gibor365

> Mulcair stated that if elected he NDP will triple Canada's contribution to foreign aid at a cost of over $9 Billion.


 If we have NDP/Liberals , Canada will ask other countries for donations


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> there's an all-candidates night in my riding tomorrow night. Five parties will be present. The PCs, the libs, the new dems, the bloc & the greens.


That is what I was referring to.
I am not sure if we will have a 5 party debate, but the top 3 have confirmed as showing up.
The Green candidate may attend as well, I am not sure.
There is a Libertarian candidate that may attend as well.

I don't think the rhino guy is going to show up though :biggrin:

So it is completely false that Harper has sealed the mouths of CPC candidates with duct tape.


----------



## sags

Or maybe the troops realize that Harper isn't going to win a majority and will be leaving, and they don't care what the PMO says anymore ?

The PC Conservative groups in Atlantic Canada have become very vocal with their dissent with the Harper government and the PC party.

They are getting whacked in the polls, and feel like they have been written off by the PC party.

It isn't unusual for the rank and file to became more belligerent when the ship is sinking. Self preservation becomes a foremost concern.


----------



## fraser

I did not say that Conervative party candidates have made a decision no to attend all candidates meeting. Many have...but the are apparently not following HQ advice/direction. They appear to be following this in the Ottawa area.

Our candidate attended but there is no threat to this Conservatve riding. Safe as houses....heck they always voted in Rob Anders. And that says a lot about party loyalty.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> Or maybe the troops realize that Harper isn't going to win a majority and will be leaving, and they don't care what the PMO says anymore ?


Voters were asked: "If a federal election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences?"

The latest numbers show:
• 32.6 per cent supported the Conservatives as their top choice
• 31.4 per cent picked the Liberals as their top choice
• 27.0 per cent chose the NDP

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elec...atives-liberals-marginally-lead-ndp-1.2585857
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


----------



## mrPPincer

humble_pie said:


> i would much rather have heard the actual audio, switching naturally as it did between the 2 languages.


The CPAC site has three selectable options below the player window, English | French | Floor
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/vote-2015-debates/episodes/90005996/


----------



## humble_pie

a true story that i heard today.

2 27-year-olds sit in a bar. One says to his friend Hey we gotta start thinking about this election.

election? vote? says the other. Dude you getting old or something?


----------



## dogcom

Humble pie mentioning the TPP reminded me of one of the best debate moments in Canada. The debate was in 1988 over the US, Canada free trade between John Turner and Brian Mulroney.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital+Archives/Politics/Prime+Ministers/John+Turner/ID/2654577709/


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> That statement is factually incorrect.
> In my own riding, there is a leaders' debate being conducted by the local chamber of commerce.
> All the 3 main candidates, including the CPC candidate, are attending.
> 
> Can't speak for Ottawa, of course, but your statement sounds like partisan rhetoric lifted from some left-leaning newspaper or media outlet.


The exception that proves the rule? As far as I know, the CPC is the only party whose candidates routinely skip out on debates and interviews.

Maybe your riding has one of the few candidates trusted to speak in front of more than 3 people.


----------



## RBull

There was a debate in my riding and small community sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, about a week ago that included all the 3 main parties candidates including PC. 

I guess Fred Delorey is breaking the "rule". 

Suggestions that CPC are forbidden to participate or are not trusted to participate in any debates somehow seems to be just more anti Harper dogma.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> The exception that proves the rule? As far as I know, the CPC is the only party whose candidates routinely skip out on debates and interviews.


As far as I can tell, CPC leader has attended all 4 debates so far.



> Maybe your riding has one of the few candidates trusted to speak in front of more than 3 people.


My MP is a long-standing member of federal cabinet so is well accustomed to speaking to an audience of more than 3 people, many of them fiercely hostile.
Keep your insults and sarcasm to yourself - they are wasted on me.


----------



## sags

Someone mentioned the noticeable absence of Joe Oliver for some time.

Evidently, he is fighting for his political life in his riding. The Liberal challenger is a former Provincial Finance Minister and Federal prosecutor.

The polls indicate Oliver is trailing in second place.

Eve Adams was the hand picked Liberal drop in candidate, but she lost the riding nomination.

Maybe the local riding association chose the right candidate after all.


----------



## bgc_fan

In fairness, around Ottawa, Poilievre spokesperson has repeatedly came out with a statement that none of the local Conservative candidates would attend local debates.

Whether that is supposed to be the Conservative view on things, I don't know, but I do find it odd that the spokesperson for one candidate should speak for others.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/ott...vatives-snubbing-of-upcoming-debate-1.3246955


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> The exception that proves the rule? As far as I know, the CPC is the only party whose candidates routinely skip out on debates and interviews.
> 
> Maybe your riding has one of the few candidates trusted to speak in front of more than 3 people.


Blame liberal bias in the media, especially on CBC. They love playing gotcha journalism with the CPC candidates. Any gaffe by a local CPC candidate gets play in the media, often exaggerated. Other parties don't face the same level of scrutiny. The CPC has to run a more disciplined campaign.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> As far as I can tell, CPC leader has attended all 4 debates so far.
> 
> 
> My MP is a long-standing member of federal cabinet so is well accustomed to speaking to an audience of more than 3 people, many of them fiercely hostile.
> Keep your insults and sarcasm to yourself - they are wasted on me.


To be fair, you are reinforcing the notion that your candidate is not typical.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> To be fair, you are reinforcing the notion that your candidate is not typical.


On what basis are you deciding on what is a "typical" CPC candidate?
Just your prejudice.

There is clear evidence that many CPC candidates are participating in local debates.
It is just political FUD that CPC candidates have been instructed not to face the public.


----------



## sags

dogcom said:


> Humble pie mentioning the TPP reminded me of one of the best debate moments in Canada. The debate was in 1988 over the US, Canada free trade between John Turner and Brian Mulroney.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital+Archives/Politics/Prime+Ministers/John+Turner/ID/2654577709/


Interesting debate on the Free Trade Agreement, but as it turns out Turner was wrong on those particular predictions.

He failed to recognize and mention the Free Trade Agreement would cause the loss of Canadians jobs.................millions of them.

In that respect..........Ross Perot's famous "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving..............would have been more prophetic.


----------



## andrewf

GoldStone said:


> Blame liberal bias in the media, especially on CBC. They love playing gotcha journalism with the CPC candidates. Any gaffe by a local CPC candidate gets play in the media, often exaggerated. Other parties don't face the same level of scrutiny. The CPC has to run a more disciplined campaign.


I guess, but on the other hand, when you cast your ballot you are voting for the MP, not the party leader. Despite best efforts at convincing people otherwise, the HoC is not an electoral college, and it matters which warm body fills the seat in Ottawa. Voters should have the chance to at least get a basic understanding of the candidates they are being asked to vote for.

In a similar vein, I think it is problematic that only vetted party loyalists are allowed in the presence of Harper, and all the things that are said in private to secretive meetings of supporters vs what is said in the open, subject to public scrutiny. 

I know people like to excuse this behaviour because of a supposedly hostile media, but given that Harper received almost all of the media endorsements (Toronto Star the only exception I can think of) in 2011, I suspect that this is more a convenient excuse to avoid drawing attention to policy subjects the CPC would rather go undiscussed.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> He failed to recognize and mention the Free Trade Agreement would cause the loss of Canadians jobs.................millions of them.


Millions of jobs have not been lost in Canada because of free trade agreements.
Millions of jobs have been lost in Canada because of absence of free trade agreements.

Why do you think auto manufacturing companies are moving jobs to Mexico?
It's not just because of labor costs, or because of cheaper currency.
It's because of free trade agreements that Mexico has with many other countries.

Let's ask the CEOs of the manufacturing companies why they are moving jobs, shall we?

*Listen to what the CEO of Ford said recently*.
Starting from 2:08 onwards.

Hear what he says about free trade agreements.


----------



## LBCfan

I live in one of the ridings identified as "winnable if NDP & Liberal voters vote strategically". In the last few days, a representative of all 3 parties have knocked on my door. I asked them all "why should I vote for your candidate"? The answers:
- CPC: we have done a fairly good job of governing to date.
- LPC: we stand the best chance of beating the CPC (and of course you want that)
- NDP: we stand the best chance of beating the CPC (and of course you want that)

Issues, don't you lov'm?


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> I suspect that this is more a convenient excuse to avoid drawing attention to policy subjects the CPC would rather go undiscussed.


i agree but this is sop for parties in power (of all stripes, times and places) and has been for a long time ... they make the calculation that they have more to gain the less they say ... it strikes me as smart politics ... the election will make the final call


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> I know people like to excuse this behaviour because of a supposedly hostile media, but given that Harper received almost all of the media endorsements (Toronto Star the only exception I can think of) in 2011, I suspect that this is more a convenient excuse to avoid drawing attention to policy subjects the CPC would rather go undiscussed.


Not every media outlet is hostile. But CBC is, and they matter the most. They have a history of using gotcha journalism to target conservatives.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> Millions of jobs have not been lost in Canada because of free trade agreements.
> Millions of jobs have been lost in Canada because of absence of free trade agreements.
> 
> Why do you think auto manufacturing companies are moving jobs to Mexico?
> It's not just because of labor costs, or because of cheaper currency.
> It's because of free trade agreements that Mexico has with many other countries.
> 
> Let's ask the CEOs of the manufacturing companies why they are moving jobs, shall we?
> 
> *Listen to what the CEO of Ford said recently*.
> Starting from 2:08 onwards.
> 
> Hear what he says about free trade agreements.


Ford exported 370,000 vehicles from the US production, most of which were sold in Canada and Mexico.

The whole US automotive industry exported 2 Million autos from US production, (out of 17 million total production) with half of them sold in Canada and Mexico.

The overseas export market is less than 6% of the total production.

The CEO of Fiat Chrysler has it right. The auto manufacturers sell their products in domestic markets and should build them here.

The collapse of North American manufacturing accelerated, and is directly linked to free trade agreements.

Trump is right when he says North American negotiators were weak and accepted poor agreements.


----------



## fraser

I recently read that 12 years or so ago GM had 11,000 employees in Ontario. Apparently, after the Camaro line closes down this month or next, GM will be down to 3,500 employees.

A significant loss of high paying jobs. But even more concerning when you consider that it is estimated that each auto sector job job creates three additional spinoff jobs.


----------



## andrewf

CBC has a history of being tough on governments. It was true when it was Chretien and Martin as well.

I mean, the CBC failed to notice that one of their own programs caught on camera a future conservative candidate pissing in a customer's kitchen sink. I take that as evidence they are not digging particularly hard for dirt on conservative candidates.


----------



## fraser

I have zero time for any politician who blames the media for his/her problems.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Ford exported 370,000 vehicles from the US production, most of which were sold in Canada and Mexico.
> The whole US automotive industry exported 2 Million autos from US production, (out of 17 million total production) with half of them sold in Canada and Mexico.
> ...
> Trump is right when he says North American negotiators were weak and accepted poor agreements.


You can't argue it both ways.

You present data that US is getting manufacturing jobs and selling products in Canada and Mexico.
Ergo, Canada and Mexico got shafted in this deal.

Yet, you agree with Trump that the US got a bad deal.

So, which is it - did the US get shafted and therefore future President Trump should re-negotiate NAFTA?
Or, did Canada & Mexico get shafted and should walk out of NAFTA?

BTW, I think that we have reached peak auto demand and auto manufacturing in North America.
That is why both the the US and Canada are drooling over TPP.
In order to sell products in the Pacific Rim countries, we have to give concessions.
If no concessions, we will be shut out of the entire North American and Pacific Rim markets.

You think now is bad for Canadian manufacturing?
Wait till we get shut out of the US because they signed the TPP and we didn't.

More and more US states are going the "right-to-work" way.
Once the entire Mid West has gone right-to-work, there is no lower limit of the $CAD at which we will be competitive.

Mr. Poloz could trash talk the loonie down to 40c. and it wouldn't bring any jobs back.

Remember the days of _Northern Peso_?
We are about to come full circle.


----------



## sags

I agree with Trump that the trade deals were poorly constructed, but not his goal of returning all manufacturing to the US.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement among 3 countries with different currencies, labor rates, health and safety regulations, and environmental laws.

The result has been that corporations move their production to the area of least cost of production, creating a race to the bottom.

The US, Canada and Mexico are pitted against each other.........down to the level of local incentives.

The TPP will only make the situation worse for Canadians.


----------



## gibor365

> Trump has stated he wants to simplify the tax code, *lower taxes for middle and working class people*, and increase taxes on wealthy private equity and hedge fund managers, who Trump says currently pay next to nothing


Trump proposes real *lower taxes for middle and working class people*, and not BS that Trudeau Jr is talikng about :stupid:


> Trump wants to eliminate taxes on corporations.[155] He also supports reduced taxation on U.S. workers and business and supports reduced business regulations (including reduced environmental regulation and employee protections). Trump has proposed a 1–5–10–15 income tax plan in order to simplify the tax code, where incomes of up to US$30,000 would pay 1%, incomes of US$30,000 to US$100,000 would pay 5%, incomes of US$100,000 to US$1 million would pay 10%, incomes of US$1 million and up would pay 15%. Further, his plan would eliminate the inheritance tax, lower the capital gains tax, and instead apply a 20% import tariff and a 15% tax on outsourcing to foreign countries


----------



## fraser

It is so easy for Trump, or many of the others,to make statements/promises like this.

He has zero chance of being the Republican candidate. Besides, politicians will say and do anything to get elected. Severe memory loss occurs during the post election period.


----------



## GoldStone

CBC has no shame. They are in a full campaign mode.

The headline reads:

*Tories happy to claim GDP growth, no matter how modest*

Is it possible to put a more negative spin on the good news? Next thing you know, we may be out of recession.

Andrew Coyne, a regular guest on CBC, is not amused:


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> It is so easy for Trump, or many of the others,to make statements/promises like this.
> 
> He has zero chance of being the Republican candidate. Besides, politicians will say and do anything to get elected. Severe memory loss occurs during the post election period.



Whatever  I don't really care what will be taxation in IS, but I like this idea


----------



## CPA Candidate

GoldStone said:


> CBC has no shame. They are in a full campaign mode.
> 
> The headline reads:
> 
> *Tories happy to claim GDP growth, no matter how modest*
> 
> Is it possible to put a more negative spin on the good news? Next thing you know, we may be out of recession.
> 
> Andrew Coyne, a regular guest on CBC, is not amused:


They've changed the headline now!

This comes as terrible news for Liberal/NDP supporters who want nothing more than Canada to actually do badly, thus arming themselves with something to gripe about.

As for the CBC, I eagerly await for the day it no longer exists. Want a better economy? Give all the CBC funding back to people to spend.


----------



## fatcat

cbc is a disgrace and should go
we do not need a state news organ
leave that to the chinese and the russians


----------



## HaroldCrump

The Canadian Media Guild union is contributing heavily to the Liberal party - what else can you expect from the CBC?

They are protecting corruption & incompetence (Amanda Lang, Ghomeshi, Evan Solomon, etc.).
Unfortunately, none of the 3 main parties is going to de-fund them.
De-fund the CBC, get rid of the CRTC, and open up the airwaves to competition - they wouldn't last a day.


----------



## fraser

I am surprised that the Conservatves have not had a go at the Ottawa Citizen or Bob Fife/CTV for exposing the Mike Duffy fiasco. 


CBC does their job, just like CTV. Alas, the party in power never likes them when they bring cold,hard facts to the publuc's attention.


----------



## andrewf

fatcat said:


> cbc is a disgrace and should go
> we do not need a state news organ
> leave that to the chinese and the russians


And every other developed country.


----------



## GoldStone

fraser said:


> I am surprised that the Conservatves have not had a go at the Ottawa Citizen or Bob Fife/CTV for exposing the Mike Duffy fiasco.
> 
> 
> CBC does their job, just like CTV. Alas, the party in power never likes them when they bring cold,hard facts to the publuc's attention.


CBC does their job when they expose government scandals. Sitting governments are fair targets.

Biased coverage of elections is a different matter. They are supposed to remain neutral.


----------



## sags

The CBC is as Canadian as the beaver..........maple syrup...........and the elusive walleye.

From coast to coast, Canadians have gathered around radios and televisions for generations.............drawn to the friendly warmth of the CBC.

Bless you CBC............long may you reign.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> The CBC is as Canadian as the beaver..........maple syrup...........and the elusive walleye.
> 
> From coast to coast, Canadians have gathered around radios and televisions for generations.............drawn to the friendly warmth of the CBC.
> 
> Bless you CBC............long may you reign.


it's always good to hear an old-stock canadian express his point of view :biggrin:


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> cbc is a disgrace and should go
> we do not need a state news organ
> leave that to the chinese and the russians




china? russia? please, is there a country worth its salt that doesn't have a state radio/TV network? you're probably the same guys who hang on the bbc.

did i hear anybody screaming for the cbc's head when it broadcast live olympics from sochi for free to the canadian public 18 months ago?


----------



## humble_pie

GoldStone said:


> CBC does their job when they expose government scandals. Sitting governments are fair targets.
> 
> Biased coverage of elections is a different matter. They are supposed to remain neutral.




what a riot. this news consumer approves the muckraking & the strong investigative journalism. 

but when there's an election or even an issue he wants the media gagged unless it spouts pwopaganda for the pwecious PCs.


----------



## GoldStone

humble_pie said:


> but when there's an election or even an issue he wants the media gagged unless it spouts pwopaganda for the pwecious PCs.


Not quite. I'd be perfectly content if they stopped spouting _pwopaganda_ against the _pwecious_ PCs. 

On a serious note...

I'm a small-c fiscal conservative, not a PC partisan. I'd be quite prepared to vote for a centrist Liberal party under a credible leader. Alas, JT positioned them to the left of NDP.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> china? russia? please, is there a country worth its salt that doesn't have a state radio/TV network? you're probably the same guys who hang on the bbc.
> 
> did i hear anybody screaming for the cbc's head when it broadcast live olympics from sochi for free to the canadian public 18 months ago?


oh my god ... i love the beeb ! ... who doesn't love the beeb ?


----------



## humble_pie

the cbc has had its budget cut so many times it's a blooming miracle how they can manage to put a reporter in the field or a news show together.

that peter mansbridge is a national treasure. Look at that magnificent face, you'd trust him with your mother's life. Plus he's a beacon & an inspiration for good-looking bald males everywhere.


----------



## Eder

CBC should be a pay for use service...I'm sure most here love them and would subscribe to listen for maybe $100/year? And then people like me don't have to subsidize CBC propaganda out of our wallets and both sides will be happy.


----------



## andrewf

While we're on the topic of eliminating subsidies that some people don't like coming out of their taxes, can we abolish the charitable status of churches and political parties?


----------



## none

andrewf said:


> While we're on the topic of eliminating subsidies that some people don't like coming out of their taxes, can we abolish the charitable status of churches and political parties?


Yeah, I've never understood why tax payers are expected to give welfare to the willfully ignorant.


----------



## sags

I guess governments subsidize the CBC because 90% of Canadians want them to ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...st-to-protect-the-cbc-survey/article26580748/


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> I guess governments subsidize the CBC because 90% of Canadians want them to ?
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...st-to-protect-the-cbc-survey/article26580748/


The survey, conducted by Nanos Research and paid for by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting advocacy group with assistance from the creative workers’ trade unions ACTRA and Unifor.

LOL


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> While we're on the topic of eliminating subsidies that some people don't like coming out of their taxes, can we abolish the charitable status of churches and political parties?


Yes please.


----------



## andrewf

So I dropped by the conservative website. I find it a bit odd that it seems to be entirely devoid of any kind of outline of their policy proposals, other than a vague promise of increasing the number of homeowners (how they would accomplish this is not mentioned).

Looking at the NDP and Liberal sites, they seem to have at least some details of their policy proposals posted. 

Am I just bad at navigating the CPC site, or are they intentionally making it hard to understand what their plan actually is?


----------



## humble_pie

Eder said:


> CBC should be a pay for use service...I'm sure most here love them and would subscribe to listen for maybe $100/year?



but why pay $100 to view the sports games you presently view for free, though

the CBC budget is so tiny it's not even a drop in the bucket


----------



## humble_pie

are folks on here serious about reducing personal income taxes? Easy.

turn highways into super-expensive toll roads, with free or subsidized transit only for buses & commercial trucks. Nobody needs to drive a private car anyhow.

abolish medicare. Pay for all medical services as you go, or rather as you go downhill. Can't afford triple coronary bypass, neo-natal intensive care or a new hip operation? hello 18th century mortality rates.

police forces? hire your own security, go live in a gated community.

national defence? abolish it. Pay the US a small retainer to run what used to be our part of NORAD. Pay another retainer to get 24/7 protection for canada by US Marines. The highway tolls will fund these.

close the national museums
destroy the universities
shut down the national research council
burn the national libraries

no more federal taxes


----------



## peterk

^ Nice strawman


----------



## HaroldCrump

Decision to fund or not fund a national media outlet is very different than questions of social health care, national security, public education etc.
Not quite the same scale or magnitude at all.

Let us also keep in mind that CBC's subsidies are not limited to its official budget - there are layers upon layers of other regulations & bureaucracy that "protect" the CBC.
For example, the CRTC and its Canadian content rules.
Before we de-fund the CBC or privatize it, we need to dissolve the CRTC and open the media to competition, even foreign competition.
The CRTC and all its related regulations are required to "protect" the CBC.


----------



## sags

And in the news.............

Another Liberal candidate bites the dust for past comments.

Calgary mayor Neshi jumps into the fray...........and Jason Kenney tweets about "those kinds of people".

And "Super cop" Cabinet Minister Julian Fantino gets charged with assault..................from almost 50 years ago.

I don't think I have posted anything on social media..............but I am sure there are some old pictures of me floating around somewhere in an inebriated state.

So I would "unsuitable" as a candidate in the future.

There are people pouring over social media and archived media, using specialized search tools..............looking for some dirt on everyone.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> Decision to fund or not fund a national media outlet is very different than questions of social health care, national security, public education etc.
> Not quite the same scale or magnitude at all.
> 
> Let us also keep in mind that CBC's subsidies are not limited to its official budget
> 
> Problem is Harold, that much of the foreign media is pretty bad, and they have their own Conservative/Liberal biases.
> 
> Oddly enough, the best media sources outside Canada are probably the public service channels.............


----------



## fatcat

the obvious problem with state funding of a state news channel is not what many of us think is happening now, i.e that the cbc is tougher on the cpc because it has a liberal bias (it clearly does, as does most media around the world)

the real potential problem is not that the network is too critical of the government but the reverse, that it becomes an organ of the state and a tool of the state as we see in both china and russia

citizens should be encouraged to seek out varied sources of news content and not to trust any one outlet

the money we extend to the cbc should instead be extended in grants to encourage development of as much alternative media as possible


----------



## HaroldCrump

fatcat said:


> the real potential problem is not that the network is too critical of the government but the reverse, that it becomes an organ of the state and a tool of the state as we see in both china and russia


True, but we don't have that problem, and hopefully never will.
Both Russia and China are single party/single ruler states, and unlikely to change any time soon.
On the other hand, we have vacillated between Liberal and Conservative governments every 2 - 3 terms for the entire post-war era.

It seems every time an administration begins to get long in the tooth, we vote them out, bring the other one in, rinse and repeat every 8 - 10 years or so.

So I don't think there is any risk in the official media channel becoming a propaganda tool for the ruling party.

The Liberal bias of the CBC is basically reflective of the union-infested nature of its workforce.

If any reform is to be done, the first two steps should be to dissolve the union and to have far stricter disclosure requirements to avoid the likes of Peter Mans(en)bridge, Amanda Lang, Evan Solomon etc. leveraging their position for vested interests and financial gain.

Both are difficult reforms and the former is probably illegal under current laws.
But then unionization of the public sector is a far bigger problem than just the CBC.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> The Liberal bias of the CBC is basically reflective of the union-infested nature of its workforce.
> 
> If any reform is to be done, the first two steps should be to dissolve the union and to have far stricter disclosure requirements to avoid the likes of Peter Mans(en)bridge, Amanda Lang, Evan Solomon etc. leveraging their position for vested interests and financial gain.



afaik the journos belong to a guild, not a union.

i take it you're also against professional corporations for chartered accountants along with bar associations for lawyers?

why not abolish the securities commissions as well? down with all self-regulating industries! 

btw what about the Shocking Dirt that you say is still being concealed by peter mans(en)bridge, the spelling of whose name you are not sure of. He fessed up that once he supported a war memorial (oh the horror) although i don't know that he ever received a nickel for honouring soldiers. He also fessed up that he was once paid for making a speech. Is there more appalling mansbridge dirt that we should know about?


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> afaik the journos belong to a guild, not a union.


It is a union, in their own words, described on their website.










They have registered as a third-party campaign donor and actively campaigning against the CPC party.
In other words, they are a Liberal party SuperPAC.



> why not abolish the securities commissions as well? down with all self-regulating industries!


The OSC is not a lobby group.
The OSC does not raise money and donate to political parties.

That being said, if the staff of the OSC belong to the OPSEU, which is an active political group, then yes, it is a problem.
But that is a larger issue about public service unions, not specific to the OSC.



> btw what about the Shocking Dirt that you say is still being concealed by peter mans(en)bridge, the spelling of whose name you are not sure of.


Oh I am quite sure of the spelling of his last name.
It was a reference to his "independent" work for Enbridge and CAPP.

His conflict of interest is perhaps not as bad as the blatant violation of integrity by Amanda Lang, but it is a conflict of interest.
The actions of Ms. Lang would have been cause for firing at any other organization (i.e. trying to suppress the story about RBC's use of TFW).
Same for Solomon.


----------



## humble_pie

c'mon, he gave a speech 

& it's the CBC they're blasting, for practicing gotcha journalism!


----------



## HaroldCrump

It's not just him, though.
There are all kinds of cover-ups, spending scandals, *lack of disclosure*, etc.

The Lang scandal is the most egregious, leaving aside the cover-ups related to Ghomeshi.

Leaving aside all the partisan reporting, the CBC seems to have become an entitled, old & crusty, lobby group.

*Their union will get excellent return on investment once their puppet govt is installed in Ottawa*.


----------



## humble_pie

^^


that link is an undisguised anti-CBC op-ed opinion piece masquerading as "news" journalism in the nationalPost, a staunchly rightwing conservative media.

look how slanted your language is! either a liberal or an NDP government will be a "puppet government" if either happens to win in a democratic voting process?

you wouldn't be implying that only a conservative victory can form a true government while the other parties running are puppet frauds, would you?


----------



## 1980z28

I will vote for the party that will tell the most lies as that is what is normally


PC Harper

Will retire at 56 10k tfsa will max untill the end...love it full with RY


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> True, but we don't have that problem, and hopefully never will.
> Both Russia and China are single party/single ruler states, and unlikely to change any time soon.
> On the other hand, we have vacillated between Liberal and Conservative governments every 2 - 3 terms for the entire post-war era.
> 
> It seems every time an administration begins to get long in the tooth, we vote them out, bring the other one in, rinse and repeat every 8 - 10 years or so.
> 
> So I don't think there is any risk in the official media channel becoming a propaganda tool for the ruling party.
> 
> The Liberal bias of the CBC is basically reflective of the union-infested nature of its workforce.
> 
> If any reform is to be done, the first two steps should be to dissolve the union and to have far stricter disclosure requirements to avoid the likes of Peter Mans(en)bridge, Amanda Lang, Evan Solomon etc. leveraging their position for vested interests and financial gain.
> 
> Both are difficult reforms and the former is probably illegal under current laws.
> But then unionization of the public sector is a far bigger problem than just the CBC.


the fact that it hasn't (become an organ of the state) doesn't mean it couldn't so my question is: why bother ? ... why take even a small risk ?

cbc offers nothing that couldn't be done by competing private networks ... it (and the bbc) are really artifacts of another time

on the unionization of public employees, i agree wholeheartedly and they represent a much greater threat than anything presented by the cbc


----------



## sags

If the PCs fail to win a majority government, it falls on their shoulders............not the media, union members, or stupid voters.

They had 4 years of majority government and could pass any legislation they wanted.

Canadians will judge them for their accomplishments during their mandate and vote accordingly.

That is why we have elections. To keep good government in power and replace poor governments.

We shall see if Canadians view the Harper government record as good or bad.


----------



## GoldStone

fatcat said:


> on the unionization of public employees, i agree wholeheartedly and they represent a much greater threat than anything presented by the cbc


I agree. Unions have no place in the public service. Unfortunately, I doubt that we will see a meaningful reform any time soon.


----------



## kcowan

Many of these things are already underway thanks to a succession of Federal initiatives, HP.


----------



## none

GoldStone said:


> I agree. Unions have no place in the public service. Unfortunately, I doubt that we will see a meaningful reform any time soon.


I don't think this makes a lot of sense. The government is just a huge diverse organization like any other. That's what so strange about people complaining about government inefficiency. It's not government per se it's just any large diverse organziation is tremendously difficult to manage. Also, we have so many checks and balances that the read tape is brutal. For example, I'm writing up a half million dollar government contract and the number of people who have to be involved, the auto-audit trigger, the crazy chain of approval I need to go through to get it is crazy. Of course, it's like that so everything is above board and tax payers are satisfied that I'm not just giving big contracts to my friends so the tax payers get what the tax payers want. That's fine with that, they're my employer.

Anyhoo, large organizations make mistakes and the union is there to protect people. It's RARELY about protecting the incompetent (I haven't seen it anyway). Anyway, I know FAR more people (myself included) that go against union rules in favour of our employer. If I actually billed my overtime as per union rules I'd never be able to travel ever again.

Here's an example where the union was useful:
http://q13fox.com/2015/07/12/report...cer-suspended-for-refusing-to-kill-bear-cubs/


----------



## peterk

none said:


> The *government is just a huge diverse organization like any other.* That's what so strange about people complaining about government inefficiency. It's not government per se it's just any large diverse organziation is tremendously difficult to manage.
> 
> A*lso, we have so many checks and balances that the read tape is brutal.* For example, I'm writing up a half million dollar government contract and the number of people who have to be involved, the auto-audit trigger, the crazy chain of approval I need to go through to get it is crazy. Of course, it's like that so everything is above board and tax payers are satisfied that I'm not just giving big contracts to my friends so the tax payers get what the tax payers want. That's fine with that, they're my employer.


Riiiight. You have no competitors, no mandate to make a profit, and no shareholders to answer to. That's really "like any other" organization . I work for one of the largest corporations in Canada, with all the inefficiencies you probably experience, and we are facing an existential crisis at the moment (big oil). But yeah, since we're big with a large bureaucracy I guess it's just the same as government lol.

The difference between your red tape and mine, is if mine isn't managed carefully by the company, to provide real long term benefit, the company will be forced to change or go out of business. Where is the motivation for government red tape to ever do anything except expand further?


----------



## RBull

none, public unions aren't doing a thing to help the situation you cite with government. They only hinder the ability of management to do their job, add to the bureaucracy of government, and cost the public more money with the power they exert in negotiations. Your statement about overtime billing seems to illustrate this. Labour laws are in place to protect all employees-union or not. 

In your bear example I don't see how unions helped this situation in any way. In fact the situation illustrates clearly why public unions are not needed. The ultimate employer (the public) did not agree with in the way the direct employer (government) was dealing with an employee, and through social media pressured the government. Even though the officer was in violation of his duties. The government reversed their decision, reinstated the suspended officer and the bears were sent to a recovery center.


----------



## fatcat

only core functions should be run by government, the rest should be privatized ... courts, police, sheriff, corrections, licensing and other basic governmental services

we don't need public union bus drivers, nurses, library workers, utility workers, teachers, municipal workers etc etc .... this should all be privatized

cupe and their ndp front men need to go


----------



## sags

Eliminating unions wouldn't affect the executive pay of management non union members, and that is where the biggest labor costs are located.

I doubt Canadians would approve of a change from a quality of service public service model to a private profit model.

Employees would be eliminated, services would be negatively affected and the cost would go up.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

There are clearly some public services that the private, for-profit sector could provide and compete for - the LCBO and driver's licensing come to mind. There are others that we'd want to be careful about going to a for-profit model. 
I don't think either public or private eliminates the possibility of organizing and unionizing though does it?


----------



## fraser

One thing about this election that I really do not like is the fact that I will voting against something/someone vs a positive vote for a person/party that I truly believe in and have confidence in. For me, the former strongly outweighs the latter.

I am hoping to get some polling numbers for our riding so that I can vote strategically instead of simply splitting the vote as it were.

To change the subject....when Ralph Klein privatized the retail liqueur trade it took something like three months from announcement to completion. Cannot imagine that happening in Ontario or BC.


----------



## sags

Ontario privatized the licencing offices, and the service is much worse. There is a 1-2 hour lineup all day.

LCBO could be privatized, as it is basically a retail outlet. The question would be who would buy and operate it.

Which retailers are the best and which are the worst for customer service ?


----------



## sags

fraser said:


> One thing about this election that I really do not like is the fact that I will voting against something/someone vs a positive vote for a person/party that I truly believe in and have confidence in. For me, the former strongly outweighs the latter.
> 
> I am hoping to get some polling numbers for our riding so that I can vote strategically instead of simply splitting the vote as it were.


I am in the same situation.

I favor the NDP candidate but he is sitting well back in third spot. The incumbent PC and Liberal are basically tied.

Interesting that about 500 people are registered in the riding to strategically vote. An adjacent riding has the same situation and 1,000 voters on the list.

The Anyone But Harper campaign may be effective in some close ridings.

People can get an idea on how their ridings are shaping up at www.votetogether.ca


----------



## fraser

I have not experienced any issues with the Alberta registry offices. Privatization has translated into more offices in better locations.

I really like the privatized liqueur stores. They all bring in different products and the sales are well priced. We find that the wine we buy is anywhere from 20 to 30 percent less than what we paid in BC and what we pay when we are visiting...which is frequently.


----------



## GoldStone

none, what you wrote is incredibly naive. Public sector unions is the most powerful special interest group in the country. They have enough power to sway the outcome of elections. In other words, they have the power to hire and fire the counter-party in the contract negotiations. Add to that the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Put the three together, and you end up in a broken system that lacks the necessary checks and balances. Public unions extort more and more money from the taxpayers, with no end in sight.


----------



## mrPPincer

GoldStone said:


> Public sector unions is the most powerful special interest group in the country. They have enough power to sway the outcome of elections. In other words, they have the power to hire and fire the counter-party in the contract negotiations. Add to that the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Put the three together, and you end up in a broken system that lacks the necessary checks and balances. Public unions extort more and more money from the taxpayers, with no end in sight.


Goldstone very well put. 

I've been generally pro-union though I've never been in one, but I've been questioning the value to us at large of public sector unions because it has been a topic of discussion that I've noticed lately.

Yours was a very succinct and powerful argument against them, I'd be interested to see a solid rebuttal to these points.


----------



## fatcat

GoldStone said:


> none, what you wrote is incredibly naive. Public sector unions is the most powerful special interest group in the country. They have enough power to sway the outcome of elections. In other words, they have the power to hire and fire the counter-party in the contract negotiations. Add to that the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Put the three together, and you end up in a broken system that lacks the necessary checks and balances. Public unions extort more and more money from the taxpayers, with no end in sight.


+1, well said .... and they expect their fat pensions to be guaranteed by the taxpayer while the rest of us are at the mercy of the market .... cupe and cupw advocate for themselves first and their government second

i respect public sector workers, most of them are fine people who work hard but we need a better system


----------



## sags

fraser said:


> I have not experienced any issues with the Alberta registry offices. Privatization has translated into more offices in better locations.
> 
> I really like the privatized liqueur stores. They all bring in different products and the sales are well priced. We find that the wine we buy is anywhere from 20 to 30 percent less than what we paid in BC and what we pay when we are visiting...which is frequently.


When my son went to Edmonton and transferred his driver licence, we went to a place that had a waiting room with chairs, and then you sat at one of the numerous desks they had with an agent.

Around here....you stand in a line and wait until one of the three agents are available at a stand up desk. They do licences, ownership changes, and health cards so they are busy and understaffed. The lady told me it is lined up like that all day.........every day.

Our LCBO is a nice retail setting, with lots of choices. It has got to be profitable.............so I don't know why Ontario would want to sell it.

Private business isn't interested in the losing propositions though. They only want the services that make lots of money.


----------



## sags

Unions don't get a vote...........their members do.

It shouldn't be a surprise that union members interests politically line up with their elected union officials.

But, for a long time unions steadfastly supported the NDP...........and their members voted Liberal or Conservative.

If unions "sway" an election result, it is because the members happen to be voting the same as the general public.


----------



## sags

Replace collective bargaining with what.............office politics ?

From my experience, the people on the floor in the collective bargaining unit, are a lot more content than the management who are on their own.

In management...........discontentment reigns supreme.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Not to digress too far from the Federal Election, but on the subject of unions:
MONTREAL - Tens of thousands of Quebec public sector workers took to the streets of Montreal Saturday afternoon to pressure the province to reach a deal on their collective agreements. The march ... was boosted by some 225 busloads of people from around the province... Common Front, a coalition of public and semi-public workers, is asking for a 4.5 per cent yearly increase for the next three years...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-public-sector-workers-protest-stalled-contract-talks-1.2593758


----------



## GoldStone

4.5% each year? Insane. Public unions have lost the touch with reality.


----------



## sags

As is the government's offer...................

_At present, it is proposing a two-year salary freeze followed by three years of one per cent salary increases. _

Workers can no longer accept wage increases that are less than the rate of inflation.


----------



## fatcat

they are going to have to accept what government can afford to pay
lets not forget that everyone has their hand out to government
old people, single parents, the disabled, libraries, parks

from what i can see there continues to be a long, long line for permanent government jobs, they never go unfilled
they can take what the people can afford to pay


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> As is the government's offer...................
> 
> _At present, it is proposing a two-year salary freeze followed by three years of one per cent salary increases. _
> 
> Workers can no longer accept wage increases that are less than the rate of inflation.


The rate of inflation isn't the only factor. 

Is public sector compensation in line with the private sector? Or is it well ahead?

Government may be right to freeze public salaries, if private sector wages are stagnating or falling behind.


----------



## fraser

True challenge of one size fits all is that there are differences between market rates and civil service pay for some categories at certain periods of time. A few years ago the public service had a great deal of challenge in hiring and retaining IT professionals. In some instance they had to hire third party consultants at a higher rate because they could not attract/keep the right talent or were not permitted to move them up the band in order to qualify for higher remuneration.


----------



## RBull

I agree that public service workers must accept wage offers that are in line with private enterprise, and also reflect the governments ability to pay while maintaining balanced budgets. We seem to have lost our way with these basic tenets. 

There should also be a more comprehensive regular review of job categories that are too high and too low, with the goal to more accurately reflect the market (total compensation being considered), vs blindly implementing across the board decisions, or caving to union endless strong arming. 

The public can no longer accept wage increases for the public service that do not reflect these realities.


----------



## RBull

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not to digress too far from the Federal Election, but on the subject of unions:
> MONTREAL - Tens of thousands of Quebec public sector workers took to the streets of Montreal Saturday afternoon to pressure the province to reach a deal on their collective agreements. The march ... was boosted by some 225 busloads of people from around the province... Common Front, a coalition of public and semi-public workers, is asking for a 4.5 per cent yearly increase for the next three years...
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-public-sector-workers-protest-stalled-contract-talks-1.2593758


This is scary stuff. Our provincial govt recently made a similar even lower 5 yr offer to teachers here-0,0,0,1,1%. It is considered these negotiations will be precedent setting for the other much larger groups of public sectors negotiations to follow. IMO, this is going to be an ugly battle. In a province where over 50% of revenues go to pay public servants it has to be very concerning to see the impact of these negotiations on our provincial financial health and stability.


----------



## My Own Advisor

RBull said:


> There should also be a more comprehensive regular review of job categories that are too high and too low, with the goal to more accurately reflect the market (total compensation being considered), vs blindly implementing across the board decisions, or caving to union endless strong arming.
> 
> The public can no longer accept wage increases for the public service that do not reflect these realities.


Couldn't agree more with RBull. Across the board policies don't work. This is an easy (and expensive) way to keep workers "happy" but this is not a sustainable model.


----------



## andrewf

The collective bargaining model has obvious flaws when applied to public sector monopolies. I guess I would say that independent compensation boards should be setting public sector salaries, with total compensation indexed to similar private sector positions adjusted for work hours. Then give departments flexibility to pay more where there is difficulty attractivng sufficiently talented individuals.

This is not just a federal problem. Many cities are being crushed by the cost of paying police, firefighters an average salary well in excess of 100k. Including nonsense of 24 hour shifts, when no person can safely work for 24 hours straight.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Excellent point Andrewf about the 24-hour shifts.


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> The collective bargaining model has obvious flaws when applied to public sector monopolies. I guess I would say that independent compensation boards should be setting public sector salaries, with total compensation indexed to similar private sector positions adjusted for work hours. Then give departments flexibility to pay more where there is difficulty attractivng sufficiently talented individuals.
> 
> This is not just a federal problem. Many cities are being crushed by the cost of paying police, firefighters an average salary well in excess of 100k. Including nonsense of 24 hour shifts, when no person can safely work for 24 hours straight.


agree completely, we need a 3rd way to get this done properly

my postal worker is a nice young man but he can go home and hour or more before his shift is done if he has finished his deliveries and still get paid for the whole shift ... if he goes over though he picks up overtime at minute one

independent compensation boards, indexed salaries and defined benefit plans must go ... private and public workers should have similar pensions schemes and both fish in the same pool

fire and police need to be completely overhauled, we need to pay more for more well educated police while getting rid the ridiculous early pensions and 24-shift stuff

the handwriting is on the wall but the public sector unions just can't read it


----------



## humble_pie

my postal worker might be a nice young man, too, although i've never seen him. 

i get physical mail delivered 2 or 3 times a week. It saves the posties time if they only bother to deliver to half the addresses on the route, leaving mail for the other half in the depot, to be delivered on some future day.

plus here in quebec they rent out their routes to each other. My own mail is often delivered at night, in the dark.

it's easy to do the math. A postie sorts his route into the half to be delivered today. He then rents this prepped half-route to a colleague who's also prepped half a delivery on his own route.

our postie then goes home for the day, but he's "worked" a full day.


----------



## fraser

Whether or not the Conservative Party wins the election I feel they need to embark on a serious renewal program. They have lost far too many of the so called red Tories. People like John Baird, Peter McKay, Moore in BC, and of course Jim Flaherty.

What remains is really the Reform Party. I suspect that many long standing Conservative supporters and volunteers are not happy with this...and it is showing. My guess is the Party is concerned that some of these folks will just stay at home on Election Day.


----------



## fraser

Whether or not the Conservative Party wins the election I feel they need to embark on a serious renewal program. They have lost far too many of the so called red Tories. People like John Baird, Peter McKay, Moore in BC, and of course Jim Flaherty.

What remains is really the Reform Party. I suspect that many long standing Conservative supporters and volunteers are not happy with this...and it is showing. My guess is the Party is concerned that some of these folks will just stay at home on Election Day. It will be interesting to watch the results from Atlantic Canada, the 514,416,905, and BC ridings.l


----------



## humble_pie

^^

i thought peter mcKay had just taken a leave of absence by officially retiring in time to qualify for the much higher pension benefits that are being phased out. In his parting announcement, he said he'd be fully "around" to support the PCs & he hinted he'd be back in politics after he's given a little time to his family ...

there were several other politicians with identical announcements, some cmffers were pretty fast in figuring out how they were simply sweetening their retirement pots as best they could.

it'll be hard to coax back jim flaherty, though ...


----------



## fatcat

perhaps the "old stock canadians" remark was an attempt to motivate that category of voters to get out, that's what i thought it was

as to mckay, maybe he sees a harper victory and doesn't want to spend 4 years twiddling thumbs and would rather come back as a fresh face in a few years where he would be seen as an elder statesman, people mckay rarely wash politics fully out of their blood and until they have reached the peak (or peter principle, whatever comes first)


----------



## fraser

Could be pension, could be leadership aspirations, and it could be because he did/does not want to take the heat IF the Torries bomb in Atlantic Canada a some pollsters have predicted.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> The collective bargaining model has obvious flaws when applied to public sector monopolies. I guess I would say that independent compensation boards should be setting public sector salaries, with total compensation indexed to similar private sector positions adjusted for work hours. Then give departments flexibility to pay more where there is difficulty attractivng sufficiently talented individuals.
> 
> This is not just a federal problem. Many cities are being crushed by the cost of paying police, firefighters an average salary well in excess of 100k. Including nonsense of 24 hour shifts, when no person can safely work for 24 hours straight.


Independent compensation board sounds nice in theory, but the devil is in the details.

As you correctly pointed out, police/firefighter salaries are crushing the municipal budgets. Police/firefighter salaries are subject to 3rd party arbitration, because essential services cannot strike. The arbitration system is so broken, some unions won't negotiate in good faith. They know they can get a much better deal from an arbitrator, no negotiations required.

The $100,000 club: Who's really making big money these days - Macleans.ca

From the article:

===========

Windsor, the epicentre of Ontario’s manufacturing crisis, had presented the arbitrator evidence showing a decline in local property values, high unemployment and poor fiscal health — all of it affecting the city’s ability to shoulder a costly police raise. But “the most important of all the governing criteria,” the arbitrator ruled, was giving local police what cops in Toronto and Ottawa were making. Whether Windsor could actually foot the bill was irrelevant.

This reasoning ensures an unending cycle of wage increases. A few years ago, Saskatoon’s firefighters were given an 18 per cent raise. They got the raise because Regina’s firefighters were making 12 per cent more. On that basis, an arbitrator awarded firefighters in nearby Moose Jaw a 17 per cent raise. By then, firefighters in Regina had become the provincial paupers. So last September, an arbitrator bumped up their pay by 14 per cent.

Firefighters in Leduc, Alta., recently won a 15 per cent wage increase. There, a first-class firefighter with three years’ experience now earns $92,303 per year. Meanwhile, in Ontario, 24 of Owen Sound’s 29 firefighters earned more than $100,000 last year. So did 53 of Belleville, Ont.’s 62 firefighters.

===========


----------



## humble_pie

speaking of old stock, it's the liberals who've run up an impressive list of first nation candidates.

it was common enough for first canadians to not vote, as an act of civil resistance. Now we'll see if the pattern holds.

are the PCs falling in atlantic canada polls? the ndp - quebec runaway winner in the last election - is crashing in quebec but i don't trust polls that say the libs are ahead, or the PCs who claim they're ahead.


----------



## andrewf

I agree that the arbitration approach has also failed. It should not be a matter for arbitration, and the pay should not be indexed to other public sector workers (as this just creates a feedback loop), but to private sector (and thus subject to market forces) positions with similar characteristics.


----------



## sags

I think people have it backwards.

Productivity has continued to rise, while wages have remained stagnant for decades.

The wage and wealth gap continues to hollow out the middle class.

There is nothing about private sector wages that deserve to be emulated.

To bring about wage equality, it would be better for private sector wages to rise..........than for public sector wages to fall.

Rising debt levels and falling savings levels are symptoms of weak wages, and there is no benefit to adding more people in the problem.

Both private companies and governments at all levels, choose to pay the cost of substantial overtime hours than hire more employees.

From what I have seen of Sunshine lists, most of the unionized jobs would fall into the category of overtime earnings boosting pay to $100,000.

I think there are few jobs.........in either the private or public sectors that are paying $50 per hour, or a base rate of $100,000 per year.


----------



## andrewf

Sags, do you think legislating higher private sector wages would work? Whenever people say that private sector wages need to rise, it is clear they just don't get it. You may be able to force wages up in nominal terms, but it would just inflate away public sector employee's buying power. Public sector workers would take big real purchasing power pay cuts if McDonalds burger flippers and grocery store clerks started earning inflated incomes like those in the public sector.

In other words, you want to live in Lake Wobegon, where everyone is paid above average.


----------



## sags

Governments shouldn't legislate wages at all, but they also should stop interfering with the free market for labor.

It is shameful there is an apparent need to enact "minimum wage" rates at all.

What kind of company builds their business plan predicated on the lowest possible wages for their employees ?

Passing laws to accommodate temporary foreign workers, the legal creation of temp agencies which charge a fee to give someone work, interfering in the contract process, right to work laws are all interference by the government into the free market labor pool.

It can't be ..........a free market system until employers don't want it to be.

In a true free market, a hotel that can't find people willing to clean rooms for $10 an hour should increase their wages, not lobby the government for temporary foreign workers.

Temporary workers, contract workers, sub-contract workers, self employed contract workers..........are all creations of the government to pacify business, who espouse the benefits of a free market system until it doesn't suit their purpose anymore.

Some of the wealthiest corporations in the world should pay the lowest wages ? What kind of system is that ?

I remember a time when corporations took some pride in how they treated their employees. Those days are long gone for most employers.


----------



## GoldStone

sags, you can't put globalization back in the bottle. The supply of cheap labour in the third world countires isn't going way. Private sector wages are stagnant across the entire developed world. Private sector workers lost their pricing power.


----------



## sags

If that it true..........and you may very well be right, I would expect that some day in the future it will be necessary for governments to enact "wage and price" controls.


----------



## gibor365

> The $100,000 club: Who's really making big money these days - Macleans.ca


Interesting comparison between Windsor and Detroit cops 


> 40 per cent of the force took home more than $100,000 last year. Crime may not pay. But in Windsor, fighting it sure does.
> 
> Across the river, Detroit’s highest-paid police officer—aside from the chief—took home US$53,000 last year, and probably had a much tougher job. With a violent crime rate five times the national average, Detroit in 2012 retained—for a fourth year running—its dubious title as America’s most dangerous city.


Ridiculous!


----------



## RBull

Interesting but very disturbing article Goldstone. Thanks for posting.


----------



## GoldStone

RBull said:


> Interesting but very disturbing article Goldstone.


Yes, it's disturbing if not sickening. I feel this should be THE election issue at all three levels of government. Canadian public doesn't seem to agree. Or it's simply asleep at the wheel.


----------



## andrewf

We need a conservative party with the courage to take this on. That is clearly not the current government.


----------



## GoldStone

**cough** tim **cough** hudak

Conservative party with the courage to take this on is unelectable.

Liberals have to do it in their usual fashion. Run from the left, govern from the right.


----------



## humble_pie

local police forces are municipal issues, though, not federal election issues. Saturday's manifestation of quebec public workers & their demand for 4.5% annual salary increases is a provincial matter, not a federal election issue.

i don't exactly see how these can be turned into a national federal election issue?

but i do see how 3-year police graduates earning north of $92,000 are an issue for canadian citizens. Maybe canadians are indeed "asleep at the wheel" as goldstone says.

to be fair to the quebec union, 4.5% yearly for 3 years is what they're asking in negotiation mode, not what they expect to receive. Union president Jacques Letourneau repeatedly told reporters the union wants to negotiate.

talks have broken down because the quebec government has refused to budge from its offer of a 2-year freeze followed by 3 years of 1% salary increases. Exactly as they always have done in the past when talks break down, the union activists are now wailing loudly & self-pityingly that they are "without a contract."

that offer of a 2 year freeze looks fine by me. The alternative should not be to raise salaries but to off-load & privatize services, thus eliminating jobs. Even then, the immediate & interim problems of funding pension obligations would act as heavy millstones.


----------



## fatcat

there is a simple answer to reaching a fair wage for public sector
wait until the point that the jobs start to go begging and unfilled
we are a long way from that

teachers complain about only get 2-months off a year and yet we still an abundance of people going in to teaching
openings for full-time postal worker jobs are highly sought after

these are still good jobs, salary freezes notwithstanding
they are merely coming in line with the private sector which is under pressure from globalization


----------



## GoldStone

humble_pie said:


> local police forces are municipal issues, though, not federal election issues. Saturday's manifestation of quebec public workers & their demand for 4.5% annual salary increases is a provincial matter, not a federal election issue.
> 
> i don't exactly see how these can be turned into a national federal election issue?


I said that public sector compensation (in general) should be an important election issue at all 3 levels. Municipal elections, provincial elections, federal elections. Each level of government faces its own unique challenges. The common theme is that public unions have too much power.


----------



## andrewf

Hudak may have had a chance had he not shattered his credibility with has math-fail platform. 

And rather than trying to tackle individual situations, governments should be trying to change the game.


----------



## humble_pie

GoldStone said:


> I said that public sector compensation (in general) should be an important election issue at all 3 levels. Municipal elections, provincial elections, federal elections. Each level of government faces its own unique challenges. The common theme is that public unions have too much power.



except that it's not an issue. It's not even a topic that is mentioned, other than on obscure financial chat forums. Canadian voters are indeed asleep at the wheel.

how you planning to wake them up?


----------



## christinad

I just want to say that not all union workers are well paid. I know at the university where i work there are many poorly paid admin staff. Usually wage increases come with concessions. I think the standard in bc for raises is 0,0,2 (third year). Frankly, my friend in private sector gets way more then me with the bonuses she receives. While she doesn't have a pension, she has rrsp matching. The 2 systems are just different. I get tired of union bashing. As a technician, i don't make a bad salary but i'm certainly making far below 100,000.


----------



## gibor365

> The common theme is that public unions have too much power.


 Unions are cancer of the society! When they reach critical mass, they may destroy Canada.



> teachers complain about only get 2-months off a year and yet we still an abundance of people going in to teaching


 In Ontario they are more on vacations or on strikes than they are working 

In Israel if cop get $50K salary it's like 90-100K in private sector, considering huge benefits cops are getting.... don't thing that in Canada situation is different ....


----------



## andrewf

And the point here is not that all unionized public employees are overpaid. This is why I made the point about indexing to similar private sector jobs, with flexibility to pay more if jobs cannot be filled with qualified staff. I don't know what an admin person entails (that can be pretty broad), but there are lots of form-filler type clerks in the private sector that don't make much more than $18-20/hr. And that is with modest benefits.


----------



## fraser

If we did not have unions we would all be working six days per week for pittance wages, no benefits, no vacation, and many of us would be working in unsafe conditions.

Say what you want about unions, the fact is they have moved our society forward. And this from someone who has been in senior management roles for years.

I get really tired of union bashing. Sure, some are not great but the majority are. Do people somehow think management is wonderful? If you do, think again...perhaps bout the latest cover ups at GM or Volkswagen.


----------



## none

christinad said:


> I just want to say that not all union workers are well paid. I know at the university where i work there are many poorly paid admin staff. Usually wage increases come with concessions. I think the standard in bc for raises is 0,0,2 (third year). Frankly, my friend in private sector gets way more then me with the bonuses she receives. While she doesn't have a pension, she has rrsp matching. The 2 systems are just different. I get tired of union bashing. As a technician, i don't make a bad salary but i'm certainly making far below 100,000.


It does get a bit tiring - and ALWAYS ends up being painted with an absurdly large brush. Yes, there are some crappy unions, yes some private sector companies engage in criminal enterprises and yes some catholic priests are pedophiles.


----------



## gibor365

> but there are lots of form-filler type clerks in the private sector that don't make much more than $18-20/hr


 such clerks are getting paid much less than $18-20 ... After I came to Canada , one of my first jobs was entering not only forms, but also "live" trades for Tier 1 mutual fund company ... salary was $13/hour without any benefits at all.... Check how much get paid for similar job CPP or CRA! But go get job there! only if some relative/friend can "plant" you there 



> If we did not have unions we would all be working six days per week for pittance wages, no benefits, no vacation, and many of us would be working in unsafe conditions.


 nonsense :stupid:When what you describe was in Russian Empire, revolution happened


----------



## GoldStone

fraser said:


> If we did not have unions we would all be working six days per week for pittance wages, no benefits, no vacation, and many of us would be working in unsafe conditions.
> 
> Say what you want about unions, the fact is they have moved our society forward. And this from someone who has been in senior management roles for years.
> 
> I get really tired of union bashing. Sure, some are not great but the majority are. Do people somehow think management is wonderful? If you do, think again...perhaps bout the latest cover ups at GM or Volkswagen.


This is a straw man argument.

Speaking only for myself, I never bashed ALL unions. I have nothing against private unions. Clearly, they have an important role to play.

Public sector unions is a different matter. As I stated many times, I believe they have too much power in our society. Their power is not subject to the reasonable checks and balances. 

I suggest that you read the article that I posted before. Ditto to none and christinad.

*The $100,000 club: Who's really making big money these days - Macleans.ca*

The article raises some very disturbing issues. Are you going to dismiss the article as "union bashing"?


----------



## RBull

^We're 100% on the same page.

I can't see how the issues raised in the article would not concern all Canadian citizens. The power public unions have and the impact on the policies and finances of governments at all levels is very alarming.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> LCBO could be privatized, as it is basically a retail outlet. The question would be who would buy and operate it.


It will be bought up by a consortium of various public sector pension plans, notably OTPP, OMERS, etc.
Just like big chunks of the privatized Hydro One share will be bought up by the PS DBPP funds.


----------



## HaroldCrump

GoldStone said:


> Public sector unions is the most powerful special interest group in the country. They have enough power to sway the outcome of elections. In other words, they have the power to hire and fire the counter-party in the contract negotiations. Add to that the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Put the three together, and you end up in a broken system that lacks the necessary checks and balances. Public unions extort more and more money from the taxpayers, with no end in sight.


I wish we had a Favorite button like in Twitter.
I agree completely.

I also agree with humble_pie that most Canadian voters are not aware of the magnitude of this issue.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> that link is an undisguised anti-CBC op-ed opinion piece masquerading as "news" journalism in the nationalPost, a staunchly rightwing conservative media.


Ah, so the NP is a "staunchly rightwing media", but the CBC is not a "staunchly leftwing media"? :biggrin:

The CBC has been drooling all over Trudeau Jr.
The bias is quite overt by now.
A political blogger aggregated their numerous serenading and profusions of love for JT in *a blog post*.

The point of discussion in this post is not which is a more suitable govt. for Canada on 19th Oct - but whether or not the CBC is partial towards one or the other candidate/party.
IMHO, that part is pretty obvious.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Governments shouldn't legislate wages at all, but they also should stop interfering with the free market for labor.


Right...so public sector workers should not be unionized, no?
Because if that aint' "_interfering with the free market for labor_", then I don't know what is.


----------



## sags

Determining employment numbers is a management right, enshrined by legislation.

Unions represent workers at the bargaining table after they are employed.

When governments interfere in the pool of labour by continually adding more available labor, they upset the natural balance of the labour market.

And then the politicians sit back and wonder..............why isn't there any wage inflation ?

But rest assured, the politicians will come up with a solution, the easiest of which is to redistribute tax revenues.

I doubt those who are opposed to unions are going to like the political solutions much either.


----------



## gibor365

> most Canadian voters are not aware of the magnitude of this issue.


 True! And looks like politicians just scaried from unions to raise this issue


----------



## sags

Politicians can't go very far into public service wages and pensions, without answering questions on their own public service wages and pensions.


----------



## fatcat

GoldStone said:


> This is a straw man argument.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I never bashed ALL unions. I have nothing against private unions. Clearly, they have an important role to play.
> 
> Public sector unions is a different matter. As I stated many times, I believe they have too much power in our society. Their power is not subject to the reasonable checks and balances.
> 
> I suggest that you read the article that I posted before. Ditto to none and christinad.
> 
> *The $100,000 club: Who's really making big money these days - Macleans.ca*
> 
> The article raises some very disturbing issues. Are you going to dismiss the article as "union bashing"?


+1 ... yet again from me ... and the private sector which is slipping behind is the backstop and guarantor of all those fat defined pensions [email protected]#$##@$$ ... cupe and their ilk have *got* go ... elect the ndp and you will see this morph even further and we will become greece


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> When governments interfere in the pool of labour by continually adding more available labor, they upset the natural balance of the labour market.


This issue is being compounded from both ends - politicians using the public sector as a fake job creation program, plus public sector unions continuously advocating expansion and fiercely resisting any "cuts" to public sector.
Even a slower rate of growth is mislabeled as "cuts".

And therein lies the conflict of interest in public sector unions - they leverage their pooled contributions to lobby in favor of political parties that promise expanding public sector or pledge to not cut (workforce and/or compensation).


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> This issue is being compounded from both ends - politicians using the public sector as a fake job creation program, plus public sector unions continuously advocating expansion and fiercely resisting any "cuts" to public sector.
> Even a slower rate of growth is mislabeled as "cuts".
> 
> And therein lies the conflict of interest in public sector unions - they leverage their pooled contributions to lobby in favor of political parties that promise expanding public sector or pledge to not cut (workforce and/or compensation).


as the entire community mailbox fiasco demonstrates, like it or not it is a necessary and positive idea yet the cupw takes to the streets and airwaves to denounce it purely to save their jobs


----------



## HaroldCrump

There is a huge, massive conflict of interest in key, essential public service providers such as police, nurses, transit operators, pilots, etc. aligning with a specific political party and campaigning against another party.

*Such as the OPP aggressively campaigning against the PC party during the June 2014 Ontario elections*.

Is it any wonder that currently there are at least 3 Liberal Party scandals/scam investigations "frozen" by the OPP for several years.

These types of service providers should not be unionized.


----------



## fatcat

here in bc the ndp has paid the price for their alignment with public sector unions ... hopefully this will continue, the price-paying, not the alignment


----------



## FinancialFreedom

fraser said:


> If we did not have unions we would all be working six days per week for pittance wages, no benefits, no vacation, and many of us would be working in unsafe conditions.
> 
> Say what you want about unions, the fact is they have moved our society forward. And this from someone who has been in senior management roles for years.
> 
> I get really tired of union bashing. Sure, some are not great but the majority are. Do people somehow think management is wonderful? If you do, think again...perhaps bout the latest cover ups at GM or Volkswagen.


+1

Don't understand why people bash unions instead of fighting for their own benefits/wages.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23
_ (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests._

I've worked in my industry with non-union companies before joining the unionized companies. Unionized companies are much much more concerned with worker safety. If you have a legitimate issue with non-union, it's time to start finding a new job. With a union, it's actually taken care of. The financial benefit of being in a union doesn't even need to be mentioned.

There's much bigger issues this election.


----------



## christinad

I wouldn't assume all union members are voting ndp. I know i am turned off by Mulcair's daycare plan . As a single person i don't see why i should pay for other peoples daycare. I admit to voting for ndp provincially though.


----------



## gibor365

> Don't understand why people bash unions instead of fighting for their own benefits/wages.


 there is difference between public and private unions.
Also, when I got full time with very well known Canadian company, in contract I sign, there was a clause, that Unions are not allowed....


----------



## gibor365

christinad said:


> I wouldn't assume all union members are voting ndp. I.


 majority does  or in the worst case they vote Libs.



> know i am turned off by Mulcair's daycare plan . As a single person i don't see why i should pay for other peoples daycare.


and why i should pay for other peoples daycare, if I paid full amount (and very large) when my kids attended daycare ?! Also, most likely, this plan wouldn't include "rich" people, so it will be additional hidden tax for people who works and make decent income


----------



## FinancialFreedom

gibor said:


> and why i should pay for other peoples daycare, if I paid full amount (and very large) when my kids attended daycare ?! Also, most likely, this plan wouldn't include "rich" people, so it will be additional hidden tax for people who works and make decent income


This is Canada. You can't always say "While I had to pay the full amount so everyone else for the next 2000 years should have to as well." You should think of the future generations and the less fortunate. One day god forbid you might need a hand from someone else. 



gibor said:


> there is difference between public and private unions.
> Also, when I got full time with very well known Canadian company, in contract I sign, there was a clause, that Unions are not allowed....


I was under the impression that was illegal in Canada and the United States.


----------



## Eder

If you need subsidized day care you need to rethink having kids imo.


----------



## christinad

I pay for schools through my property taxes. I think i support kids that way.


----------



## gibor365

> This is Canada. You can't always say "While I had to pay the full amount so everyone else for the next 2000 years should have to as well."


I vote for party that represents my interests.... if any party would introduce free high education like in EU, we'd strongly consider voting for them.



> You should think of the future generations and the less fortunate.


First of all , I'm thinking about my family. Why I should care about "less fortunate"?! Those are mostly people who doesn't want to work or live above their means. 
Because "This is Canada" 



> If you need subsidized day care you need to rethink having kids imo.


 True! Don't have 5 kids if you don't have means to feed then  I just noticed that "poorer family - more kids they have" 



> I pay for schools through my property taxes. I think i support kids that way.


 also true


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> I vote for party that represents my interests.... if any party would introduce free high education like in EU, we'd strongly consider voting for them.


Careful with that logic - there is no free lunch.
Post secondary education is enormously expensive, as I am sure you know.
If entire cost were to be subsidized, that price will ultimately have to be paid by current & future taxpayers.

Not to mention that it will create "education inflation".

Politicians leverage this type of sentiment by promising freebies to various groups in an effort to win votes.
Free daycare, free education, free housing, free this, free that, etc.
This is how vote banks are created.


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> if any party would introduce free high education like in EU, we'd strongly consider voting for them.


gibor, Justin Trudeau is promising *student debt forgiveness *by way of linking it to future income i.e. no income = no need to pay debt.

He can count on your vote, right? :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

> Careful with that logic - there is no free lunch.
> Post secondary education is enormously expensive, as I am sure you know.


Obviously I know  , so I'd agree with modest tax hike...
If practically all EU countries can afford free high education (in Germany it's also free for all International students), Canada also can afford it. 
And taxes in Germany even lower than in Canada



> In each country, the wage earner takes home the following proportion of his or her salary.
> ■Italy - 50.59% (takes home $202,360 out of $400,000 salary)
> ■India - 54.90%
> ■United Kingdom -57.28%
> ■France - 58.10%
> ■Canada -58.13%
> ■Japan - 58.68%
> ■Australia- 59.30%
> ■United States - 60.45% (based on New York state tax)
> ■Germany - 60.61%
> ■South Africa - 61.78%
> ■China - 62.05%
> ■Argentina - 64.02%
> ■Turkey - 64.64%
> ■South Korea - 65.75%
> ■Indonesia - 69.78%
> ■Mexico -70.60%
> ■Brazil - 73.32%
> ■Russia - 87%
> ■Saudi Arabia - 96.86% (so you take home $387,400 out of the $400,000 salary)


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> gibor, Justin Trudeau is promising *student debt forgiveness *by way of linking it to future income i.e. no income = no need to pay debt.
> 
> He can count on your vote, right? :biggrin:


No way! This is completely different thing! This way they punish hard-studing/working graduates who has income,

Also, my kids won't be able to get any student loans, because Trudeau Jr tells that somehow we're rich


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> so I'd agree with modest tax hike...


So you agree with Justin Trudeau's tax plan, right?
He is the only one among major party leaders whose plan includes a tax hike for individuals.



> If practically all EU countries can afford free high education (in Germany it's also free for all International students), Canada also can afford it.
> And taxes in Germany even lower than in Canada


It's not that cut & dried.
Germany, France etc. have a different health care model than Canada.
We spent a higher % of GDP on health care than they do.
So...if you are proposing free higher education, something else will have to be reformed...

At the end of the day, there is only so many tax $$s and only so much tolerance among people for taxes.
So, pick which services should be socialized vs. privatized vs. subsidized.

BTW, free higher education for all would require a lot more than "_modest tax hike_".


----------



## FinancialFreedom

Eder said:


> If you need subsidized day care you need to rethink having kids imo.


Things come up, accidents happen, job losses happen. Besides, $45/day(price where I live) is outrageous. Cheaper to keep the wife at home with em.



gibor said:


> I vote for party that represents my interests.... if any party would introduce free high education like in EU, we'd strongly consider voting for them.
> First of all , I'm thinking about my family. Why I should care about "less fortunate"?! Those are mostly people who doesn't want to work or live above their means.
> Because "This is Canada"


That's what you should do I guess, vote for the party that best suites yourself and your family. I was just always taught growing up, in Canada, that we are very fortunate, and should help out others that aren't. I don't stereotype people that need a helping hand into "dont want to work, or live above their means".. although I do know there's lots of people like that out there, I can't do anything about it. So I'd rather focus my energy on things I can control. Subsidized daycare in my mind would allow a lot of parents that actually do want to get back to work/school to do so. Rather then not being able to afford day care and be forced to stay at home to tend to the children. I don't have kids, but this is what I see in my mind, which is why it is a pro for me.

I also agree with free education, or at least some sort of cap. For now I like NDP's plan to eliminate interest on student loans. Even though I paid for my tuition without any help from anyone, I think it'd be a great stepping stone for Canada and our future generations.

I'm not meaning to sound rude, which it may have come off as. You obviously have the right to vote for whoever you best see fit. Just trying to post my opinion and thoughts!


----------



## gibor365

> Germany, France etc. have a different health care model than Canada.
> We spent a higher % of GDP on health care than they do


 yeap, and their health care system ranked much higher that ours (as per WHO)



> So you agree with Justin Trudeau's tax plan, right?


 I don't, as he wants to spend tax money on matters that don't have benefits for our family


----------



## gibor365

> I was just always taught growing up, in Canada, that we are very fortunate


 as born in CCCP , in Siberia region, I wasn't born "very fortunate" ... I made myself and my kids "very fortunate"....  ... and don't think it was easy...


----------



## gibor365

btw, is anyone know where I can find election poll numbers in specific riding?


----------



## FinancialFreedom

gibor said:


> as born in CCCP , in Siberia region, I wasn't born "very fortunate" ... I made myself and my kids "very fortunate"....  ... and don't think it was easy...


I don't doubt that it was hard, I'm sure it was very hard. But I'm sure in between all the hard work there was at least a couple instances where you got some help/luck. If not, congratulations, that's a huge feat.. with or without help/luck it's a huge feat.. still doesn't change my view that the fortunate should help the less fortunate. My family growing up was very poor as well. My single mother struggled to raise me and my sister. With some help, she got out of the "rat race" and turned our lives around. Still far from _rich_, but because of her, and some help at some down times, my sister and myself, and our families, won't have to worry about how were going to pay for our kids next meals, or how to find the next place to live.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

gibor said:


> btw, is anyone know where I can find election poll numbers in specific riding?


This is the closest I could find, not actual polls, just projections.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html


----------



## gibor365

> there was at least a couple instances where you got some help/luck.


 The only "luck" I got , was Gorbachev started to allow immigration 



> still doesn't change my view that the fortunate should help the less fortunate.


 just "less fortunate" in Canada are becoming "the fortunate " comparing to 95% of World population . 
I'm not talking about handicaped or sick people , but than who is "less fortunate" in Canada? Lazy people?! Retarded?! They already living here a good live comparing to their contribution to society. 
We have saying in Russian "Don't give fish to a poor, give him/her a fishing rod"


----------



## gibor365

FinancialFreedom said:


> This is the closest I could find, not actual polls, just projections.
> 
> http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html


I know this website, I'd like to see real election poll...


----------



## FinancialFreedom

gibor said:


> just "less fortunate" in Canada are becoming "the fortunate " comparing to 95% of World population .
> I'm not talking about handicaped or sick people , but than who is "less fortunate" in Canada? Lazy people?! Retarded?! They already living here a good live comparing to their contribution to society.
> We have saying in Russian "Don't give fish to a poor, give him/her a fishing rod"


Funny, I use to work with a Russian up north from Toronto, great guy, barely spoke any english but repeated that at least once a week hahah
There's lots of people in Canada that want to contribute and get a good job and start a family, but made a couple mistakes at a young age they can't recover from. For example, a couple that had a kid, then the father loses his job/leaves. $15/day daycare would help that family, a lot. I understand not everyone actually _wants_ to get out there and get a job and contribute to society. I just think we should do whatever we can to help the ones that _do_. Sometimes you have to give people a couple fish before they have the energy to use the fishing rod.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> There is a huge, massive conflict of interest in key, essential public service providers such as police, nurses, transit operators, pilots, etc. aligning with a specific political party and campaigning against another party.
> 
> *Such as the OPP aggressively campaigning against the PC party during the June 2014 Ontario elections*.
> 
> Is it any wonder that currently there are at least 3 Liberal Party scandals/scam investigations "frozen" by the OPP for several years.
> 
> These types of service providers should not be unionized.


Any thoughts on the RCMP announcing a criminal investigation into Ralph Goodale during an election campaign, who was later cleared of any wrong-doing?


----------



## andrewf

Usually riding-specific polls are only commissioned by parties, and they usually don't publish the results unless they have an interest in doing so (embarrassing another party, mostly).


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

gibor said:


> I know this website, I'd like to see real election poll...


Not sure if this is what you had in mind. It's what I've been keeping an eye on. I was initially concerned about it having some CBC bias but the numbers have seemed reasonable over the past month. There's a lot there to digest, including some interactive features
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


----------



## gibor365

> Sometimes you have to give people a couple fish before they have the energy to use the fishing rod.


 that what I tried to emphasize ... Canadian ALREADY have enough fish  and can start "fishing" 



> For example, a couple that had a kid, then the father loses his job/leaves. $15/day daycare would help that family, a lot.


 In this case , this family already will get subsidized day-care. Also , if one of the spouses loses his/her job, they don't really need a day-care, especially Canadians who (unlike immigrant) have granies and other relatives here. Find job, than apply fo day-care. I just see that "socalled poor Canadians" just abusing the system


----------



## gibor365

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not sure if this is what you had in mind. It's what I've been keeping an eye on. I was initially concerned about it having some CBC bias but the numbers have seemed reasonable over the past month. There's a lot there to digest, including some interactive features
> http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


I know this website too, but again, they don't have polls by riding... I just would like to know what is situation in my riding.... does it wort effort to promote PC or it's just waste of time


----------



## sags

The Vote Together website commissions local polls, so they can decide which party to support that will defeat the Conservatives.

As it is in their interest to support the stronger party............they are probably as accurate as polls can be.

Judging from the numbers of "committed" voters on their website, it could prove interesting in some ridings.

In a local riding the Liberals and Conservatives are virtually tied............but there are 1,000 voters waiting to see if they will vote Liberal or NDP.

That many voters could make a difference in a tight race. We shall see what happens.

https://www.votetogether.ca/


----------



## sags

It could be an interesting Parliament..........minority/majority................and the TPP for debate and a vote.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

gibor said:


> I know this website too, but again, they don't have polls by riding... I just would like to know what is situation in my riding.... does it wort effort to promote PC or it's just waste of time


I don't think any of the polls provide their results at a riding level. I doubt that all ridings are even sampled. The most recent poll for example is based on 1,200 respondents. Recent election night results (e.g. Alberta) tell us how wrong they can be. 
Of course it is worth promoting the PC's. Or at the very least voting for them


----------



## sags

We are considered a "swing riding" and are getting at least 5 calls a day from someone polling............

We just ignore them now. Be glad when this is over and all we get is bill collectors calling................


----------



## gibor365

> Or at the very least voting for them


 this is for sure!
Last week our Lib candidate Mr. Gagan had a bridge over the phone with voters.... mediator also asked different poll question... was curious to know what were result (obviously considering who ordered it )


----------



## gibor365

> Polls conducted via interactive voice response (automated telephone calls) are showing much stronger Conservative results, while most online polls and the only live-caller telephone tracking poll is showing the two-headed race between the Tories and the Liberals.
> ■Range of three recent IVR polls (EKOS, Forum, Mainstreet): Conservatives 33-37 per cent, Liberals 27-29 per cent, NDP 24-28 per cent.
> ■Range of five recent online polls (Abacus, Angus Reid Institute, Innovative, Ipsos Reid, Léger): Conservatives 29-34 per cent, Liberals 27-32 per cent, NDP 26-29 per cent.
> ■Range of recent telephone polls (Nanos): Liberals 32-36 per cent, Conservatives 31-33 per cent, NDP 23-27 per cent.


Interesting .... looks like Conservative supporters don't like using phone  and many of Liberal supporters don't have Internet


----------



## sags

Ouch............Former Conservative Premier of Newfoundland Danny Williams doesn't mince any words about Harper. 

_“He’s not a man of his word,” Williams said. “He doesn’t keep his commitments, written or oral. I’m just basically saying to Canadians you can’t trust him and he doesn’t have any integrity.”
_
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...on-campaign-crosses-possibly-that-racism-line


----------



## gibor365

What a BS :stupid: 



> That followed the former premier’s criticism Sunday about how the Conservative party has focused on banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies


 Oh...holy...this is why :biggrin:

So far, Harper kept all his commitments!



> Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal sided with a previous court ruling that struck down a government policy banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies.


 So Federal court is sending us back to medieval times ! More than that ,ALL religious symbols to be banned from public sector (like QC did)

Also, those in niqab shouldn't be allowed to vote.... as it opens place for cheating...


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> What a BS :stupid:
> 
> Oh...holy...this is why :biggrin:
> 
> So far, Harper kept all his commitments!
> 
> So Federal court is sending us back to medieval times ! More than that ,ALL religious symbols to be banned from public sector (like QC did)
> 
> Also, those in niqab shouldn't be allowed to vote.... as it opens place for cheating...


You may want to check with some of his promises to the First Nations people that he didn't keep. But then maybe they don't count.

I'm not sure how the Federal court is sending us back to medieval times by allowing the niqab during citizenship ceremonies. Seeing as their identities are confirmed in private before the ceremony, the fact that they are wearing a niqab shouldn't be an issue. Besides, how formal is the ceremony? Isn't it just a formality with no real legal weight?

As for not allowing to vote, there's no reason why there can't be accomodation, i.e. a private area to verify the voter's ID.


----------



## none

Agreed. The niqab is just being used as a vehicle for racists to be racists.


----------



## sags

I thought we were over this kind of nonsense and then Harper resurrects and fans old flames. It must be his divisive Reformer roots beckoning to him.

Back in 1990 the government removed the ban on Sikhs wearing a turban while on duty with the RCMP and military, after bitter debate among some Canadians.

Today, it is accepted by Canadians as not only perfectly normal and acceptable, but as a outward demonstration of how Canadian society welcomes all cultures.


----------



## gibor365

> As for not allowing to vote, there's no reason why there can't be accomodation, i.e. a private area to verify the voter's ID.


 Because there is no such area ...maybe there is no budget for it?! idk. 

Majority of Canadians agree with Conservatives over niqab ban, poll finds
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ns-support-conservatives-niqab-ban-poll-finds



> Besides, how formal is the ceremony? Isn't it just a formality with no real legal weight?


 You have to undesrtand muslim's mentality... it's kinda protest.... 

btw, and what about burqa?! 








actually, France has a ban on face covering....As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Oh...yeah...probably all French are racists :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> .
> 
> Today, it is accepted by Canadians as not only perfectly normal and acceptable, but as a outward demonstration of how Canadian society welcomes all cultures.


not by all Canadians  ... at least they need to take turban off when riding a bike 
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/turb...rbikes-in-ontario-must-wear-helmets-1.1966854

P.S. Funny true story .... My wife going to fugute skating and in the group there were several girls and sikh man with turban .... When he left for the day, one girl asked "Why do you come to figure skating?" . Other answered "because he's not allowed to play hockey" :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

So, do you think people can vote or take a vote in satanic outfit?!


----------



## fatcat

bgc_fan said:


> You may want to check with some of his promises to the First Nations people that he didn't keep. But then maybe they don't count.
> 
> I'm not sure how the Federal court is sending us back to medieval times by allowing the niqab during citizenship ceremonies. Seeing as their identities are confirmed in private before the ceremony, the fact that they are wearing a niqab shouldn't be an issue. Besides, how formal is the ceremony? Isn't it just a formality with no real legal weight?
> 
> As for not allowing to vote, there's no reason why there can't be accomodation, i.e. a private area to verify the voter's ID.


but the niqab itself is a mere personal preference ... there is no religious mandate to wear the niqab ... some muslim nations even ban it themselves

will we allow people to wear masks as a matter of fashion at citizenship ceremonies ? ... because the niqab is fashion, no more, no less

is this a positive direction or should we require something like a common experience for what should be a uniting and common ceremony ?

why can't the next guy wear a lone ranger mask ? ... why have any dress code at all ?

what about nudists ?


----------



## Spudd

gibor said:


> Also, those in niqab shouldn't be allowed to vote.... as it opens place for cheating...


There's no requirement to bring photo ID to vote, so it shouldn't make any difference if the person wears a niqab or not.


----------



## GoldStone

none said:


> The niqab is just being used as a vehicle for racists to be racists.


Except some Muslim-Canadian women are also opposed to niqab.

Raheel Raza:

As a Muslim, I Think Canada Should Ban the Niqab and Burka in Public

Farzana Hassan:

Harper right to fight the niqab

I don't really care about the niqab issue. Just wanted to point out that your comment is ignorant.


----------



## none

fatcat said:


> but the niqab itself is a mere personal preference ... there is no religious mandate to wear the niqab ... some muslim nations even ban it themselves
> 
> will we allow people to wear masks as a matter of fashion at citizenship ceremonies ? ... because the niqab is fashion, no more, no less
> 
> is this a positive direction or should we require something like a common experience for what should be a uniting and common ceremony ?
> 
> why can't the next guy wear a lone ranger mask ? ... why have any dress code at all ?
> 
> what about nudists ?


Similar juvenile and ridiculous logic was used to prevent gay and inter-racial marriage. You're a racist fatcat - plain and simple.


----------



## mrPPincer

We have always encouraged new canadians to wear their traditional garb if they wish, this is the first departure.

It's nothing more than a divisionist ploy that i sincerely hope the majority of canadians will see through.


----------



## bgc_fan

fatcat said:


> but the niqab itself is a mere personal preference ... there is no religious mandate to wear the niqab ... some muslim nations even ban it themselves
> 
> will we allow people to wear masks as a matter of fashion at citizenship ceremonies ? ... because the niqab is fashion, no more, no less
> 
> is this a positive direction or should we require something like a common experience for what should be a uniting and common ceremony ?
> 
> why can't the next guy wear a lone ranger mask ? ... why have any dress code at all ?
> 
> what about nudists ?


I agree that it is mainly a fashion choice of sorts. As much as cultural significance as the Canadian tuxedo.

If people want to dress up like that, that's up to them. Is there a dress code for these ceremonies? Ie suit and tie or evening gown? How about a transgender wearing a dress?


----------



## fatcat

mrPPincer said:


> We have always encouraged new canadians to wear their traditional garb if they wish, this is the first departure.
> 
> It's nothing more than a divisionist ploy that i sincerely hope the majority of canadians will see through.


well, the majority don't agree with you, polls show that 82% support the niqab ban

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/24/polling-data-on-niqabs-shows-82-of-canadians-support-ban

i have seen numbers as low as in the 70's but overwhelmingly people believe that your face should remain uncovered

again, the niqab is not a religious obligation, it is a fashion choice, the religious obligation on dress in the muslim world is highly variable

we required the hutterites to carry a photo id back in 2009, it did violate their religious beliefs but the court ruled that it was a necessary violation because of the importance of photo identification

faces uncovered for all is he right move

ps. right move aside, the fact that it is also crapping all over the ndp's campaign is just a side benefit :biggrin:


----------



## mrPPincer

Yeah fatcat I do agree it is destoying ndp's campaign, but I don't see that as a benefit :frown-new:
such a minor side issue too.. sad..
But I do think ndp took the right stand


----------



## mrPPincer

^(though not if they are to be elected the next gov't it seems)


----------



## andrewf

This whole niqab thing is a deliberate ploy to distract the electorate from things that actually matter... from Harper's new Australian political strategist brought in to resurrect his campaign. It's what he calls a 'dead cat'.


----------



## bgc_fan

To paraphrase the Conservative campaign, don't we have more important things to deal with? I mean this hasn't been an issue before, so I imagine that accommodations have been there in the past and no one really cared. Also, at the end of the day there aren't a lot of people who are directly affected, I.e. the amount of people who wear the niqab is minimal. The only reason this is being brought up is to target a minority as a rallying point. Nothing new there, but it is unfortunate that the general public swallowed it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## gibor365

Hopefully Conservatives will implement ban on face covering like in France



> don't we have more important things to deal with? I mean this hasn't been an issue before,


 It's also important thing. It hasn't been issue before, but it is now ... and will be more issues in the future....


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

mrPPincer said:


> .... It's nothing more than a divisionist ploy that i sincerely hope the majority of canadians will see through.





andrewf said:


> This whole niqab thing is a deliberate ploy to distract the electorate from things that actually matter... from Harper's new Australian political strategist brought in to resurrect his campaign. It's what he calls a 'dead cat'.


Your claims are wrong.

This only became an election issue because of the timing of the court decision (~Sept. 14, 2015) related to the government's appeal. And that appeal related to the earlier court decision (~Feb.05, 2015) which ruled against the policy introduced in 2011. At the Sept 24 leaders debate the issue was raised to the forefront by Harper's opponents. Except for this timing, and the raging of JT, TM and GD, it is doubtful it would have existed as an election issue. Certainly the CONs were not raising it.

This braying reminds me of the other spurious argument raised - that the government should not be involved in TPP negotiations because we are in the middle of an election campaign. As if Canada controlled the meeting agenda.


----------



## bgc_fan

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Your claims are wrong.
> 
> This only became an election issue because of the timing of the court decision (~Sept. 14, 2015) related to the government's appeal. And that appeal related to the earlier court decision (~Feb.05, 2015) which ruled against the policy introduced in 2011. At the Sept 24 leaders debate the issue was raised to the forefront by Harper's opponents. Except for this timing, and the raging of JT, TM and GD, it is doubtful it would have existed as an election issue. Certainly the CONs were not raising it.
> 
> This braying reminds me of the other spurious argument raised - that the government should not be involved in TPP negotiations because we are in the middle of an election campaign. As if Canada controlled the meeting agenda.


Timing aside, the fact is that the Conservatives made it an issue in the first place by appealing the decision and not letting the whole issue end with the first decision. And of course the policy was enacted by the Conservatives. Now they're doubling down by promising that public servants will be banned from wearing the niqab. Seems like a lot of trouble to deal with the really rare POSSIBLE case.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> Timing aside, the fact is that the Conservatives made it an issue in the first place by appealing the decision and not letting the whole issue end with the first decision. And of course the policy was enacted by the Conservatives.


And of course 80% of polled Canadians supported the policy.


----------



## sags

The NDP got sucked into the fray, because the ban will be struck down by the courts anyways.

Mulcair made a rookie mistake, and should have simply said............."we believe it violates the Charter of Rights but it is for the court to determine."

Still, the NDP losses have been the Liberal gains and in Ontario it is reflected in the poll numbers showing the Liberals pulling ahead.


----------



## sags

Watched the local cable discussion with all the candidates and it was pretty bad.

The Communist, Libertarian and Green candidates were clearly the most informed and best speakers.

The PC, Liberal, and NDP candidates either skirted around questions with the basic......."I grew up here and just want to do my best to represent........blah, blah"

It is also noticeable the difference between the polished leaders and the local candidates.

One of the big three had an annoying habit of leaning almost down onto the table, with his head crooked while speaking and then when finished throwing his hands up in the air.......falling back into his chair and grinning profusely. Another...........the incumbent kept his head down looking at his notes, and rattled off a lot of statistics that had nothing to do with the question.

Sad when the parties that have no chance...............appear to have the best candidates.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

GoldStone said:


> And of course 80% of polled Canadians supported the policy.


They only polled 3000 Canadians. It's hard to say with certainty that most Canadians support it. That's not even 0.009% of the population. I know I sure don't agree with it.
Unfortunately it really hurt NDP campaign. Was hoping they would win but Liberal is still much better then Harper.
Will have to wait closer to election to see who has best chance of beating conservatives in my riding.


----------



## gibor365

> They only polled 3000 Canadians


 This is how surveys and pools are done  


> I know I sure don't agree with it


 I know I sure agree with it 


> Unfortunately it really hurt NDP campaign


 something was gonna hurt their campaign... who need this disaster


----------



## FinancialFreedom

gibor said:


> This is how surveys and pools are done


Yes I understand that, just stating you can hardly say most Canadians support it with a poll of so few people.



gibor said:


> I know I sure agree with it


I could've told you that before you posted it


----------



## dogcom

fatcat said:


> but the niqab itself is a mere personal preference ... there is no religious mandate to wear the niqab ... some muslim nations even ban it themselves
> 
> will we allow people to wear masks as a matter of fashion at citizenship ceremonies ? ... because the niqab is fashion, no more, no less
> 
> is this a positive direction or should we require something like a common experience for what should be a uniting and common ceremony ?
> 
> why can't the next guy wear a lone ranger mask ? ... why have any dress code at all ?
> 
> what about nudists ?



Fatcat is right there is no real reason other then to control women by men for wearing the niqab. We should just keep our rules the way they are and just move on.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

Out of curiosity, without having to read the last 70 pages.. for whoever doesn't mind answering.. who are you planning to vote for and what are the main reasons for that choice?
Just wondering what people prioritize in the election and why they think that said party is the best fit for them and their families.


----------



## fatcat

i'm voting green because i love with dirt and ocean water, i can't get enough of either one and want more of both ... the really good stuff, salty and tangy and earthy and full free living, swinging organic worms .... miss elizabeth khadr will get them both for me, i am in love with her ... 

on the niqab, it really is a marvel of divisive politics, i weep with admiration at the skillfulness with which the fat man from alberta uses it as a tool to poke holes in his deadly enemies ... the other guys


----------



## dogcom

My main concern is keeping control of the budget and the deficit and debt. This puts me towards Harper but there are issues like the TPP and Harper willing to go to war with whoever the US decides we should fight.


----------



## gibor365

dogcom said:


> My main concern is keeping control of the budget and the deficit and debt. This puts me towards Harper but there are issues like the TPP and Harper willing to go to war with whoever the US decides we should fight.


I'm on the same page ... don't like some Harper's views, but definitely , he's lesser evil from other two


----------



## none

FinancialFreedom said:


> They only polled 3000 Canadians. It's hard to say with certainty that most Canadians support it. That's not even 0.009% of the population. I know I sure don't agree with it.
> Unfortunately it really hurt NDP campaign. Was hoping they would win but Liberal is still much better then Harper.
> Will have to wait closer to election to see who has best chance of beating conservatives in my riding.


3000 is plenty - the real trick is to ensure that these 3000 people are representative of the population as a whole (or truly randomly sampled - that's actually REALLY Hard to do).


----------



## sags

As I can only vote once and only in my riding........I will vote for the candidate of whatever party has the best chance to defeat the local Conservative candidate.

It isn't that I don't like Conservatives or some of their message. 

The local candidate is a sitting MP and is well respected in the riding..........but I can't reward Harper's brand of politics with my vote.

Usually my vote is for a losing candidate though, so I must say I am reaching the point where I may not even bother to vote in future elections and just leave the politics to younger people. 

It is going to be the world they live in..............so let them decide.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

dogcom said:


> My main concern is keeping control of the budget and the deficit and debt. This puts me towards Harper but there are issues like the TPP and Harper willing to go to war with whoever the US decides we should fight.


But why exactly does that put you towards harper? I can see why it may put you off of liberals, who are planning to run a deficit(which I think is a slippery slope), but not the ndp, who plan to balance it. Harper has run 6 consecutive years of deficits before showing a surplus this year. The national debt has increased by 150 billion since Harper was elected


----------



## Eder

NDP and balanced budget is most likely the largest lie spewed forth this election. Math is hard.


----------



## gibor365

Eder said:


> NDP and balanced budget is most likely the largest lie spewed forth this election. Math is hard.


NDP against unbalaced budget?! It's like bees against honey


----------



## dogcom

FinancialFreedom the NDP can't balance the budget because of their spending and hopes of taxing the hell out of everyone to make it work. Government union workers getting more money will also find out it is an illusion when they pay it all back and much more in taxes. I said it before that in BC the union working folk helped vote out the NDP when they didn't want to pay all the tax and had many jobs leave the province.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

dogcom said:


> FinancialFreedom the NDP can't balance the budget because of their spending and hopes of taxing the hell out of everyone to make it work. Government union workers getting more money will also find out it is an illusion when they pay it all back and much more in taxes. I said it before that in BC the union working folk helped vote out the NDP when they didn't want to pay all the tax and had many jobs leave the province.


How are the ndp hoping to tax the hell out of everyone? Aren't they only planning a 2% tax raise for corporations? I don't really understand why you'd prefer to go with Harper if one of the main points is the economy. It's not like he's done a good job at balancing the budget or decreasing federal debt

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with ndp's plan to balance the budget with the added programs. I don't have a full list of expenditures/revenues, but from what I have seen, it seems do-able.

What part exactly from their budget doesn't add up for you guys? Eder, gibor, and dogcom?


----------



## GreatLaker

*NDP to restore tax credit for labour-sponsored funds*

NDP to restore tax credit for labour-sponsored funds 
http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-to-restore-tax-credit-labour-sponsored-funds

Glad I did not invest in them way back when, and would not even consider it again.

Ellen Roseman: The sad fate of labour sponsored funds
Canadian Capitalist: One More Reason to Avoid Labour-Sponsored Funds


----------



## dogcom

NDP just adds up to taxation it is the natural course to go for them. It may not start that way in year one but it will come and the deficit will still come despite the high taxes.

You will also hear how they will tax the rich starting at $30,000 a year gross income or something crazy like that.


----------



## HaroldCrump

FinancialFreedom said:


> How are the ndp hoping to tax the hell out of everyone? Aren't they only planning a 2% tax raise for corporations?


What all will the 2% corporate tax hike pay for?
- $15/day universal day care
- Expansion of the CPP
- Subsidies for auto and manufacturing sector
- Expanded public sector
- Offset loss in oil revenue by shutting down oilsands and canceling all pipeline projects
- Offset losses from export revenue by walking out of TPP
- Many other promises

NDP promise of 2% corporate tax hike to pay for all their promises is like a Lehman Brothers CDO derivative where a $100 trailer home is backing a $100,000 MBS


----------



## Eder

There has been plenty of economists picking apart the funding of NDP proposals, a bit of searching will provide enlightenment. If Mulclair somehow wins this election I will buy the canadianlackofmoneyforum.com domain name for us all to start posting in.


----------



## Pluto

Won't get fooled again? The new boss, same as some old boss. 

Words attributed to Churchill: If you were not liberal when you were young, you don't have a heart. But when you're old if you are not conservative, you don't have a brain.


----------



## nathan79

The 2% increase of corporate tax rate is only about half of their planned sources of revenue.


----------



## nathan79

Harper and the Conservatives are done for, it's just a matter of how they go down. A Conservative majority is out of the question, and a minority won't be able to accomplish anything. We will end up with some form of Liberal, NDP or coalition government. 

Canadians are ready for a change after 9 years of any government, let alone a Harper government. Changing governments is how our country evolves and improves.


----------



## andrewf

I wouldn't say a Conservative majority is out of the question, yet. Not likely, but the polls can break that way. I think we can say with some confidence now that the NDP won't win, and it remains to be seen whether the Conservatives manage to hold onto their plurality or if the 'change' train gets behind the Liberals and enough NDP support bleeds over the LPC. Nanos tracking data indicates that around 50% of NDP supporters would vote LPC as second choice, so it is definitely a possibility.


----------



## fatcat

a _stephan harper unbalanced budget_ will be a thousand times more balanced than an _ndp balanced budget_ could ever be

every time the ndp open their mouth the very first thing they talk about is either a) where they want to spend money or b)what program they want to bring back ... this is all they know to say

they are incapable of beginning with a sentence that talks about job creation or where we can look to trim government excess

i agree andrew, barring some major change, i can see another cpc majority, though this is unlikely and if trudeau can maintain the big-mo, he might surprise


----------



## andrewf

The interesting question will be whether the conservatives can govern as a minority. They pulled it off in 2006-2011 because the Liberals were very weak and could be pushed around. I don't think the NDP or LPC _could_ be induced to support a conservative government, which suggests we may see a LPC government that doesn't have a plurality. And a whole bunch of ensuing misinformation and constitutional drama about the convention on forming government after the election. Hopefully the conservatives don't move to trigger a constitutional crisis if they fail to obtain the confidence of the HoC and immediately try to dissolve Parliament again and trigger another election.


----------



## mrPPincer

Pluto said:


> Words attributed to Churchill: If you were not liberal when you were young, you don't have a heart. But when you're old if you are not conservative, you don't have a brain.


that particular war criminal.. (who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...98/Germans-call-Churchill-a-war-criminal.html) ..was just repeating a meme that was bouncing around for at least a good hundred years before he used it so if he said anything original, that wasn't it.

more on Churchhill, a po'n as it happens..
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/new...tisemitic-war-criminal-and-racial-supremicist


----------



## GoldStone

nathan79 said:


> Canadians are ready for a change after 9 years of any government, let alone a Harper government.


Yeah, let's cancel the elections. What a waste of time. Nathan *knows* what Canadians want.


----------



## mrPPincer

Eder said:


> There has been plenty of *economists* picking apart the funding of NDP proposals, a bit of searching will provide enlightenment. If Mulclair somehow wins this election I will buy the canadianlackofmoneyforum.com domain name for us all to start posting in.


..economists bought-and-paid-for no doubt.
___

The NDP's history tells a different story..


> Tommy Douglas *never ran a deficit during his 17 years as premier of Saskatchewan and routinely dedicated 10 per cent of government revenues to paying down the provincial government’s debt*. Douglas consistently argued that it would be folly to run up public debt because tax revenue would end up going the bankers in the form of debt servicing charges instead of being used on programs that could aid citizens.


..during which time he also happened to be responsible for bringing in Universal Health Care, and as well, was the originator of the eventual successful adoption of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#cite_ref-22


----------



## fatcat

mrPPincer said:


> that particular war criminal.. (who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...98/Germans-call-Churchill-a-war-criminal.html) ..was just repeating a meme that was bouncing around for at least a good hundred years before he used it so if he said anything original, that wasn't it.
> 
> more on Churchhill, a po'n as it happens..
> http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/new...tisemitic-war-criminal-and-racial-supremicist


i wouldn't be too hard on old winston merely because he shared the trait of psychopathy which was so common among the leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries

the list of world leaders mad with aggression and in love with war is a very long one

kennedy, nixon and johnson killed maybe a million vietnamese and they weren't even in bad moods, just very confused and very wrong

all of the leaders of the major combatants in both recent world wars had innocent blood on their hands

this is what we human beings do ... so far anyway

in fairness to our leaders, we kind of demand this trait as a prerequisite to the granting of power


----------



## Eder

mrPPincer said:


> The NDP's history tells a different story..


Well the story I remember most is Dave I Can't Barrett putting BC into a recession in 3 weeks flat after gaining power in BC. He is the reason that I and thousands like me are Albertan.

Socialists are all the same. Mulclair has been unable to hide his spots lately and for that I am thankful. Only my hiqab less opinion.


----------



## Pluto

mrPPincer said:


> that particular war criminal.. (who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...98/Germans-call-Churchill-a-war-criminal.html) ..was just repeating a meme that was bouncing around for at least a good hundred years before he used it so if he said anything original, that wasn't it.
> 
> more on Churchhill, a po'n as it happens..
> http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/new...tisemitic-war-criminal-and-racial-supremicist


One is not a criminal for defending oneself and one's allies. Maybe the Nazi's bombing of London had something to do with the nature of the response. Precisely what is it you would expect as a response? And ask some East Europeans and Russians - victims of a Nazi scorched earth policy and genocide - feel about it. The number of German civilians killed is I suspect, a tiny fraction of what was suffered by others. It was obviously total war, and if they would have surrendered, the bombing of Germany would have stopped. don't you think that might have something to do with it? I should mention that not all Germans were Nazis, and it is tragic that the non-Nazi ones got caught up in it. But clearly the planned fate of all east of Germany to Moscow was extermination to create "living space" for the so called Master race and 3rd Reich. You have a lot of gall criticizing those who opposed that plan.


----------



## Pluto

mrPPincer said:


> ..economists bought-and-paid-for no doubt.
> ___
> 
> The NDP's history tells a different story..
> 
> ..during which time he also happened to be responsible for bringing in Universal Health Care, and as well, was the originator of the eventual successful adoption of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#cite_ref-22


Tommy Douglas is worthy of respect, but unfortunately the NDP have lost sight their roots, and the fact that their goals were achieved. What are they good for now?


----------



## Pluto

fatcat said:


> i wouldn't be too hard on old winston merely because he shared the trait of psychopathy which was so common among the leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries
> 
> the list of world leaders mad with aggression and in love with war is a very long one
> 
> kennedy, nixon and johnson killed maybe a million vietnamese and they weren't even in bad moods, just very confused and very wrong
> 
> all of the leaders of the major combatants in both recent world wars had innocent blood on their hands
> 
> this is what we human beings do ... so far anyway
> 
> in fairness to our leaders, we kind of demand this trait as a prerequisite to the granting of power


Kennedy was pulling out when he was shot, despite the fact that over all he was a reliable steadfast communist fighter. The other two killed way more than a million. And then before he croaked, McNamara had the decency to see and admit the US and its domino theory was delusional.

Somehow I doubt Churchill was in love with war.


----------



## RBull

mrPPincer said:


> ..economists bought-and-paid-for no doubt.
> ___
> 
> The NDP's history tells a different story..
> 
> ..during which time he also happened to be responsible for bringing in Universal Health Care, and as well, was the originator of the eventual successful adoption of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#cite_ref-22


Why do the dippers pull out the old Tommy Douglas story now as if he is the one currently running for Prime Minister of the country? 

The reality is more recent NDP provincial leaders and party have little to trumpet comparatively, and have obviously lost their roots a long time ago. 

If they did measure up to Tommy Douglas in any way its very likely the NDP would be running the country already, and not trailing in the current election.


----------



## FinancialFreedom

RBull said:


> Why do the dippers pull out the old Tommy Douglas story now as if he is the one currently running for Prime Minister of the country?
> 
> The reality is more recent NDP provincial leaders and party have little to trumpet comparatively, and have obviously lost their roots a long time ago.
> 
> If they did measure up to Tommy Douglas in any way its very likely the NDP would be running the country already, and not trailing in the current election.


The reality is the _current_ federal leader has little to trumpet. Harper has not done a good job. The unemployment rate is higher then when he got in, federal debt is higher then when he got in, and he ran 6 straight deficits before pulling out one year with a surplus, which happens to be in the election year(and imo on the backs of veterans/seniors), and everyone seems to think he's doing a great job? I don't get it.

Not to mention all the scandals, his _astonishing_ environmental record, relationship with First Nations, continuing to lower corp tax rate, ect. ect.


----------



## mrPPincer

Pluto said:


> One is not a criminal for defending oneself and one's allies.


The bombing of civilian populations isn't the same as self-defence, unless demoralizing your enemy by flying bombers over their heads in order to target their families back home is self-defence.
Because it did work to demoralize them, but targeting civilians is still a war crime last time I checked..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime



> You have a lot of gall criticizing those who opposed that plan.


I guess that's true. I *am* thankful to all the canadian soldiers & others who fought and eventually defeated the nazis, but that isn't the same as sanctioning Churchill's bombing of the civilian population.
Aside from maybe a few wounded, I doubt there were soldiers left there, everyone that could hold a gun was already abroad.


----------



## mrPPincer

^oops how'd we get there anyways
I guess it's true all heated online debates always go to the topic of nazis eventually 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## nathan79

Open Media released their party report card.

https://ourdigitalfuture.ca/report


----------



## fraser

The senseless and politically motivated niqab debate has finally had an impact on me after being back in Canada for only three days.

I made a donation to a political party yesterday.....and not to the Stephen Harper Reform party.


----------



## RBull

FinancialFreedom said:


> The reality is the _current_ federal leader has little to trumpet. Harper has not done a good job. The unemployment rate is higher then when he got in, federal debt is higher then when he got in, and he ran 6 straight deficits before pulling out one year with a surplus, which happens to be in the election year(and imo on the backs of veterans/seniors), and everyone seems to think he's doing a great job? I don't get it.
> 
> Not to mention all the scandals, his _astonishing_ environmental record, relationship with First Nations, continuing to lower corp tax rate, ect. ect.


This is a straw man argument.


----------



## none

RBull said:


> This is a straw man argument.


That doesn't mean what you think it means.


----------



## HaroldCrump

mrPPincer said:


> that particular war criminal.. (who sanctioned the extermination of Germany's civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities


I see...so you would have preferred the other, you-know-who war criminal to have won the war.

Your links are hilarious.
Sir Winston Churchill is anti-Semitic, racist, and supremacist?
Not the other guy.
Yeah, right :rolleyes2:


----------



## Pluto

FinancialFreedom said:


> The reality is the _current_ federal leader has little to trumpet. Harper has not done a good job. The unemployment rate is higher then when he got in, federal debt is higher then when he got in, and he ran 6 straight deficits before pulling out one year with a surplus, which happens to be in the election year(and imo on the backs of veterans/seniors), and everyone seems to think he's doing a great job? I don't get it.
> 
> Not to mention all the scandals, his _astonishing_ environmental record, relationship with First Nations, continuing to lower corp tax rate, ect. ect.


1. Politicians can not eliminate economic cycles, and so can not wave a magic wand to end unemployment. Have a look at what the ndp, bob rae did in Ontario in the 80's. Tried to spend his way out of unemployment and left a massive debt. '
2. lower corp tax rate is not bad. If you raise it high they fire people and leave. If you have low tax rates they are more likely to set up shop here and hire people. Taxing corps isn't free money: its is a cost of doing business that they pass on to the consumer, so we end up paying their taxes anyway.


----------



## mrPPincer

We've strayed a bit off-topic, I don't want to see this thread get kicked downstairs to the hot-topic area.

I don't think sir Winston Churchill's deeds or alleged misdeeds or leanings are relevent our discussion on the Canadian federal election so I'd like to just drop it if we could, at least in this thread :redface: :uncomfortableness:


----------



## gibor365

Not sure if Winston bad or good, but it's nothing to do with his citacións that make sense 
and if you call him war-criminal for bombing German cities, who are those who nuked Hirosima and Nagasaki without any justification , but just trying to scary CCCP? what about or bombing of Belgrad in 90's?! 
btw, CCCP also performed "strategic bombing" during WWII ... are they also war-criminals?!


----------



## mrPPincer

Look, according to Godwin's Law, I already won the debate, I did *not* initially bring up Churchill *or* the nazis, so give it up guys, please..


> There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that *once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.*[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## FinancialFreedom

Pluto said:


> 1. Politicians can not eliminate economic cycles, and so can not wave a magic wand to end unemployment. Have a look at what the ndp, bob rae did in Ontario in the 80's. Tried to spend his way out of unemployment and left a massive debt. '
> 2. lower corp tax rate is not bad. If you raise it high they fire people and leave. If you have low tax rates they are more likely to set up shop here and hire people. Taxing corps isn't free money: its is a cost of doing business that they pass on to the consumer, so we end up paying their taxes anyway.


I'm not really interested in what past politicians or political parties did to be 100% honest. I'm sure when I'm older and lived through a few cycles I might care more, but at this age, I'm only concerned about the present and the future.
We have the second lowest corp tax rate out of the G7. In 2006 when Harper got in it was 34.2%, it is now 26.5%. In the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone up, so I fail to see how it effects employment rate. I'm not saying raise it back to 34.2%, but I completely agree with ndp wanting to raise it 2%, which is still well below the G7 avg.


----------



## HaroldCrump

mrPPincer said:


> We've strayed a bit off-topic, I don't want to see this thread get kicked downstairs to the hot-topic area.
> I don't think sir Winston Churchill's deeds or alleged misdeeds or leanings are relevent our discussion on the Canadian federal election so I'd like to just drop it if we could, at least in this thread


Well, you started it...you can't level allegations of a certain nature, then expect others to not respond.

If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but don't claim you "won the debate" based on some fake "laws" from the Usenet.

FWIW, I have a grandfather who fought in WW-II against the Nazis, a grandmother who lived through the horrors of it, and a father who still remembers his early childhood growing up during the war.


----------



## mrPPincer

I should have used an emoticon when I said I won the debate 

(fwiw my parents and their parents lived under occupation in WW11 and I still have living relatives that fought on both sides as well as some now-deceased relatives (including my grandfather) that were part of the resistance, & i'm not in any way trying to suggest they didn't have to be stopped) 
This thread got derailed when I mentioned that the quote commonly attributed to Churchill actually had roots much older than him, so if he did say it, he was quoting or paraphrasing.




> Quotes Falsely Attributed
> 
> These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely attributed them to Churchill.
> 
> "Conservative by the time you're 35"
> 
> "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"


http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed

(In hindsight i wish i hadn't mentioned anything; seems I've got all the righties in a kerfluffle now)


----------



## fatcat

to try to extract sir winston's "deliberate" (no winston churchill was never rubbing his hands with glee over all the dead babies he was going to make) civilian casualties from the rest of world war two's "deliberate" civilian casualties would take years of study and work

there were plenty/masses/heaps/untold millions of "deliberate" civilian casualties to go around on all sides


----------



## sags

Financial Freedom,.................good points made on Harper's actual economic history.

The Conservatives can claim whatever they want, but their record speaks for itself. Would the Liberals or NDP be worse ? Maybe or maybe not. There is lots of room for improvement.


----------



## sags

In other news, it is revealed today that the PMO halted the intake of Syrian refugees, while the Conservatives were claiming they were aiding their immigration to Canada.

At worst case, Harper was lying directly to the Canadian public. At best case, he was deliberately deceitful.

If your child displayed the same character as our Prime Minister..........would you reward them for it ?

For better or worse, I will take my chances on one of the other options.


----------



## gibor365

> In other news, it is revealed today that the PMO halted the intake of Syrian refugees


 If it's truth, it's excellent!


----------



## peterk

sags said:


> In other news, it is revealed today that the PMO halted the intake of Syrian refugees, while the Conservatives were claiming they were aiding their immigration to Canada.


Excellent news.


----------



## HaroldCrump

FinancialFreedom said:


> We have the second lowest corp tax rate out of the G7. In 2006 when Harper got in it was 34.2%, it is now 26.5%. In the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone up, so I fail to see how it effects employment rate. I'm not saying raise it back to 34.2%, but I completely agree with ndp wanting to raise it 2%, which is still well below the G7 avg.





sags said:


> Financial Freedom,.................good points made on Harper's actual economic history.


Wait, you can't use 1 metric from a particular time scale and a different metric from another time scale.
If you are speaking of G7, Canada's current unemployment rate stacks up pretty well vis-a-vis other G7 countries.
We are on the lower end on the unemployment rate scale, behind the US, Germany and Japan


----------



## HaroldCrump

Let's also keep in mind, when we speak of economic performance, we are amongst the very few G7 countries that are able to keep interest rates above the ZIRP/NIRP level.
Pretty much all the other G7 countries, with UK being the only other exception, are at 0 or lower interest rates.

So, if a nominal rate of inflation is a desired target of most NCBs (2% range, give or take), we are doing pretty alright.
Eurozone is in deflation, US is lowflation or disinflation at best, and regarding Japan, the less said the better.

Our economy can afford the _luxury _of non zero rates, unlike most of the G7 (except UK).


----------



## FinancialFreedom

HaroldCrump said:


> Wait, you can't use 1 metric from a particular time scale and a different metric from another time scale.
> If you are speaking of G7, Canada's current unemployment rate stacks up pretty well vis-a-vis other G7 countries.
> We are on the lower end on the unemployment rate scale, behind the US, Germany and Japan


We are actually behind US, Germany, Japan, and UK for unemployment rate. 5th out of 7 countries doesn't "stack up pretty well" in my books.
The United States unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is now at 5.1%, where Canada's peaked at only ~8.3%, and is now.. 7%? Yet their 35% corporate tax rate is 8.5% above our 26.1%. How exactly does lower corp tax rate create jobs again?


----------



## peterk

FinancialFreedom said:


> We are actually behind US, Germany, Japan, and UK for unemployment rate. 5th out of 7 countries doesn't "stack up pretty well" in my books.
> *The United States unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is now at 5.1%, where Canada's peaked at only ~8.3%, and is now.. 7%? Yet their 35% corporate tax rate is 8.5% above our 26.1%. How exactly does lower corp tax rate create jobs again?*


Ha. That is not very compelling evidence that corporate tax rate reductions don't create jobs...but keep telling yourself whatever it takes, man. Screw those capitalists am I right?!


----------



## mrPPincer

again, trickle-down has been proven not to work, it doesn't trickle..

Doing what it takes to build a strong vibrant economy is the job the next gov't will have to take on, for those capitalists, and for everyone else.


----------



## peterk

Is it "proven" more or less than it's been "proven" that we need extra carbon regulations and taxes to prevent climate change? I need a frame of reference. :biggrin:


----------



## mrPPincer

proven in the sense that it was a failed experiment that even right-wing think tanks can't dispute, but the dogma is still out there 
with climate change it only makes sense to hit the offenders in the pocketbook and put the proceeds into the taxpayer's pocket, ie revenue neutral :biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump

FinancialFreedom said:


> The United States unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is now at 5.1%, where Canada's peaked at only ~8.3%, and is now.. 7%?


Again you are mixing up time scales.
You want to look at the aggregate job creation in terms of % pre-recession and post-crisis?
Okay, we can look at that too.
Here is the data:










The other metric we can look at is the rate of change of employment between pre-recession and post-recession.
Here is that data












> Yet their 35% corporate tax rate is 8.5% above our 26.1%. How exactly does lower corp tax rate create jobs again?


We have to make our corporate tax rates competitive vis-a-vis our neighbors and within our economic zone.
We are being compared against the US - an economic behemoth, and Mexico - a low cost manufacturing tiger.
What incentive is there for any organization to locate or continue to stay in Canada instead of moving to the US or Mexico?
That is what we have to look at.

I am sure you have heard how the US govt is very upset over these "tax inversions" that many corporations like Microsoft, Pfizer, Starbucks, etc. are performing.
If Canada gets hit with similar tax inversions, oh well, bid goodbye to whatever employment rate we do have.

Anyhow, your point was about a 2% corporate tax hike.
Can we (should we) raise corporate taxes by 2%?
Sure, go ahead.
I don't think it is the end of the world.
I don't think a 2% corporate tax hike, ceteris paribus, will make too much difference to Canadian economy, employment etc.

However, it is not going to do have the kind of effects that the NDP is hoping for.

Tom Mulcair is delusional if he thinks raising corporate tax rates by 2% will fund his universal day care program, shutting down oil sands and pipelines, public sector expansion, and a whole variety of other programs.
It is not going to do any of those things.


----------



## HaroldCrump

mrPPincer said:


> again, trickle-down has been proven not to work, it doesn't trickle..





mrPPincer said:


> proven in the sense that it was a failed experiment that even right-wing think tanks can't dispute, but the dogma is still out there


"trickle down" does indeed work...just not in the way social welfarists in the first world countries thought it would work.
It has worked by lifting large sections of the population in the third world countries out of abject poverty, such as in China, India, Mexico, Brazil, etc.

Income redistribution has not being from the wealthy in the first world countries to the poorer classes in the first world, but into the poorer classes of the so-called third world.
The gains in human progress in the third world in the last 40 years is how this "trickle down" has been manifesting itself.

Just not in the way the politicians in the first world were selling to their electorates....


----------



## mrPPincer

^interesting, I'll have to mull that one over, I've never heard that particular aspect expressed before..


----------



## mrPPincer

meh, production would have gone to the so-called third world anyways, I don't see how giving the multinationals ridiculous tax breaks helped those in the third world in any way that wasn't gonna happen anyways..


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> "trickle down" does indeed work...just not in the way social welfarists in the first world countries thought it would work.
> It has worked by lifting large sections of the population in the third world countries out of abject poverty, such as in China, India, Mexico, Brazil, etc.
> 
> Income redistribution has not being from the wealthy in the first world countries to the poorer classes in the first world, but into the poorer classes of the so-called third world.
> The gains in human progress in the third world in the last 40 years is how this "trickle down" has been manifesting itself.
> 
> Just not in the way the politicians in the first world were selling to their electorates....



as mister pincer says, this is indeed an interesting concept, i haven't seen it expressed before either.

what's appealing about it is that it's shorn of hatred, blame or partisanship. It's more like Oops, how we going to get the ship balanced now, so that Everybody can get ahead?


----------



## Pluto

FinancialFreedom said:


> We are actually behind US, Germany, Japan, and UK for unemployment rate. 5th out of 7 countries doesn't "stack up pretty well" in my books.
> The United States unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is now at 5.1%, where Canada's peaked at only ~8.3%, and is now.. 7%? Yet their 35% corporate tax rate is 8.5% above our 26.1%. How exactly does lower corp tax rate create jobs again?


US and Canada measure unemployment differently. You have to use the same standard to compare them. 

As an example of how low corporate tax rates can help Ireland has a history that demonstrates that. Many years ago they had high unemployment and high corp taxes. Then new government aggressively lowered corporate tax and many companies set up shop there, greatly reducing unemployment. 

Too some US international corps don't pay any us tax at all. Why? taxes are too high so they moved their head offices overseas. Now theyr are not US corps anymore, and don't pay US tax. 

Another example is of tax on wealthy individuals: France had a 75% marginal rate on the rich. Guess what? The rich moved out of the country, and now France can't tax them. So they lowered their top tax rate. 

Believe me, there is no free lunch. What ever services government offers gets paid for by us. If they raise taxes on corporations, we don't get the services for free because the corps raise prices on their goods and services.


----------



## nathan79

Pluto said:


> If they raise taxes on corporations, we don't get the services for free because the corps raise prices on their goods and services.


Yet we've lowered taxes on corporations dramatically, but goods and services continue to increase in price (some would say even above the official rate of inflation). One guess where most the tax savings actually went... (hint: it's certainly not wages)


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> However, it is not going to do have the kind of effects that the NDP is hoping for.
> 
> Tom Mulcair is delusional if he thinks raising corporate tax rates by 2% will fund his universal day care program, shutting down oil sands and pipelines, public sector expansion, and a whole variety of other programs.
> .


Like " to increase foreign aid to 0.7 per cent of GDP, a pledge that could cost more than $8-billion a year " 



> but goods and services continue to increase in price


 increase it and prices will increase even more...



> Another example is of tax on wealthy individuals: France had a 75% marginal rate on the rich. Guess what? The rich moved out of the country, and now France can't tax them.


 Yes, they moved to GB, Switzerland and even Russia (Gérard Depardieu)


----------



## nathan79

HaroldCrump said:


> Tom Mulcair is delusional if he thinks raising corporate tax rates by 2% will fund his universal day care program, shutting down oil sands and pipelines, public sector expansion, and a whole variety of other programs.
> It is not going to do any of those things.


That's true... so it's a good thing he never actually made that claim.

He never said anything about shutting down the oilsands (but you knew that). And if you'd been paying attention you'd know that the corporate tax increase is only about half of the new revenue in the NDP plan.


----------



## gibor365

> half of the new revenue in the NDP plan.


 and other half?


----------



## andrewf

Well folks, I think we can be somewhat comfortable in saying that the NDP is not going to form government in this election. And I'm skeptical Harper will get a majority. It's going to be an interesting few weeks and months after the election.


----------



## nathan79

gibor said:


> and other half?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-fiscal-plan-1.3230097



> In addition, the NDP will eliminate the Conservative income-splitting plan and roll back the increase of tax-free savings account allowances. Combined, those rollbacks would increase revenues by about $2 billion annually.
> 
> The NDP would also eliminate what it calls "tax loopholes" such as breaks on stock options available to CEOs. Together, the NDP claims that its measures would add more than $7 billion to federal revenues each year.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Well folks, I think we can be somewhat comfortable in saying that the NDP is not going to form government in this election. And I'm skeptical Harper will get a majority. It's going to be an interesting few weeks and months after the election.


I anticipate new election in 6 months or so 

Also will be interesting to see how many seats Bloc gonna "steal" from NDP/Libs


----------



## gibor365

nathan79 said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-fiscal-plan-1.3230097


What can I say?!!!! I just hate this guy!



> would add more than $7 billion to federal revenues each year.


and he wants to increase foreign aid to 8 billions :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> I anticipate new election in 6 months or so
> 
> Also will be interesting to see how many seats Bloc gonna "steal" from NDP/Libs


I don't.

BQ is a non-factor. They'll be lucky to win 5 seats.

CPC may be getting a new leader soon, which I think it probably needs. People are very polarized by Harper.


----------



## GoldStone

mrPPincer said:


> Doing what it takes to build a strong vibrant economy is the job the next gov't will have to take on, for those capitalists, and for everyone else.


Governments create jobs the same way mosquitoes create blood.


----------



## gibor365

> BQ is a non-factor. They'll be lucky to win 5 seats.


 You never know  what if Harper will need 5 seat to get majority?! Coalition with Bloc is possible, but gonna cost a lot of $$$$

btw, after Conservatives my 2nd choice is BQ  I want them to separate... Conservatives gonna get majority and we gonna get "Northern Cuba"


----------



## mrPPincer

Libs and NDP both said they won't support a Harper gov't
Majority Cons gov't being unlikely at this point I think Harper will walk


----------



## mrPPincer

GoldStone said:


> Governments create jobs the same way mosquitoes create blood.


nice one 
but I was talking about replacing needed infrastucture etc which is after all a major part of the job they're there for


----------



## mrPPincer

example, Harper effectively dismantled the environmental assessment process, a crucial responsibility of the federal government, ostensibly to fast-track pipelines, resource extraction etc.

What happened? zero pipelines built, projects halted, distrust across the country.. this gov't responsibility of proper environmental assessment has to absolutely be retored if we're to move forward on development in a responsible manner, or at all.


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> You never know  what if Harper will need 5 seat to get majority?! Coalition with Bloc is possible, but gonna cost a lot of $$$$
> 
> btw, after Conservatives my 2nd choice is BQ  I want them to separate... Conservatives gonna get majority and we gonna get "Northern Cuba"


Never in a million years would Harper want to rely on the BQ to support his government. Do you not recall how he criticized the 2008 coalition precisely because it involved the BQ?

You should look into convincing the BQ to run a candidate in streetsville next time.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> as mister pincer says, this is indeed an interesting concept, i haven't seen it expressed before either.


Remember John Kenneth Galbraith's famous _Nature of Mass Poverty _and the concept of _vicious cycle of poverty_?
Galbraith mused how can this vicious cycle of poverty be broken.
That was based on his experiences in India during the 1960s and early 1970s.

In the 40 years or so since then, that vicious cycle of poverty has indeed been broken.
And globalization & trade has played no small part in that.
It is not first world style social welfare, food aid, or other types of foreign aid (although that did play a role in the early post War days), but it was trade and globalization that enabled those countries to break the cycle.

Poverty has not been eliminated in the third world by any means - not even close.
But the _cycle has been broken_.

Staying with Prof. Galbraith, he was writing about India, right.
So let us look at the India that Galbraith lived in vs. the India now.

Or Mao and Deng's China vs. Xi's China.

Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman style "trickle down economics" has worked, just not in the way they thought back in the 1960s.
It is working to this day, but not in the way social welfarists want it to.

The income redistribution is indeed happening, but that process is starting from the bottom-up i.e. it is uplifting the most needy first.
It is arguable (IMHO) who should be the first recipient of this trickle down effect - the working classes of the third world or the working classes of the first world.

Note that I am not idolizing the global corporations, nor giving them more credit than is due.
I am saying this is how globalization and capitalism works.

Not my original idea of course - Karl Marx, David Ricardo, Adam Smith, etc. observed the same during the early years of the Industrial Revolution and wrote about it.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Never in a million years would Harper want to rely on the BQ to support his government. Do you not recall how he criticized the 2008 coalition precisely because it involved the BQ?
> 
> You should look into convincing the BQ to run a candidate in streetsville next time.


He doesn't want to rely ... but sometimes there is no choice... 
I far as I remember, split income for seniors pass only because BQ supported Conservatives and Libs/NDP as usual voted against it ...

Yeap, bring to Streetsville BQ candidate


----------



## mrPPincer

^thanks for elaborating HC.
I still have qualms with this idea, it's sitting on the back burner for now.
btw I have huge respect for the thoughts of JKG, have read a book or two of his, but not the one you cited.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> ... Note that I am not idolizing the global corporations, nor giving them more credit than is due.
> I am saying this is how globalization and capitalism works.
> 
> Not my original idea of course - Karl Marx, David Ricardo, Adam Smith, etc. observed the same during the early years of the Industrial Revolution and wrote about it.



perhaps not your "original" idea, but certainly your original explanation & transmission, thankx!

next topic, what to do now about the working middle classes of the first world, not to speak of securing a future for our own students & young people? perhaps there's no answer yet ...

all in all, i'm real pleased with this election campaign. People did get worked up, which is what i'd hoped. If one goes off a great distance & gazes at our 3 candidates from afar, they all 3 look reasonably appealing, wouldn't you say? i wouldn't be afraid of a government by any one of them, really.

canadians did address themselves furiously to the issues, which is what i'd hoped. Here in cmf forum, too. There are lots of refreshing points of view.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> next topic, what to do now about the working middle classes of the first world, not to speak of securing a future for our own students & young people? perhaps there's no answer yet ...


someone needs to explain to me why we need to spend 0.7% of our GDP on foreign aid when we have 60-thousand people on a ten-year waiting list for affordable housing in our biggest city ?

the concept of a balanced budget isn't in the ndp's worldview, it's not conceptually even available to them, let alone a real possibility ... they will give us greece in short order, no matter what comes out of their mouth ...


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> the concept of a balanced budget isn't in the ndp's worldview ... they will give us greece in short order, no matter what comes out of their mouth ...



cat u are priceless each:

actually i think in reality mulcair has moved so far right & dear old canada will be in such a tizzy if perchance he does happen to reach sussex drive for a brief sojourn, that he won't dare try everything on his laundry list


----------



## sags

Fatcat.......foreign aid because people in Canada aren't starving to death, like they are in other countries.

Go to any food store and look around. Many children in India are at the local dump looking for something to eat.


----------



## HaroldCrump

nathan79 said:


> He never said anything about shutting down the oilsands (but you knew that).


I suspect you know just as well that many of his minions have said that.
*Again* and *again*.

The other measures they are proposing will not generate anywhere close to $7B, such as the taxing of stock options, which is *likely to backfire*.
Similarly, rolling back the TFSA limit to $5,500 instead of $10K will affect a very small % of people that are actually able to contribute $10K every year.
And among that small minority, only those that are earning any significant investment income on that extra $4.5K (i.e. are investing in high return securities like equities, options, etc. not HISA or GICs).

Like most tax-and-spend welfare statists, the NDP is underestimating the true cost of the social programs (like the $15 universal daycare) and over-estimating the increased revenue from closing tax "loopholes".

Speaking of tax loopholes, keep in mind that the Harper govt. (under Late Jim Flaherty's fiscal leadership) has perhaps closed the most number of tax loopholes in recent times.
A few that immediately come to mind are - income trusts, labor sponsored funds, deposit boxes' deduction, taxation of derivative based products that convert yield income to capital gains, and anti offshore money laundering laws.
I am sure there were a few other esoteric tax loopholes closed during the last 5 or so years.


----------



## Pluto

mrPPincer said:


> ^thanks for elaborating HC.
> I still have qualms with this idea, it's sitting on the back burner for now.
> btw I have huge respect for the thoughts of JKG, have read a book or two of his, but not the one you cited.


I have to support HC in this. Have a look at pre 1980 China. Those anti-capitalist communists couldn't even feed themselves and had to import food. Then they got the bright idea of allowing their people to make a profit from selling their produce. Boom. All of a sudden food production exploded. It wasn't long before they could feed themselves and export food. Two of the best ways to fight poverty is an entrepreneurial environment and free trade between nations. 

I'll never forget the sight when the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR blue apart: East Germany was poor and filthy. The capitalist side was cleaner and economically better off. 

And a comment on environmentalism. I can't take the extremists and alarmists seriously and here is why: Most of the pollution that is supposed to cause global warming comes from industry, and specifically from coal fired power plants. The only currently available alternative is nuclear power - no air pollution, and the waste in under our control, not floating around in the air. But most of the same environmental alarmists are against nuclear power. That leaves no readily available power alternative that can maintain current standards of living. I can hear it now from some folks: wind and solar is the answer. Sorry, it isn't at a stage to supply anywhere near current demand. Germany is often given as a example of massive uses of wind and solar, but the reality is it is a failure at supplying clean energy. They actually buy nuclear generated power from from France while claiming moral superiority, at being non nuclear. Too, Germany has been building more coal fired plants, the very source of most of the air pollution and green house gases. 

So, while people may not like Harper's decisions on environmental issues, I don't blame him. I blame anti nuclear power activists for the green house gases.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> Fatcat.......foreign aid because people in Canada aren't starving to death, like they are in other countries.
> 
> Go to any food store and look around. Many children in India are at the local dump looking for something to eat.


indeed, and we should do what we can to help with both food aid and medical aid as well ... nevertheless i can see people in my city sleeping in homeless shelters because they have no homes

there is a strong contradiction here

pie, i want to make something clear i hope, i actually admire the ndp, i share many if their core values about universal healthcare and social support for the vulnerable and needy ... i tend to think many of them are my moral betters ... i would like to live in the world that many of them yearn to see come about

i just disagree ... rather vehemently ... about how to get there 

they never seem to convince me that they understand how wealth is made and can then be shared ... by sweat, hard work, freedom and innovation ... not by taxing the rich (not that i object to taxing the rich)

they have never convinced me that they actually grasp what is necessary to make an economy run, which is basically, jobs ... jobs first and then programs for all of us

the ndp haven't grasped the basic fact that labour unions don't make jobs, they protect workers but don't *create* the jobs that need protecting


----------



## HaroldCrump

fatcat said:


> they never seem to convince me that they understand how wealth is made and can then be shared ... by sweat, hard work, freedom and innovation ... not by taxing the rich (not that i object to taxing the rich)
> they have never convinced me that they actually grasp what is necessary to make an economy run, which is basically, jobs ... jobs first and then programs for all of us
> the ndp haven't grasped the basic fact that labour unions don't make jobs, they protect workers but don't *create* the jobs that need protecting


It's too bad the NDP are pretty much a write off at this point.
In a diabolical sort of way, they should get their wish - i.e. form a majority federal govt.
Then they will see how their grandiose promises of welfare state turn out, and how they balance the budget.

Their record at provincial levels is dismal at best - Rae in ON, current govt in Manitoba, previous govt in BC, etc.

It will take about 1 year or so, give or take, for all the welfare schemes to fall apart.


----------



## HaroldCrump

HaroldCrump said:


> Anyhow, your point was about a 2% corporate tax hike.
> Can we (should we) raise corporate taxes by 2%?
> Sure, go ahead.
> I don't think it is the end of the world.
> I don't think a 2% corporate tax hike, ceteris paribus, will make too much difference to Canadian economy, employment etc.
> 
> However, it is not going to do have the kind of effects that the NDP is hoping for.


I should point out that the great idol of welfare statists - Norway - has recently decided to cut its corporate tax rate from 27% to 25%.

Also, oil revenues form a bigger % of Norway's annual budget than Canada's.
In addition, they are now withdrawing funds from their SWF to plug the deficit gap - Canada has never done this (arguably the CPP is the closest Canada has to a SWF).

So this whole thing about "putting all the eggs in one basket and then dropping that basket" is just election rhetoric.


----------



## fraser

I do not think any of the three parties is off the fulcrum by much. They are all so close to the centre that the differences are marginal. 

The differences at pre election time may seem large, but post election realities will dictate that they all stay close to the centre or be defeated in the next election.

The Fraser Institute has just come out and essentially said that Alberta, the bastion of right wing Conservative Governments for 40 odd years, was wildly overspending for the past 10 years and that this is the root of the current challenge. They overspent in terms of inflation and population growth. The dyed in the wool Tories are now trying to figure out how they can blame 10 years of fiscal mismanagement on the newly elected Notley team.


----------



## gibor365

> indeed, and we should do what we can to help with both food aid and medical aid as well ... nevertheless i can see people in my city sleeping in homeless shelters because they have no homes


 I'm not sure at all that Foreign aid will be spent on food and not on weapon ... Foreign Aid should be on volunteery basis , you want to help -> donate .... don't force me


----------



## peterk

mrPPincer said:


> example, Harper effectively dismantled the environmental assessment process, a crucial responsibility of the federal government, ostensibly to fast-track pipelines, resource extraction etc.
> 
> What happened? zero pipelines built, projects halted, distrust across the country.. this gov't responsibility of proper environmental assessment has to absolutely be retored if we're to move forward on development in a responsible manner, or at all.


Environmental assessments prior were not "proper". They were (still are somewhat) outrageously slow and cumbersome and the benefit of such a process was arguable only beneficial to environmental consulting firms and activists, not the actual environment. It's hard to convince a company to take the risk of investing in something when it's going to take 15 years of assessment, consultation, and approval before they can even begin construction.

Where the hell is highway 424 in Ontario? It's been discussed for decades! The answer is it never got off the ground because of EAs.


----------



## sags

gibor said:


> I'm not sure at all that Foreign aid will be spent on food and not on weapon ... Foreign Aid should be on volunteery basis , you want to help -> donate .... don't force me


I doubt we send plane loads of cash to foreign countries.

More likely, and I would hope........we send food, (such as grains purchased from Canadian farmers) medicine, and other items from Canadian companies as our foreign aid commitment.

There are also aid agencies on the ground that can be supplied from Canada.


----------



## fraser

No one forces Canada to give foreign aid. We do it because we are a responsible nation.


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> No one forces Canada to give foreign aid. We do it because we are a responsible nation.


Canada forces their citizens to pay for foreign aid through taxes


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> I doubt we send plane loads of cash to foreign countries.
> .


Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa

Money from rich countries has trapped many African nations in a cycle of corruption, slower economic growth and poverty. Cutting off the flow would be far more beneficial.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123758895999200083


----------



## fraser

Our Government, through taxes, also forces us to pay for border services, health care, pensions, etc. Should these be on a voluntary basis as well?

Isn't this why we elect a Government...to act for the common good on our behalf. I doubt that there is anyone who agrees with every policy and every expenditure of the Government.

What you are suggesting is absolute chaos.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> The Fraser Institute has just come out and essentially said that Alberta, the bastion of right wing Conservative Governments for 40 odd years, was wildly overspending for the past 10 years and that this is the root of the current challenge. They overspent in terms of inflation and population growth. The died in the wool Tories are now trying to figure out how they can blame 10 years of fiscal mismanagement on the newly elected Notley team.


...or on the oil crash

I agree completely...the Redford/Prentice PCs have been spending like drunken sailors for years.
As the revenue boom from oil increased between 2009 - 2015, the spending also ballooned.
However, there were plenty of warnings by various groups, incl. the Fraser Institute for several years.
*This study *was done in late 2012.

I would also say that the flavors of various parties vary from province to province.
There are regional flavors.
For instance, in Ontario, the PC Party under John Tory would have been very different than the Mike Harris PC, and would have been different than the Hudak PCs.
Similarly, the NDP of Tommy Douglas in Sask is clearly not the same NDP as Bob Rae's in Ontario.

In Alberta, the Wildrose party is probably the closest equivalent of what you'd expect a conservative party to be.

The Redford led PCs have indeed squandered away the resource wealth.


----------



## sags

I have heard some economists who say that spending isn't the problem. It is that government revenues have fallen due to tax cuts, boutique tax avoidance, and loopholes.

One wonders where those who advocate for vast spending cuts would want to start ?

People rail against taxes, but heaven forbid the government cut OAS/GIS...........even for people with considerable personal asset wealth in their homes or RRSPs.

People want to cut taxes, but want their kids education paid by the government.

People want to cut taxes, but want free universal healthcare expanded to cover more prescription drugs.

It goes on and on..........lots of people say cut spending, but not on the programs they want.

Just as the NDP discover they can't fund all their desired programs, the Conservatives discover they can't cut revenues and preserve all the programs they want.

Opposite ends of the same stick.


----------



## Sampson

HaroldCrump said:


> In Alberta, the Wildrose party is probably the closest equivalent of what you'd expect a conservative party to be.


Fiscally yes, and their certainly are Federal conservatives who also share the social views of the Wildrose, but I think even Federal conservatives have moved beyond the dark days of the Reform party's values.

The Tories in Alberta certainly are much more centrist in policies than the media and public often perceives. They were able to spend like drunken sailors for years, which really made the policies over the past 10 years more similar to what a Federal Liberal party might do.

It will still be interesting to see if the Liberal party will win any seats here in Alberta. I think the Provincial NDP winning hurts Mulcair in this province since everyone is already second guessing the Provincial NDPs after a few months. The are a few ridings where the Liberals are close or leading in Cowtown and Edmonton, but I think the stink of the National Energy Program is still present in many Albertan's minds.


----------



## fraser

This was NOT all Redford spending. She lasted about 2 years. This goes back to Stelmach and even further. Not something to blame on a particular person but on a succession of Premiers who pretended to govern in a fiscally conservative manner. Prentice was no better/no worse. 

Like ALL politicians it was all a bit of a charade. They deal in optics not reality no matter what the party.


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> Our Government, through taxes, also forces us to pay for border services, health care, pensions, etc. Should these be on a voluntary basis as well?


Please don't mix spendings you listed with Foreign Aid (that is sort of donation).


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> This was NOT all Redford spending. She lasted about 2 years. This goes back to Stelmach and even further


Yes it does, I agree.
This round of drunken spending started with Stelmach, who came into office just as the resource boom was really heating up in 2005 onwards.
I don't recall the Alberta budget numbers from the pre 2005/6 days, will need to look it up to see how far back the spending increases go.


----------



## andrewf

Another way to think about the Norway SWF vs Canada is that Canada deposits its oil revenues in its SWF and immediately withdraws it and blows it on current consumption. Are we really more saintly than Norway?

The Nordic model has consistently featured low corporate taxes and high consumption and personal income taxes used to fund the welfare state. I think the Libs are more in tune with this than the NDP. It is one thing to want a big welfare state, but if you do, you should fund it in the way that is least damaging to the economy.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I have heard some economists who say that spending isn't the problem. It is that government revenues have fallen due to tax cuts, boutique tax avoidance, and loopholes


I personally do not agree with boutique, targeted tax cuts such as the home renovation tax credit, adult fitness credit, cultural activity tax credit etc.
I have always said here on the forum that I do not agree with these kinds of targeted tax cuts.

It is better and far more efficient to have direct, across the board tax cuts that target the widest base, such as a straight income tax cut of (say) 2% at each level.
Or a straight GST cut of 2%, like the one they did back in 2006.
The issue with that is any kind of tax cut is fiercely opposed by both the other two major parties.

Ironically, both of those parties are always silent whenever this govt. has awarded subsidies, tax credits, bailouts, and other kinds of sops directly to targeted interest groups and industry sub-sectors.
Targeted tax breaks are okay when the beneficiaries are those sympathetic to the NDP & Libs, but not otherwise.



> People rail against taxes, but heaven forbid the government cut OAS/GIS...........even for people with considerable personal asset wealth in their homes or RRSPs


GIS is probably fine where it is, but I agree about OAS - it is too generous, the clawback limits starts too high and ends too high.

That said, it is not right to cut OAS (either nominally or by increasing the age of eligibility) but not cut federal public sector pensions, which are funded from the same revenue source.
Go right ahead and cut OAS, but OAS cut should be matched by equivalent cut to federal public sector pensions.



> People want to cut taxes, but want their kids education paid by the government


Why does it always have to be either/or i.e. cut service or keep service?
That is not the reality.
Same service can be provided with lower cost, too.
The issue is not whether to provide service or not - issue is, at what cost.

The taxpayer is the single largest employer in the country, yeah?
As the single largest employer, the taxpayer ought to have far better bargaining power to secure services at a lower cost.

Yet, in practice, it is the other way around - the taxpayer has become a price-taker from the govt. unions, instead of a price-maker.
Govt unions are the market makers - it should be the other way around.

This whole thing has been set up diabolically - by becoming vote banks, the govt. unions have managed to set up legislation in such a way that they have all the power.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Another way to think about the Norway SWF vs Canada is that Canada deposits its oil revenues in its SWF and immediately withdraws it and blows it on current consumption


You make it sound far worse than it is.
Part of CPP payments are funded from investment returns.
Also, CPP is sustainable out to 75 years at current contribution and withdrawal rates.
So it is not right to say we are blowing it all away.

On the other hand, what would be the purpose of building up a larger and larger SWF, from which current generation can never withdraw anything.
Each successive generation of workers are paying into it, but never receive anything.

I, personally, like the CPP style model for a SWF i.e. modeled and managed as a pension for all workers.
Canada could easily have had a pretty powerful SWF via the CPP if it had been significantly expanded back in the 1990s, or even since then.

What should have been done (or should be done moving forward, if there is political will) is to significantly expand the CPP and roll all workers into it - private & public sector.
Dissolve the scores of PS pension plans and have a single, unified pension plan for all workers.

Any individual savings outside of that can be in fully DIY RRSP/TFSA style accounts.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> I doubt we send plane loads of cash to foreign countries.
> 
> More likely, and I would hope........we send food, (such as grains purchased from Canadian farmers) medicine, and other items from Canadian companies as our foreign aid commitment.
> 
> There are also aid agencies on the ground that can be supplied from Canada.


my biggest complaint is that often (most often) what we send (food and medicine) gets hijacked by gangs who actually end up selling the stuff

if we could establish a secure end to end delivery system and put people on the ground in the needy countries at the source, i would happily see our tax dollars go for good food staples basic medication and doctors / nurses

unfortunately too much of our foreign aid goes to bureaucratic bs and people who fly around and stay in $2000 a night hotel rooms and take a lot of meetings and set up a lot of foundations


----------



## fatcat

harold i agree entirely about boutique targeted tax breaks and incentives
tax dollars should be broad and wide programs

i disagree on oas, i think we need a means tested and strong oas system (along with affordable housing)

public / federal pensions are an abomination and must go

frankly, the unions that get them need to go to

unions only work where there is tension between capital and labour and both parties have something to lose in negotiations

public sectors union don't negotiate, the take hostages (refuse to take kids to school or teach them or drive people to work or give them nursing when they are sick, these are effectively hostages) and make demands

they punish themselves by striking but they also punish the rest of us as well


----------



## gibor365

> harold i agree entirely about boutique targeted tax breaks and incentives
> tax dollars should be broad and wide programs


 I also agree  ... than it will be more simple to fill out taxes for us, and cheaper for CRA to track


----------



## sags

It would be quite an undertaking to merge all pension plans into one for all citizens, especially when pension plans involve the employees own money.

If it could be accomplished and everyone could receive a fair pension, I would we willing to sacrifice my private pension into the mix, simply to ensure our son will have retirement income security.

But you aren't going to even get started on that road with Harper in office. For some reason he detests the idea of everyone getting a fair pension.

I suspect it has something to do with the bankers and insurance company executives waiting back at his office.


----------



## fraser

I agree that they should cut out all those boutique tax cuts.....except those that I am able to take advantage of and reduce my taxes.


----------



## andrewf

The point of a SWF like Norway's is to convert a resource endowment in the form of oil reserves to a financial endowment that can generate a bit of income for future generations to enjoy. The best argument against this arrangement is that future generations tend to be wealthier than current generations. 

I don't think of Cpp as a SWF, since the benefits are tied to contributions and are not available for general government spending.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> It would be quite an undertaking to merge all pension plans into one for all citizens, especially when pension plans involve the employees own money


Well, the first step is to stop creating yet more boutique public sector defined benefit pension plans.
Look at Ontario as an example, it is crazy - every department, every ministry seems to have a separate pension plan.
There is OTPP, OMERS, OPG/HydroOne, HOOPP, PSPP, and those are just the big ones.

Their excuse is that each union has bargained for its members a unique set of features, nuances, and tweaks.
That is the type of nonsense I am referring to.
All the public sector pension plans in ON can/should be merged into one.

Get rid of separate boards, management layers, operational, IT, and other departments within each of the pension plans.



> I suspect it has something to do with the bankers and insurance company executives waiting back at his office.


No more than the number of union leaders waiting back at the offices of Kathleen Wynne and Mulcair.


----------



## andrewf

One way to do it is to require that all DB plans be implemented as deferred annuities purchased from insurance companies in the year the pension entitlement is earned. This would tend to reflect the true cost of pension promises in cash terms today, rather than under-estimated off-balance sheet liabilities. Also insulates the employer from the risk of operating a mini-insurance company and gives employees an incentive to accept less benefit certainty since fully guaranteed inflation indexed pensions would be prohibitively expensive.


----------



## andrewf

Hmmm... not that I'm a huge fan of islamists, but I'm not sure that a publication called Jews News would be very objective on the topic of the dangers of Islamism.

But anyway, can't you stick that in a new thread? That seems to be of essentially no relevance to the upcoming election.


----------



## gibor365

> That seems to be of essentially no relevance to the upcoming election.


 Not directly, but there is relevance  considering fact that Libs (and especially NDP) are planning to bring to Canada huge amount of Syrian muslims and against Harper's niqab ban


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> One way to do it is to require that all DB plans be implemented as deferred annuities purchased from insurance companies in the year the pension entitlement is earned. This would tend to reflect the true cost of pension promises in cash terms today, rather than under-estimated off-balance sheet liabilities.


Yup, completely agree with that.
It will also factor in a true market value of the guarantee.
Right now, the taxpayer is giving away the guarantee for free to the DBP beneficiary i.e. the govt. guarantee is not reflected in the cost.

That said, we also need a check/balance in the system that prevents unions from simply jacking up their wages to offset any increase in pension contributions.
That's the other half of the equation.
Pension reform is all fine and great, but the end purpose for taxpayers is defeated if unions succeed in getting 10%, 15% or whatever wage increases to offset that cost.



> Also insulates the employer from the risk of operating a mini-insurance company


That's right, like how Air Canada is a pension plan that also operates an airline as a side business, and Bombardier is a pension plan that also sells some aircrafts every now and then (and apparently not any more in recent times)


----------



## gibor365

Jut came back from advanced poll...Harper got 3 more votes from our family 
Go Harper Go!


----------



## mrPPincer

gibor said:


> Go Harper Go!


^+1000
agree 100% just not sure we mean it in exactly the same way :biggrin:


----------



## fraser

I am hoping to attend Harper's 'going away party' in 10 days or so.

Don't care where he goes just as long as he is gone. Perhaps a vacation in the 1000 islands area.....one week on each island!


----------



## sags

The latest poll tracker results show the Liberals 2% ahead of the PC and trending upwards, and with a 9 riding lead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html#polls

Early election polls showed a very heavy turnout of voters.

More people voting is usually an indication they want a change.

It looks like Canada will have a new government.


----------



## Moneytoo

gibor said:


> Jut came back from advanced poll...Harper got 3 more votes from our family
> Go Harper Go!


And 4 more from ours (me, my husband and his parents) Daughter voted Liberal. And, surprisingly, not because I told her that Jastin looks like a cross between Peter Facinelli and James Franko lol She actually went on a website where they recommend per riding for whom to vote against Conservatives - so at least in our riding NDP doesn't seem to have a chance (and I really like our Liberal candidate - he came by on Friday - promised her I'll vote for him next time... )


----------



## sags

I think Canadians have tuned out negative messaging and are keen to move in a more positive direction.


----------



## gibor365

> Daughter voted Liberal.


 In our family our 20 y.o. son, on opposite, the most devoted Conservative 

Some of his points:
- less taxes we pay, more money he'll inherit 
- he didn't take any student loans and working every 3rd semester...so why he should pay for loans who took students studing different BS like art or Canadian history


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> I think Canadians have tuned out negative messaging and are keen to move in a more positive direction.


you mean to vote for Conservatives?! Agree!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> ... More people voting is usually an indication they want a change. It looks like Canada will have a new government.


You really are trying hard to convince yourself aren't you :nevreness:


----------



## s123

TPP is the big deal for Canadian.(or any other country)

Is Liberals support TPP or NOT?
How anybody can vote without knowing this?

The Secret Treaty That Could Ruin The World 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W4Zc55pCtY


----------



## fraser

How can we make a decision on TPP when we have not seen any of the details??

Not certain how anyone can be for or against it until we know what is in the treaty. Until that time, it is smoke, mirrors, conjecture, BS, and political machinations.
Same with the so called rescue package for dairy farmers and the auto industry. 

Devil is in the details however I do think Harper is more than a dollar short and a day late when it comes to addressing the auto industry challenges. The horses have bolted...to Mexico. Who cares if the treaty will allow us to import auto components from Thailand duty free if we are not longer assembling vehicles in Canada???


----------



## humble_pie

^^


i'm only familiar with the chapter 11 provisions of already-signed NAFTA & CAFTA. These permit foreign corporations to sue domestic governments in a signatory country whose legal enactments the foreign corporation considers to be thwarting its attempts to earn a legitimate profit.

the court itself is well known. It's the ICSID in washington, DC, an offshoot of the World Bank. Three arbitrators preside at each hearing. Each of the parties gets to chose one arbitrator, then together the 2 who are chosen decide on the 3rd.

i believe that in NAFA & CAFTA cases, the decision of the arbitrators is final. There is no appeal.

a well-known case is tiny Pacific Rim of vancouver, which sued the government of impoverished el Salvador for $100 million several years ago. The mining company claims it would have made that much profit if the tiny central american country had issued a mining permit for the orebody claim it had purchased in cabanas province, not far from the capital city of san Salvador.

the ICSID has already ruled that el Salvador had no obligation to give Pacific Rim a permit to build a mine. However, there has not yet been any ruling on whether the company has been deprived of theoretical profits it believes it might have earned from a built-out mining operation at el dorado in cabanas.

i'm not familiar with any provisions pertaining to intellectual property that might be part of the TPP, so i'm happy to see cmf members such as fatcat & others already on the case. Cat, can we nominate you as the cmf watchdog on this issue?


----------



## fraser

I would go even further. 

Not only do we not know what is in the tentative agreement, even when we do most of us will have no idea of the nuances until two or three years into the agreement. It will only be then that we will be able to look back and assess or experience the outcomes of trade disputes that are settled under the terms of the agreements. This is the stuff of highly trained trade negotiators and lawyers. The notion of a politician telling us what is really in the agreement is preposterous. Yes, they can give us a broad outline, but nothing more.


----------



## humble_pie

yes, in the pacific rim case the lawyers on each side were the giant firms who were & are America's leading trade negotiators. I never could figure out how el Salvador was managing to pay for such distinguished legal services.


----------



## fraser

The law firms will be rubbing their hands in glee. This will generate millions of dollars in opinion fees and then more millions in potential litigation fees. They will be able to sell the opinions, or relevant portions thereof modified for a particular client, many times over.

So just think, if high end lawyers are needed to interpret the agreement what chance does the average voter have? And would anyone really believe what a politician of any stripe has to say about it during an election? Not me.


----------



## s123

TPP is an uncertain/secret deal to the public.
How the gov. could agree with uncertain deals and push thorough???
The clear information should come out.

http://aftinet.org.au/cms/isds-sue-governments-tpp-2013 
The US wants special rights for foreign investors included in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would allow foreign investors to sue governments for millions of dollars if their investments are ‘harmed’ by a change in a law or policy, even if that law or policy is designed to protect public health or the environment. The proposal is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS.

Mining:
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) US corporations have used ISDS to sue governments for tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars over legitimate health and environment legislation. Currently, the US Lone Pine energy company is using ISDS provisions in NAFTA to sue the provincial government of Quebec for $250 million because it suspended shale gas mining pending an environmental study in response to community concerns.


----------



## humble_pie

s123 said:


> TPP is an uncertain/secret deal to the public.
> How the gov. could agree with uncertain deals and push thorough???
> The clear information should come out.
> 
> http://aftinet.org.au/cms/isds-sue-governments-tpp-2013
> The US wants special rights for foreign investors included in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would allow foreign investors to sue governments for millions of dollars if their investments are ‘harmed’ by a change in a law or policy, even if that law or policy is designed to protect public health or the environment. The proposal is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS.
> 
> Mining:
> Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) US corporations have used ISDS to sue governments for tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars over legitimate health and environment legislation. Currently, the US Lone Pine energy company is using ISDS provisions in NAFTA to sue the provincial government of Quebec for $250 million because it suspended shale gas mining pending an environmental study in response to community concerns.



exaggerating only slightly, one could say that a highly effective international business plan would be to buy or implant a toehold of a business in a foreign country that is a member of the trade agreement.

be sure to have a grandiose business plan showing how that toehold *could* grow into a multi-billion $$ enterprise.

then wait until, sooner or later, the host country increases its minimum wage or enacts by-laws prohibiting one of the toxic off-gasses the toehold might produce ... or ... or ...

then sue the effing foreign bastards up their kazoos! that's the real business plan, nothing more than a series of lawsuits.


----------



## fraser

To be fair, TPP will not be secret. The current Government has pledged to bring it before Parliament.

The issue then is not then one of secrecy but one of understanding it and the issues presented by interested/knowledgeable parties.

An understanding may not come until a number of years post TPP when some sort of dispute/litigation rears it ugly head. 

Cannot blame the Gov't for negotiating in private. This was probably a condition of the negotiations for all participants and it is a logical condition. If they negotiated in public there would never be an agreement.


----------



## s123

We all need more information and understand what is all about TPP.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/why-you-should-be-afraid-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/
“When the public gets a chance to understand how ISDS works… most people will be opposed, if not completely in shock,” says Gus Van Harten, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and author of Sold Down The Yangtze: Canada’s Lopsided Investment Deal With China.
...
In March, an ISDS tribunal came down against Canada for rejecting a mega-quarry proposed by Bilcon. The tribunal ruled that a negative environmental assessment of the site on Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy, with its endangered right whales, had been improperly conducted. A decision on the approximately $300 million damage claim is pending. 
...
But since 2005, it has been hit with 70 per cent of all NAFTA claims, for a total of 36. Perhaps because of Canada’s unyielding support of ISDS and its demonstrated willingness to pay damages, Canada now stands as the most sued developed country in the world.


----------



## humble_pie

s123 said:


> since 2005, it [canada] has been hit with 70 per cent of all NAFTA claims, for a total of 36. Perhaps because of Canada’s unyielding support of ISDS and its demonstrated willingness to pay damages, Canada now stands as the most sued developed country in the world.


horrors, is this true? who knew

i remember when NAFTA was in prep, a few astute writers & journos saw the loopholes that would allow foreign corporations to sue our nation silly. I remember reading how even a municipality that enacted a mild new pollution by-law could trigger a foreign lawsuit. I remember no one grasping any of this. I remember hardly being able to believe it myself.


----------



## gibor365

Obscurantists are celebrating :stupid:
We lost this battle, but not war!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zunera-ishaq-niqab-ban-citizenship-oath-1.3257762

Federal Court of Appeal is bunch of masochists!


----------



## gibor365

Weber Academy - The Canadian Government Just Aided Muslims In A Way You Would Not Believe. It's a disgrace


----------



## fatcat

that picture in every newspaper in canada could not come at a better time for harper ...


----------



## sags

Zunera Ishaq..........a courageous and strong willed woman who took a stand against statutory nonsense, despite the full weight of the government against her.

She took a stand when she was 15 and started wearing the niqab as a part of her religious convictions, despite her parent's objections and concerns.

She is a high school teacher and soon will be teaching in Ontario. Her students will see a strong role model. I hope she considers politics some day.


----------



## sags

fatcat said:


> that picture in every newspaper in canada could not come at a better time for harper ...


The niqab ceremony picture ?

The issue/non issue hurt the NDP in Quebec and helped the Conservatives a little, but will hurt Harper in BC..............and hasn't been a factor in Ontario where the Liberals appear to be gaining a lot of seats.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> The niqab ceremony picture ?
> 
> The issue/non issue hurt the NDP in Quebec and helped the Conservatives a little, but will hurt Harper in BC..............and hasn't been a factor in Ontario where the Liberals appear to be gaining a lot of seats.


you are my new definition of the word "optomist" ... that picture will make the vast majority of canadians angry and will be a net positive for harper

i feel sorry for the poor students that get thrown in to her class, it shouldn't be allowed, it's not only a racist insult to the students but it is sexist and misogynist statement of the worst kind

teaching a class in a public school while wearing a mask ?

r u serious ?

if she wants to teach in an islamic school that's perfectly fine, that is her right, but not in a public school, not a chance ...


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

sags said:


> Zunera Ishaq..........a courageous and strong willed woman...


Well it is interesting that in this interview, Tarek Fatah, also a muslim, has a very different opinion of the woman:
 [url]http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=724263
[/URL]


----------



## scorpion_ca

I have decided that I am going to vote for liberal party tomorrow......this will be my first vote in the federal election.......any thought why I shouldn't vote for liberal party?


----------



## GoldStone

scorpion_ca said:


> any thought why I shouldn't vote for liberal party?


Liberal party has been a train wreck here in Ontario. I would not want to see more of the same at the federal level.


----------



## fraser

Never judge the federal party by the provincial party and vice versa.

They are completely different animals. Some back room players may overlap but that is it. BC Liberal Party for example is very,very different from the federal Liberal Party in BC.


----------



## GoldStone

You are right about BC Libs, but that's a different story.

Ontario Libs and Federal Libs are not different animals. The two parties are closely aligned.


----------



## sags

fatcat said:


> you are my new definition of the word "optomist" ... that picture will make the vast majority of canadians angry and will be a net positive for harper
> 
> i feel sorry for the poor students that get thrown in to her class, it shouldn't be allowed, it's not only a racist insult to the students but it is sexist and misogynist statement of the worst kind
> 
> teaching a class in a public school while wearing a mask ?
> 
> r u serious ?
> 
> if she wants to teach in an islamic school that's perfectly fine, that is her right, but not in a public school, not a chance ...


She would probably be wise to teach in Muslim schools, to avoid possible hassles in the future.

Considering the top ranked schools in our school board are Muslim, it wouldn't be a bad choice for her to make.


----------



## fatcat

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Well it is interesting that in this interview, Tarek Fatah, also a muslim, has a very different opinion of the woman:
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=724263


farking brilliant OMO !!! thanks for that ... it is refreshing to hear someone who has the balls to tell the g'damn truth ...lets get mr. fatah to run for office and make him the first muslim pm, fine by me...


----------



## scorpion_ca

Just read the news http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-worker-quits-due-to-long-line-ups-1.3267083

New Canadian wants to vote.....I think we might get new PM


----------



## gibor365

> I hope she considers politics some day.


 I also hope that she will become NDP or Liberals candidate.... it would be political suicide by such party


----------



## andrewf

Goldstone, unfortunately most Canadians don't want a 40 year conservative dynasty like Alberta had. They have to go sooner or later. It looks like 'sooner' is in about 7 days.


----------



## GoldStone

Yeah, sure, looks like it.

I'm hoping for a silver lining. Federal Liberals and the provinces agree to expand CPP. Wynn abandons the ill-conceived ORPP. That would be a good outcome.


----------



## My Own Advisor

I think expanding CPP is a good thing.

It will interesting to see how it all shakes down...


----------



## GoldStone

I don't know if CPP expansion is good or not, but it's definitely a better solution than ORPP.


----------



## andrewf

I would agree with that. ORPP is not a very good solution, and I have serious concerns about governance and political interference. Ontario does not need a caisse de depot.

I have no illusions that a Liberal government is going to be perfect. But at least they are going to be imperfect in different ways than the current government. They are making some good noises about strengthening parliament and electoral reform, but then again, so did Harper before he was elected. I think they will do less harm than an NDP government would.


----------



## gibor365

as per http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-election-forecast-2015/article25377958/
50% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats
0.3% chance that the NDP gets the most seats
51% chance that the Liberals get the most seats
17% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat
2% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more
2% chance that any party gets a majority

So, minority goverment, Cons or Libs (God forbid) is not clear


----------



## protomok

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Well it is interesting that in this interview, Tarek Fatah, also a muslim, has a very different opinion of the woman:
> [url]http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=724263
> [/URL]


+1


----------



## andrewf

> 50% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats
> 0.3% chance that the NDP gets the most seats
> 51% chance that the Liberals get the most seats


I only have a degree in mathematics, but from what I recall, probabilities sum to 100%.


----------



## nathan79

Lol.

In any case let's remember that the polls are notoriously unreliable (just ask any BCer). 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ble-in-an-age-of-cellphones-and-telemarketing


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> I only have a degree in mathematics, but from what I recall, probabilities sum to 100%.


not in this election


----------



## s123

s123;We all need more information and understand what is all about TPP.
[url said:


> https://nowtoronto.com/news/why-you-should-be-afraid-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/[/url]
> 
> “When the public gets a chance to understand how ISDS works… most people will be opposed, if not completely in shock,” says Gus Van Harten, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and author of Sold Down The Yangtze: Canada’s Lopsided Investment Deal With China.
> ...
> 
> What do you think about ISDS?
> If you are disagree, comment/voice out to the Liberal.
> 
> 
> The TPP deal needs to be voted on. What will the Liberals and NDP do?
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2259491/t...be-voted-on-what-will-the-liberal-and-ndp-do/
> 
> Trudeau sat on the fence when asked Monday morning, not saying whether his party would support or reject the deal.
> Tom Mulcair : “If elected, Canada will not be part of an agreement that removes 20,000 Canadian jobs. Period.”
> 
> 
> ISDS Study:
> http://www.flushthetpp.org/isds-stu...ons-abuse-secret-tribunals-bully-governments/
> • Canadian investors have only won or favourably settled four out of 28 concluded cases—a “success” rate of just 14%—and none of the winning “Canadian” investors were both based in Canada and invoking a Canadian investment treaty.
> 
> • 17 ISDS cases involving Canadian investors are still in progress.
> Of the 55 cases identified in the study, only four resulted in a favourable outcome for the Canadian investor. In comparison, Canada has lost nearly half the ISDS cases it has faced from foreign investors, and has been pressured into backtracking on important public health and environmental regulations as a result of those losses.


----------



## sags

Who gains and loses on free trade deals ?

Multi-national corporations gain. They manufacture products in low wage countries to sell to Canadians, and keep the profits shielded from taxes offshore.

Third world countries, with deep cultural and consumer choice differences gain. Their people are employed manufacturing goods to sell to Canadians, but aren't interested in anything we would export except the raw materials and resources they need to keep their manufacturing in place.

Canada loses, with manufacturing job losses and the technology and skills that are transferred to the low wage countries. In many industries, we no longer have the structure to manufacture anything, even if we wanted to. The "hollowing out" effect isn't just factory floor jobs. The suppliers leave.......the engineering leaves.......everything connected to the manufacturing leaves.

Consumers lose, although products are cheaper.........they are of poorer quality and can pose health and safety risks. Cheap stuff doesn't last and soon finds it's way into our landfill sites. Cheap goods turn society into a "throw away" society......which Canada has become.

The record on free trade is pretty clear. Good jobs lost.........replaced by low paid service jobs. If it were not for a huge increase in the size of the public service over the past decades, the loss of jobs would have been more apparent.

When the government is constrained in hiring in the public service, the effect will become more noticeable, as it has recently with the loss of tens of thousands of full time jobs replaced by part time jobs and self employment (which more often than not doesn't provide a living wage).

But Conservatives, lobbied heavily by international corporations continue to believe that trading with countries like Vietnam is going to be a boom for Canada.

What in the world do we make...............that fits into the Vietnamese consumer culture, they can afford..........and want to buy ?

Our trade "deficits" speak for themselves. I believe it was minus $2.5 Billion in August. 

Beyond commodities such as oil. I have seen little evidence by TPP promoters which industries and specific companies would benefit from the deal.

Some analysts have said insurance companies and banks. Bully for them...........what does it do for Canadian jobs ?

Mulcair has said he won't sign it. Trudeau wants to examine the contents. I think after examining the contents the Liberals won't sign it either.

It probably won't matter anyways, because the TPP is dead on arrival in the US.

Both Republicans and Democrats have said they won't sign it. As Donald Trump has said.......these are terrible deals.

Obama wanted to push the TPP through as a legacy of his Presidency because he has precious little to show for 8 years in the White House.

I doubt the TPP is going anywhere. There is a lot of push back in Europe on it.

It was a group of beaurocrats sitting around deciding the future of people, with the only input coming from the corporations that would benefit.


----------



## fatcat

s123 said:


> s123;We all need more information and understand what is all about TPP.
> [url said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://nowtoronto.com/news/why-you-should-be-afraid-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/[/url]
> 
> “When the public gets a chance to understand how ISDS works… most people will be opposed, if not completely in shock,” says Gus Van Harten, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and author of Sold Down The Yangtze: Canada’s Lopsided Investment Deal With China.
> ...
> 
> What do you think about ISDS?
> If you are disagree, comment/voice out to the Liberal.
> 
> 
> The TPP deal needs to be voted on. What will the Liberals and NDP do?
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2259491/t...be-voted-on-what-will-the-liberal-and-ndp-do/
> 
> Trudeau sat on the fence when asked Monday morning, not saying whether his party would support or reject the deal.
> Tom Mulcair : “If elected, Canada will not be part of an agreement that removes 20,000 Canadian jobs. Period.”
> 
> 
> ISDS Study:
> http://www.flushthetpp.org/isds-stu...ons-abuse-secret-tribunals-bully-governments/
> • Canadian investors have only won or favourably settled four out of 28 concluded cases—a “success” rate of just 14%—and none of the winning “Canadian” investors were both based in Canada and invoking a Canadian investment treaty.
> 
> • 17 ISDS cases involving Canadian investors are still in progress.
> Of the 55 cases identified in the study, only four resulted in a favourable outcome for the Canadian investor. In comparison, Canada has lost nearly half the ISDS cases it has faced from foreign investors, and has been pressured into backtracking on important public health and environmental regulations as a result of those losses.
> 
> 
> 
> but of course nobody knows what's in the deal ... trudeau is non-committal but unsurprisingly mulcair having not even seen the deal is protecting his union buddies even though this may well be a net job-gainer​ for canada
> 
> the ndp is clueless when it comes to creating jobs, they have no idea ...
> 
> mulcair is against something _he hasn't even seen_
Click to expand...


----------



## mrPPincer

Mulcair and team would have to pore over the details just as everybody else will have to, which is why he put in the qualifier '_an agreement that removes 20,000 Canadian jobs_'.

His history as a lawyer gives him an advantage in looking over this deal, I would guess he has a pretty solid grasp on the basics of it already.


----------



## fraser

Make no mistake, if this deal goes ahead with all signatories except Canada our world will change. It will no longer be a question of what we have now in terms of trade vs. what we could have if we were signatiories, it will be what we have now vs what trading or trading opportunities will could loose.

I know nothing of the agreement and really do not have an opinion one way or the other. But to use the present trading environment may be a just a little misleading if the other countries go ahead with it. 

I am not a supporter of the current Government however they may be in a very awkward position. Do a deal, make some concessions, get some access, make the best of it vs. being left in the cold. Tough choices for any Government but this is what good Government is all about. 

Hopefully we will get the details, comprehend the impact, and then have a discussion based on fact.


----------



## andrewf

I am in favour of increased trade liberalization. I am however skeptical of greater protection for intellectual property. Software patents are a joke, and copyright is totally out of hand.


----------



## dogcom

Apparently in the US Fraser only some big corporations are allowed to look at it. Congressmen are only allowed to look at it in a guarded room and are not allowed to take notes. I don't know for sure how true this is but if it is true then the US really has gone down the hole and the freedom it once stood for is quickly disappearing. A deal like this is to important not to be debated completely and clearly.

http://www.citizen.org/tpp


----------



## humble_pie

dogcom said:


> Apparently in the US Fraser only some big corporations are allowed to look at it. Congressmen are only allowed to look at it in a guarded room and are not allowed to take notes. I don't know for sure how true this is but if it is true then the US really has gone down the hole and the freedom it once stood for is quickly disappearing. A deal like this is to important not to be debated completely and clearly.
> 
> http://www.citizen.org/tpp




this business about select invitees only being allowed to gaze upon the draft copy of the agreement, in a guarded room, not allowed to take notes or make copies, is all quite familiar to me.

the same thing happened with a critical document under CAFTA with canadian miner pacific rim. It had commissioned an environmental impact study of the minesite at el dorado. But neither the local residents of the district nor any politician in el Salvador was allowed to see the EIS study save under these identical circumstances. Allowed was only a brief visit in a special chamber, i believe maximum 15 minutes, no copies of document, no notes permitted. The total viewing period only lasted a month or so.


----------



## dogcom

Humble hopefully this will not happen here in Canada.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The trend is slightly reminiscent of the June 2014 Ontario elections...OLP & PCs started off locked in a tie.

Initially the PCs pulled ahead because of their message of fiscal prudence, balanced budget, spending restraint, etc.
Then the OLP hit back with a very strong anti-austerity message...they played to their strengths courted the unions and other lobby groups (who were anyway sore with the NDP for voting down a highly pro spending budget).

...and then PC leader Hudak did that mother-of-all gaffes with his Million Jobs Plan & laying off 100K govt. workers.
The OLP pulled noticeably ahead.

Then, in the last few days before the vote, with Liberal lead getting stronger and the writing on the wall, the unions, public sector workers, etc. all switched sides from the NDP and voted heavily OLP as part of the "Stop Hudak" campaign.
That is what changed the outcome from a minority OLP govt. to a thumping majority.

In this election, I see the 2nd stage forming now.
Liberals pulled slightly ahead last week, and over the weekend are now noticeably ahead by at least 2% points.
I'd say at this point, that lead is unbeatable i.e. we are looking at a minority Liberal govt.

However, the last stage of the game is yet to unfold...the traditional NDP supporters switching their vote en masse to the Liberals in the "Stop Harper" campaign.
We just could be looking at a majority Liberal govt. in Ottawa.

HDS has officially peaked (i.e. *Harper Derangement Syndrome*)


----------



## andrewf

Is the generalized form of HDS just IDS (Incumbent Derangement Syndrome)?

Eventually every incumbent is so irrationally loathed, which is often what leads to their defeat.


----------



## HaroldCrump

If so, why did the IDS not apply to Ontario in 2014?
After all, the Grits had been in office for 11 yrs at that time.
And they had committed more than their fair share of blunders, scams, scandals, etc.


----------



## humble_pie

dogcom said:


> Humble hopefully this will not happen here in Canada.



dog this is the thing, those viewing restrictions are so similar, even identical, that they look to be part of every free trade agreement viewing process.

i don't understand why people don't rise up in protest. How can US congressmen discuss the TPP when they can't even see or study the draft agreement? 

same thing will happen in canada. I'd never *hope* that canada would have better, more democratic viewing procedures when the US itself does not. We may not start out that secretive as a nation, but the trade agreements will make us so.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> How can US congressmen discuss the TPP when they can't even see or study the draft agreement?


They are supposed to get the full text 60 days before discussion & vote.
I forget how many ,000 pages it is though :biggrin:


----------



## none

Voted for NDP and ate pie three times yesterday. Fun weekend.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> If so, why did the IDS not apply to Ontario in 2014?
> After all, the Grits had been in office for 11 yrs at that time.
> And they had committed more than their fair share of blunders, scams, scandals, etc.


Are you trying to say there is no hatred of McGuinty and Liberals? I think you are evidence to the contrary.


----------



## HaroldCrump

But I am the "hard right" - the 30% minority that put Harper in power.
I don't count :biggrin:


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> dog this is the thing, those viewing restrictions are so similar, even identical, that they look to be part of every free trade agreement viewing process.
> 
> i don't understand why people don't rise up in protest. How can US congressmen discuss the TPP when they can't even see or study the draft agreement?
> 
> same thing will happen in canada. I'd never *hope* that canada would have better, more democratic viewing procedures when the US itself does not. We may not start out that secretive as a nation, but the trade agreements will make us so.


in the usa, a frightening amount of the actual legislation is actually written by lobbyists

major bills are so complex that few legislators fully understand them and changes are often made in other bills bit by bit and piece by piece

i don't think there is any reason to the think that this bill is any different than 100's of other complex bills and trade agreements

i doubt that it will grant corporations the all-consuming power that people are advertising

there will be both good and bad

we all have our pet projects, like andrew i am concerned about internet, speech, ip, patents and copyrights

the guy carrying the file on this one is the brilliant michael geist

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/


----------



## gibor365

none said:


> Voted for NDP ...


Very nice! More people vote for NDP, more chances we (Cons) gonna get minority government


----------



## none

gibor said:


> Very nice! More people vote for NDP, more chances we (Cons) gonna get minority government


Not in this riding the conservative is polling in at 13.8%. Basically between NDP and green.

I'm not a huge fan of greens. I think some of their policies are short-sighted and frankly a bit dangerous. in particular the one allowing non-profits to be political. that kind of shocks me - i think less money in campaigns the better.

I do kind of hope the Cons get a minority government. I think that would solidify Canadian's into going for a more fair form of government besides this antiquated first past the post (which of course the Liberals benefits handsomely from when there was a reform party). Anyway, as is, it's unfair and I would like to see it changed. Also, I think the Canadian economy is going to implode once housing collapses and I would like to see the Cons have to eat that rather than blame it on the NDP as an easy scapegoat.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

gibor said:


> Very nice! More people vote for NDP, more chances we (Cons) gonna get minority government


^+1. Yes, some voting for NDP is good 
Unfortunately I think HaroldCrump's earlier post (#860) could come to pass (Ontario NDP's jump sinking ship and support Libs) and that would be a disaster.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> I'm not a huge fan of greens. I think some of their policies are short-sighted and frankly a bit dangerous. in particular the one allowing non-profits to be political. that kind of shocks me


Non profits are already highly political...Tides Foundation, Sum Of Us, Oak Foundation etc.


----------



## gibor365

> Not in this riding the conservative is polling in at 13.8%. Basically between NDP and green.


 Whatever! NDP, Green or BQ are all good for us .... just take seats from Trudeau Jr


----------



## none

gibor said:


> Whatever! NDP, Green or BQ are all good for us .... just take seats from Trudeau Jr


Not even close for libs either - they are polling around 15%. In the context of Cons/libs it's like this seat never existed.


----------



## gibor365

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ^+1. Yes, some voting for NDP is good
> .


BQ is even better  CBC poll gives them range 1-13 seats! 13 is good 



> Unfortunately I think HaroldCrump's earlier post (#860) could come to pass (Ontario NDP's jump sinking ship and support Libs) and that would be a disaster


 as we say in Russian "Hope dies last"


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> Non profits are already highly political...Tides Foundation, Sum Of Us, Oak Foundation etc.


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/charitiesandgiving/


----------



## HaroldCrump

I meant the non profits are already campaigning for issues that align closely with certain political parties...such as the anti-pipeline issues.


----------



## gibor365

none said:


> Not even close for libs either - they are polling around 15%. In the context of Cons/libs it's like this seat never existed.


So, your vore goes to garbage in any case 
But I hope there will be more leftist like you (voting NDP)  and many already did in advanced vote...
In my riding race is very closed, so more equaly NDP/Libs split, better for us


----------



## none

Sure if that's the way you want to put it. Referring to people as garbage i think is a bit over the top though.


----------



## nathan79

Can't find any polls for my riding, but it always goes Conservative anyway, so I'm used to my vote not mattering.

The interesting fact is that the NDP candidate is the only of the major three who actually lives in the riding. And seeing as I support the federal NDP, it's a pretty simple choice for me.

The Liberal candidate is a virtual unknown (and what is known makes him look like a tool).


----------



## none

You can use the map here for the latest projections:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html

No vote is wasted in the sense that every vote gets the party you vote for more $$$ for the next election. A bit weird but the canadian way is pretty odd anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/end...ies-ready-for-lengthy-2015-campaign-1.2888613


----------



## nathan79

none said:


> You can use the map here for the latest projections:
> 
> http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html
> 
> No vote is wasted in the sense that every vote gets the party you vote for more $$$ for the next election. A bit weird but the canadian way is pretty odd anyway.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/end...ies-ready-for-lengthy-2015-campaign-1.2888613


Yeah, I've looked at those projections, but they're only based on provincial-level polling, not riding-specific polling.

It is good to know that my vote isn't a complete waste - I didn't actually know that detail.


----------



## gibor365

> Referring to people as garbage i think is a bit over the top though


 I didn't refer to people as garbage , I said vote goes to garbage  same way that my vore to Hudak went to garbage (and I knew it up front) on last Provincial election


----------



## andrewf

none said:


> No vote is wasted in the sense that every vote gets the party you vote for more $$$ for the next election. A bit weird but the canadian way is pretty odd anyway.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/end...ies-ready-for-lengthy-2015-campaign-1.2888613


I think you misinterpeted. The per-vote subsidy ends this year. The outcome of this election won't drive party funding going forward.


----------



## none

Crap, you're right. Geez those conservatives are dicks.

That's what I find odd about the conservatives - they don't believe at all in fairness. yeah, i think the greens are hokey but do i think it's fair that they only have 1 seat despite them winning 5% of the vote? Of course not and I find it odd how gleeful many cons (and other parties are guilty of it too although they should less gleefulness) are that they are shutting down the voice of such a large group that makes up our society. It's weird.


----------



## GoldStone

Good article in NP:

*Michael Den Tandt: Harper designed his policies for winnability, so why isn’t he winning?*

Quote:

=====================

Before we get to why Harper isn’t winning — today, we stress again — it’s worth exploring why he’s still in contention.

Many “small-c” conservatives, as the National Post’s Matt Gurney pointed out Tuesday, believe Harper has never been conservative enough, whereas centrists and leftists, judging from the way he’s often characterized by opposition trolls on social media, consider this prime minister to be an arch-fiend who, left to continue in office, would bleach all the colours from the rainbow and transform Canada into a gulag. How, given the animus he inspires, can Harper even have a hope?

The answer is that this Conservative party is different from every Canadian political party that has come before it.

I have mentioned Susan Delacourt’s 2013 book, Shopping For Votes, before, but it bears repeating; Delacourt’s conclusion, that the Conservatives’ growing vote share after 2004 was built on data mining, with policies and messaging designed via scientific marketing, goes a long way toward explaining this campaign across the board.

Academic work on this subject by Jennifer Less-Marshment, Thierry Giasson and Alex Marland makes it even more clear that the Tories began winning only after they tailored their offerings to the needs and wants of swing voters.

The Harper decade, and every policy plank that has emerged from it, was not designed principally around conservative ideology, but rather winnability. This explains why it hasn’t been particularly conservative, and indeed has often felt like Jean Chretien Liberalism with a coat of blue paint over the red.

=====================​
I very much agree with this thesis. Harper's CPC is not a right-wing conservative party. It's a fairly centrist party positioned to win the elections, rather than follow any particular ideology. In that regard, it's similar to Chretien's Liberals.

I know that "opposition trolls on social media" (LOL) will never concede this. Doesn't really matter. Harper looks to be done.


----------



## KaeJS

I'm not voting, but if I were to vote it would be for the Conservatives.

I just really don't want the Liberals to win. They would drive the economy into the shitter and there really isn't anything in their platform that would benefit someone in my position. Just another reason to get out of socialist Canada and move south with the Americans.

The only thing that I agree with in the case of the Liberals is their stance on Marijuana. I am not a smoker, but I don't understand why governments are not taxing the hell out of this. People are going to smoke regardless. We might as well churn a profit from it and have it regulated. Think of all those tax dollars...


----------



## none

That's tremendously disrespectful and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## gibor365

More than 9,000 people are pledging to vote in the federal election with their faces covered in order to make a point.

Launched on Facebook by a Quebec woman, the movement suggests people have the right to vote while wearing anything at all, whether it's a potato sack, a Darth Vader mask or a black veil.

The page's creator, Catherine LeClerc said she started the page on her own in her living room after growing frustrated with the government's inability to ban religious garb, such as the niqab, while taking oaths of citizenship or while voting.


----------



## sags

The conservative media is having the wrong conversation already.

They shouldn't be asking why Harper is losing, but why Trudeau is winning.

Interesting that Trudeau is the only candidate who isn't espousing a balanced budget as a key election plank in his campaign.

Apparently, it isn't a big issue for Canadian voters.


----------



## gibor365

> Apparently, it isn't a big issue for Canadian voters.


 Just check out how many Canadians live in debt


----------



## indexxx

KaeJS said:


> I'm not voting, but if I were to vote it would be for the Conservatives.
> 
> I just really don't want the Liberals to win. They would drive the economy into the shitter and there really isn't anything in their platform that would benefit someone in my position. Just another reason to get out of socialist Canada and move south with the Americans.
> 
> The only thing that I agree with in the case of the Liberals is their stance on Marijuana. I am not a smoker, but I don't understand why governments are not taxing the hell out of this. People are going to smoke regardless. We might as well churn a profit from it and have it regulated. Think of all those tax dollars...


So then vote NDP.


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> Interesting that Trudeau is the only candidate who isn't espousing a balanced budget as a key election plank in his campaign.
> 
> Apparently, it isn't a big issue for Canadian voters.


Average voter is financially illiterate.


----------



## andrewf

I question the financial literacy of those who think a $10 billion deficit is disastrous for a $2 trillion economy.


----------



## GoldStone

The issue is debt.

Ontario interest payments will soon become #2 expenditure in the budget, ahead of education. Or maybe we are already there. And that's with interest rates at historical lows.

Who cares... let's do more of the same at the Federal level.

BTW, what kind of tax increases do Liberals plan to keep deficits at $10 billion? They've been very evasive about their budget plans.


----------



## protomok

andrewf said:


> I question the financial literacy of those who think a $10 billion deficit is disastrous for a $2 trillion economy.


Agreed that 3 years of $10 billion deficits is essentially negligible, but after living through Dalton and now Wynne I have a lot of trouble believing that Trudeau will ever balance a budget. Maybe I'm just jaded from living in Ontario though!


----------



## fraser

I do not understand this generalization that at the Federal level the Liberals and the NDP are big spenders and the Conservatives like balanced budgets.

This may be what the rhetoric indicates but take a look at our Federal budget deficits for the last two Conservative Governments-Harper and Mulroney. 

Anything but balanced budgets, and some of the largest deficits ever. Mulroney left this country seriously in debt.

Politicians are all the same. What they say is very different than what they do. That is why they need to employ so many spin doctors in the PMO.


----------



## HaroldCrump

KaeJS said:


> I'm not voting, but if I were to vote it would be for the Conservatives.
> I just really don't want the Liberals to win.


So why won't you vote? That's about the only thing you can do to stop the Liberals.



> Just another reason to get out of socialist Canada and move south with the Americans.


Which is currently ruled by the biggest socialist in the G8 world.
And about to be ruled by the 2nd biggest socialist starting 2017.
LOL



> Think of all those tax dollars...


Will be wasted on more vote-buying and lobby group subsidies.
If only taxing things to generate more revenue ensured economic prosperity...


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Interesting that Trudeau is the only candidate who isn't espousing a balanced budget as a key election plank in his campaign.
> Apparently, it isn't a big issue for Canadian voters.


Not interesting at all...it's just good, ol' fashioned vote buying.
Every tax increase, every new "revenue tool" is already allocated to one or the other welfare program or subsidy....


----------



## sags

Interesting in the aspect that only the Liberals recognized it wouldn't be a big issue, and the NDP hurt themselves by mimicking the Conservatives on balanced budgets.

I read an article about a small ETF that is up 118%. It covers Ireland and the recovery there is phenomenal.

Their secret...........cutting spending and raising taxes.

There is no political party in Canada with that joint policy.

Liberals...........raise spending and taxes.

NDP.............raise spending and taxes.

Conservatives...........cut spending and taxes.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Interesting in the aspect that only the Liberals recognized it wouldn't be a big issue, and the NDP hurt themselves by mimicking the Conservatives on balanced budgets.


Right...they should have promised lots of lots of welfare and "tax the rich" rhetoric.
I don't think anyone was convinced by their $15 daycare plan.



> I read an article about a small ETF that is up 118%. It covers Ireland and the recovery there is phenomenal


Well, they are rebounding after one of the worst impacts of the 2008 crisis.
They almost became like Greece.
Fortunately, they have some industries and service sectors there, unlike Greece.



> Their secret...........cutting spending and raising taxes


That is very good policy when coming out of debt & deficit fueled recession.
It's just common sense...mislabeled these days as "austerity".
Even Portugal and to some extent Italy have made reforms and imposed "austerity" (relatively speaking), and they are seeing the benefits.


----------



## gibor365

> So why won't you vote? That's about the only thing you can do to stop the Liberals.


 probably he's not citizen and cannot vote.


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> Right...they should have promised lots of lots of welfare and "tax the rich" rhetoric.
> I don't think anyone was convinced by their $15 daycare plan.
> 
> 
> Well, they are rebounding after one of the worst impacts of the 2008 crisis.
> They almost became like Greece.
> Fortunately, they have some industries and service sectors there, unlike Greece.
> 
> 
> That is very good policy when coming out of debt & deficit fueled recession.
> It's just common sense...mislabeled these days as "austerity".
> Even Portugal and to some extent Italy have made reforms and imposed "austerity" (relatively speaking), and they are seeing the benefits.


As far as I remember, several years ago they cut corporate tax


> Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is a levy on a company's profits. The tax is charged on a company's income. The corporation tax in Ireland is quite low, and is often cited as an example of tax competition, as it is used as an incentive for foreign companies to invest in the state.
> 
> There are two rates of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland:
> 12.5% for trading income
> 25% for non-trading income


and btw, they have free high-education for EU members


----------



## none

gibor said:


> probably he's not citizen and cannot vote.


If he is, he's barely one - just a nobody in the democracy/


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ireland is a tax haven and has benefitted tremendously from the tax inversion deals by US corporations.
But on the other hand, they had a massive R/E bubble (fueled by the same foreign capital coming in).

Ironically, the Irish are now amongst the strongest opponents of the TTIP.


----------



## gibor365

Don't know too much about Ireland, but they have the biggest Intel FABs .... 




> Interesting in the aspect that only the Liberals recognized it wouldn't be a big issue, and the NDP hurt themselves by mimicking the Conservatives on balanced budgets


 It's difficult to believe that the biggest spenders can have balanced budget 
Also, IMO, if Liberals form government, budget dificit will be much more than 10 bil, and they won't balanced it in even 10 uears.....obviously they will be blaming Harper for it


----------



## HaroldCrump

...and I don't know what's FAB, so we are even :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> ...and I don't know what's FAB, so we are even :biggrin:


In the microelectronics industry a semiconductor fabrication plant (commonly called a *fab*; sometimes foundry) is a factory where devices such as integrated circuits are manufactured. 

Interestingly ... I've read in International Living that West Ireland became one of the top destinations for N/A retirees ... other European countries include: Crovatia, Spain and Malta


----------



## KaeJS

I am a citizen. I was born here.

I just feel there is nobody worth voting for. I'm not going to waste my time. Maybe if everyone stopped voting we could get some sensible parties/politicians running... Also consider (as noted upthread) that most voters are not exactly the brightest of people. When it comes to voting, I am a minority in Canada as a single white male. Do you think any of these parties are catering to the likes of single white males in their 20's? They are shooting for immigrants, families and seniors. They will do whatever they can (Especially Trudeau, my god) to get enough votes just to win.

NDP will drive the economy and corporations into the ground. Maybe even worse than the liberals would. I will not vote NDP, either. Conservatives are the only option. They don't have all of the right ideas, but they have the most sensible ideas out of the big parties.


----------



## HaroldCrump

KaeJS said:


> Maybe if everyone stopped voting we could get some sensible parties/politicians running...


That is a dangerous theory...more likely the exact opposite will happen.
There will _always_ be certain sections voting, such as lobby groups with vested interests that have been promised subsidies & sops.
So you will end up getting highly partisan governments, on either left/right.



> I am a minority in Canada as a single white male. Do you think any of these parties are catering to the likes of single white males in their 20's? They are shooting for immigrants, families and seniors.


That is indeed a valid point and I agree.


----------



## gibor365

> Conservatives are the only option. They don't have all of the right ideas, but they have the most sensible ideas out of the big parties.


 This is why I voted Conservatives, even though my views much closer to Reform Party 



> Maybe if everyone stopped voting we could get some sensible parties/politicians running


 I was planning to boycot this elections, but because


> NDP will drive the economy and corporations into the ground. Maybe even worse than the liberals would


 and both will raise taxes , I changed my mind and voted Conservatives



> That is a dangerous theory...


 on the other hand , if only 15-20% will be voting in Federal election, the Givernment should've done something


----------



## KaeJS

none said:


> That's tremendously disrespectful and you should be ashamed of yourself.


It's disrespectful that I think all of the parties are horrible and I don't want to vote?

If you haven't noticed... most of the younger generation does not vote. It might have something to do with the lack of trust/faith in our current politicians (and the fact that most of the younger generation are financially and politically inept)


----------



## gibor365

> If you haven't noticed... most of the younger generation does not vote.


 Actually I noticed that this election many young guys are voting .... My son is 20 y.o., and he told me that practically all his friend University students voting Conservatives, they don't want to see destroyed economy when they graduate


----------



## fatcat

there is not a damn thing wrong with not voting as long as its a conscious act
you look the field over and conclude that you are going to sit it out and let others decide
very different from being clueless about the election and not voting

i would like to see proportional representation to better reflect the population but i'm not too worried about dropping voter statistics

get people interested and they will turn out to vote as this election proves

as long as we have open, free and fair elections and we certainly do


----------



## none

KaeJS said:


> ...and the fact that most of the younger generation are financially and politically inept)


Case in point.


----------



## none

fatcat said:


> there is not a damn thing wrong with not voting as long as its a conscious act
> you look the field over and conclude that you are going to sit it out and let others decide
> very different from being clueless about the election and not voting


It's lazy. Choosing the lesser of two evils is actually a VERY important act. I would argue more important that choosing the best candidate.

Not voting is simply an act to display some kind of misguided intellectual superiority but it's anything but. People who don't vote are lazy, ignorant and disrespectful to those that fought so hard to get them that vote. Full stop.


----------



## peterk

none said:


> Not voting is simply an act to display some kind of misguided intellectual superiority but it's anything but. People who don't vote are lazy, ignorant and disrespectful to those that fought so hard to get them that vote. * Full stop.*


Hardly anything is ever "full stop", this included. :rolleyes2:


----------



## sags

It is people's right to vote, and their right to choose not to vote.

If someone is not interested or engaged in politics and don't vote, others more engaged will decide for them.

As long as they don't complain about the results, it is all good.


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> Actually I noticed that this election many young guys are voting .... My son is 20 y.o., and he told me that practically all his friend University students voting Conservatives, they don't want to see destroyed economy when they graduate


Not very representative of the average student voter. Younger and more educated tends to imply more left wing. Older and less educated are likelier to vote conservative.


----------



## peterk

gibor said:


> Actually I noticed that this election many young guys are voting .... My son is 20 y.o., and he told me that practically all his friend University students voting Conservatives, they don't want to see destroyed economy when they graduate


Perhaps a bit of Trump effect taking place here as well?


----------



## gibor365

> Not very representative of the average student voter.


 i'm not telling that this is "very representative of the average " 



> Younger and more educated tends to imply more left wing. Older and less educated are likelier to vote conservative.


 I'd say humanitarian "imply more left wing", tech - more right wing 

btw, vast majority of Jewish Canadian will be voting Conservatives regardless age 

Interestingly, my son's best friend from Lebanon .... they always were voting Liberals, this election whole family votes Conservatives... He told my son that he talked to our Liberal candidate on Go train station and got impression that he's an idiot  
Also, he said (Lebanonese guy) that Syrian refugees destroyed Lebanon (stealing , robbing etc) and he doesn't want them to come to Canada (even though he hates Assad)



> Perhaps a bit of Trump effect taking place here as well?


 Give me Canadian "Trump", I will vote for him lol


----------



## GoldStone

As a TransCanada shareholder, I am glad to see that Liberals are taking care of business.

Liberal campaign co-chair steps down over TransCanada e-mail

“The Liberal party usually waits until after an election is over to get involved in a scandal,” said NDP candidate Charlie Angus. “It just goes to show that the ‘real change’ Mr. Trudeau is offering is apparently to replace the Conservative ‘old boys club’, with the Liberal ‘old boys club’.”

LOL


----------



## GoldStone

*Campaign co-chair lobbying email a throwback to the dark days of Liberal scandals past*

"real change" (TM)


----------



## dogcom

I have a problem with all the parties going into the election and will have to hold my nose to vote.

I am going conservative most likely but I don't like their stand on the TPP and the way Harper is so willing to get into foreign conflicts and affairs. As the saying goes, it is the other agenda, that scares me.


----------



## gibor365

> the way Harper is so willing to get into foreign conflicts and affairs


 I'm in exactly same position , but unless we don't have our own Trump, there is no choice.... NDP/Libs are much worse in major aspects ...


----------



## HaroldCrump

The possibility of a Liberal landslide majority, along similar lines as June 2014 ON provincial vote, is becoming more likely with each passing day.
My theory in the post # 860 above was that 4 - 5 days before the elections, the NDP voters will switch their vote in order to remove any risk of CPC minority govt. (aka strategic voting).
NDP will experience a drop in their support.

We are now in that time frame.

And this change is mainly coming from the GTA and S/ON ridings - (the immigrant and public sector vote banks).
Essentially, the 905 region will decide the fate of the elections.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> The possibility of a Liberal landslide majority, along similar lines as June 2014 ON provincial vote, is becoming more likely with each passing day.
> My theory in the post # 860 above was that 4 - 5 days before the elections, the NDP voters will switch their vote in order to remove any risk of CPC minority govt. (aka strategic voting).
> NDP will experience a drop in their support.
> 
> We are now in that time frame.
> 
> And this change is mainly coming from the GTA and S/ON ridings - (the immigrant and public sector vote banks).
> Essentially, the 905 region will decide the fate of the elections.


i'm ok with that ... just as the ndp voters are desperate to see anyone but harper back in, i am desperate to see anyone but the ndp in ...


----------



## sags

Yup.......I have been bouncing back and forth between the Liberals and NDP this election, as their respective policies unfolded........but am strategically voting for the Liberals as they are tied with the incumbent PC MP in our riding. The NDP is a little back in third spot.

I don't want a split vote, with the PC sneaking up the middle.

I am thinking a lot of NDP supporters are mulling this over.

The Liberals have a ways to go for a majority though. I suspect a Liberal minority and then the drama really starts.


----------



## sags

I don't recall a past election that had so many candidates and campaign staff turfed out.

And the advertisements they are coming up with are real head scratchers. The latest PC one saying Trudeau supports "druggies and brothels" ?

Justin Trudeau had to shout down a supporter who was getting carried away the other day. Harper has had to do the same.

This election is different. More acrimonious than usual for Canadian elections.

Maybe we are being influenced too much by the political circus that goes on constantly in the US.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> The possibility of a Liberal landslide majority, along similar lines as June 2014 ON provincial vote, is becoming more likely with each passing day.
> My theory in the post # 860 above was that 4 - 5 days before the elections, the NDP voters will switch their vote in order to remove any risk of CPC minority govt. (aka strategic voting).
> NDP will experience a drop in their support.
> 
> We are now in that time frame.
> 
> And this change is mainly coming from the GTA and S/ON ridings - (the immigrant and public sector vote banks).
> Essentially, the 905 region will decide the fate of the elections.


That's interesting, because there is essentially no 'risk' of a minority CPC government. It's majority or bust for CPC. Funny that that was Harper's message in 2011, and now that it's a reality, he hasn't brought it up.


I should also note that LPC doesn't seem very close to a majority to me. Their vote is relatively inefficient with the current vote splits--they would need to get >40% nationally to have a chance at a majority. In Quebec, so much of their vote is wasted in still relatively safe NDP seats.


----------



## Userkare

I'm still somewhat on the fence, leaning towards the Conservatives. I know how I've voted for the last 40 years or so, but this is the first time voting as a retired person living on pension. Who will do the most for *me* without destroying the country in the process. Like everyone else, my issues are important to me... but I can also set aside self-interest for the good of the whole country.

I liked the TFSA increase to $10K. If I'm forced to withdraw a certain amount from RRIFs, at least I can put it into an account that doesn't tax the pittance of interest I will get from it. That will be rolled back to $5.5K if the Conservatives don't win. 

I don't care about pension income splitting; for all the years that I saved for retirement, I split the contributions 50/50 with my wife.

Liberals say they will lower the 'middle class' tax rate. Did they say what that meant? Will the lowest rate ( 20% ON ) go down?

What other promises have the parties made that will benefit me? Of course, I would have to suspend disbelief and expect the promises to be kept.


----------



## Eder

I voted PC, although I'm retired and could sidle up to the trough the NDP offers even though they have no means to pay for any of it.I voted for my kids & grandkids future in Alberta. I will be OK with whom ever the majority of Canadians support though.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> That's interesting, because there is essentially no 'risk' of a minority CPC government.


All the polls were forecasting minority CPC govt. from the outset - that changed only in the last 10 days or so.
For the first few weeks, the polls were pointing to a slim minority for the CPC, followed closely by the NDP - the Grits were in third place.



> It's majority or bust for CPC


They may have been saying that...but that was not the statistical reality.


----------



## gibor365

> NDP will experience a drop in their support.


 Lately I hear so many idiotic ads for NDP on the radio that I suspect they're doing it on purpose


----------



## humble_pie

Eder said:


> I will be OK with whom ever the majority of Canadians support though.



^^

notice that he's good with his who's & his whom's.

i'll be OK with whomever, too.

one thing about this race really warmed my soul & tickled my bones. I'd always wanted a rousing hitemup townhall type national debate. Every canadian out there arguing his colours passionately. OK we got it this time! even in cmf forum.


----------



## none

Did you watch the democrat debate the other night. Gawd, i wish we had state-people like that.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> All the polls were forecasting minority CPC govt. from the outset - that changed only in the last 10 days or so.
> For the first few weeks, the polls were pointing to a slim minority for the CPC, followed closely by the NDP - the Grits were in third place.
> 
> 
> They may have been saying that...but that was not the statistical reality.


Forecasting a CPC plurality is not the same as a CPC government. CPC minority would not have the confidence of the House and would be replaced by a Lib+NDP contraption. So it really has been majority or bust for CPC. If they don't get a majority they will be HM's Loyal Opposition.


----------



## mrPPincer

Not sure that's exactly accurate Andrew.
Both the NDP and the Libs say they will not support a _Harper_ Conservative government.

To me, that means if the Conservatives happen to win a minority, they still could potentially hold on if Harper walks, which, if I've read Harper's stance correctly, he will do.

Frankly, I'd be delighted to see a NDP/Lib coalition, and btw it's a perfectly acceptable way for our broken first-past-the-post system to represent a greater majority of voters, but for some inexplicable reason the liberal party, although it signed up for one on the dotted line, it backed out after Harper porogued parliament.


----------



## dogcom

A Lib/NDP government may not be so good. If the Lib says lets add some debt to get it done I don't think the NDP would argue very much. They would both be happy to spend as long as we can sell debt.


----------



## andrewf

Do you really think a viable outcome is for, say, the NDP to prop up a CPC government with a caretaker leader after Harper resigns, waiting for a leadership contest to become PM? I personally think that outcome would be bonkers, and a lot more politically difficult for the subordinate party in that relationship.


----------



## mrPPincer

well, there is a precedent now, they could porogue, do a quicky leadership thingy and continue with their dream of a george orwelle 1984 utopia


----------



## GoldStone

C'mon.

Libs are ahead by 10%-20% in Ontario, depending on the pollster. They will form the government. The only question remains, is it minority or majority.


----------



## GoldStone

mrPPincer said:


> well, there is a precedent now, they could porogue, do a quicky leadership thingy and continue with their dream of a george orwelle 1984 utopia


Harper Derangement Syndrome, exhibit XXXIII.


----------



## andrewf

LPC minority is currently the most likely outcome, but I would not dismiss a CPC plurality. Usually, it seems polls understate CPC popular support (shy Tory effect, or polling bias). I think in either event, the Libs would form the government.


----------



## GoldStone

CPC plurality is very unlikely at this point. Here are the latest seat projections from various sources, tracked by Andrew Coyne.










https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/654759190573899777


----------



## fraser

Perhaps prior to leaving office Mr. Harper will appoint both of the Ford brothers to the Senate.

Perhaps also Bruce Carson, or is there some sort of law that prevents Harper from appointing disbarred lawyers with criminal records and outstanding charges even if that person is a senior advisor in the PMO.


----------



## agent99

fraser said:


> Perhaps prior to leaving office Mr. Harper will appoint both of the Ford brothers to the Senate.


Do you think he might appoint Danny Williams to senate? Maybe he should have done so earlier


----------



## fraser

Unlike Conservative MP's, I do not think that placing duct tape over Danny Williams mouth, even after a Senate appointment, would deter him from speaking his mind. Mr William's integrity is greater than his desire for a Senate appointment, Cabinet position, or other federal job.

If I was invested in the duct tape commodity market in Canada I would be selling. No doubt sales will go down substantially if Harper does not form a Government.

He will no longer need it for his MP's and his Senate Members. Seemed to wear off on the Duff though!

Perhaps Dean Del Maestro could take Danny William's place on the Senate appointment list. Unlike Danny Williams, Dean Del Maestro seems to have the integrity and the personal attributes that Mr. Harper values in his Senate appointments.

Michael Sona, though a good Tory candidate, is a bit too young to be on the Senate appointment list. Besides, I think that he is still serving out his six month prison sentence for robocalls/electoral fraud. He may not be out in time prior to the change of Government


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> Perhaps prior to leaving office Mr. Harper will appoint both of the Ford brothers to the Senate


By same logic, Trudeau as PM will appoint Ben Levin, David Livingstone and Gian Ghomeshi to the Senate, right?



> Perhaps also Bruce Carson, or is there some sort of law that prevents Harper from appointing disbarred lawyers with criminal records and outstanding charges even if that person is a senior advisor in the PMO


You mean like appointing Ben Levin and Gian Gomeshi to the Senate?


----------



## gibor365

If Libs fom government, are we going still have tax split for 2015?


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> If Libs fom government, are we going still have tax split for 2015?


I think it will stay for 2015.
The change will be introduced as part of 2016, effective for 2016 tax year.
The reason is that the cancelation of income splitting goes in conjunction with other changes, such as the new Canada Child Benefit, clawback of the TFSA contribution limit, cancelation of the UCCB, changes in tax rates above $200K etc.
All of these can only be implemented via the federal budget.


----------



## sags

Sorry folks...............Sags is going to the Senate.

Anyone know where I go to get my all expenses paid by the taxpayer Senate credit card ?

I promise I will look out for your interests blah blah...........is the cafeteria lunch provided free ?


----------



## sags

I read somewhere that since the budget would be in March 2016, it is likely the TFSA contribution limit would remain at $10,000 for 2015 and 2016, and be rolled back in 2017.

If the Liberals have any brains at all, they will avoid a big hubbub and take the easy route of 2017.

If they have any brains..........that is.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Sorry folks...............Sags is going to the Senate.


You won't qualify, sags - you need to have a track record of embezzlement, sleaze, prison time, sexual harassment, etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I read somewhere that since the budget would be in March 2016, it is likely the TFSA contribution limit would remain at $10,000 for 2015 and 2016, and be rolled back in 2017.


Yup, I think so too...only Mulcair had said that his first act as Prime Minister will be to roll back the TFSA and cancel income splitting.
Therefore, I think Trudeau will let it slide until 2016.

After all, Trudeau clearly said during the interview with Peter Mans(en)bridge that his first priority as PM is climate change.
Upon becoming PM, he will immediately prepare for the climate submit in Paris.
His next act upon his return will be to call a summit of all the premiers to discuss climate change and a national carbon tax.

Given those priorities, the TFSA, income splitting etc. may live to see new year's eve 2016.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> I read somewhere that since the budget would be in March 2016, it is likely the TFSA contribution limit would remain at $10,000 for 2015 and 2016, and be rolled back in 2017.
> 
> If the Liberals have any brains at all, they will avoid a big hubbub and take the easy route of 2017.
> 
> If they have any brains..........that is.





> If they have any brains


 we have Russian saying "Nature is resting on the children of geniuses"  


If Trudeau Jr has minority, it can take even longer to get budget ... so may be income split will stay also in 2016 ?!


----------



## gibor365

> After all, Trudeau clearly said during the interview with Peter Mans(en)bridge that his first priority as PM is climate change.


I remember it too ... JT is heading to Paris! "climate change" is extremely important as lately we have too cold winters  need to fight againg "global freezing" :biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump

In many ways, the Justin Trudeau administration will be exactly like Harper govt., but with higher taxes.

- Trudeau is not going to walk away from TPP
- Trudeau is not going to repeal C-51 (other than minor tweaks)
- Trudeau is not going to shut down the oil sands and cancel all pipelines (only Green Party and the fringe sections of the NDP are in favor of that)
- Trudeau is not going to recall all our troops home, regardless of whether they are in active or logistical missions

So, basically, Harper govt. - but with higher taxes


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

HaroldCrump said:


> So, basically, Harper govt. - but with higher taxes


Yes, but we can all be stoned (legally), so who will worry about it 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HQMbQAWRc


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> In many ways, the Justin Trudeau administration will be exactly like Harper govt., but with higher taxes.
> 
> - Trudeau is not going to walk away from TPP
> - Trudeau is not going to repeal C-51 (other than minor tweaks)
> - Trudeau is not going to shut down the oil sands and cancel all pipelines (only Green Party and the fringe sections of the NDP are in favor of that)
> - Trudeau is not going to recall all our troops home, regardless of whether they are in active or logistical missions
> 
> So, basically, Harper govt. - but with higher taxes


+1 from me ... he will legalize pot, maybe tweak prostitution and throw some goodies at the lefties but all the above will remain ... as they should


----------



## kcowan

I have voted Cons for 20 years. I had no idea Harper was such an A-hole. He seemed to be a reasonable minority PM.

I just hope whoever wins has the guts to roll back the worst Harper initiatives. I am voting ABC and in my riding, that means Liberal. The incumbent is a Con.


----------



## fatcat

kcowan said:


> I have voted Cons for 20 years. I had no idea Harper was such an A-hole. He seemed to be a reasonable minority PM.
> 
> I just hope whoever wins has the guts to roll back the worst Harper initiatives. I am voting ABC and in my riding, that means Liberal. The incumbent is a Con.


welcome back the long form census under penalty of jail ... as near as i can tell, you can lie through your teeth on the census and nothing can be done since the data is confidential and can't be checked, am i correct ?


----------



## none

You are correct. Not much can be done about that unfortunately. I think most people realize it's value and I think it's results in noise in the analysis which is unfortunate but inevitable.


----------



## fraser

Same as kcowan. Same issue in our riding. In fact, it was probably the worst riding because each time they elected Rob Anders. Spouse is doing the same...ABC

Voted ABC this time. Don't think it will impact the outcome for this riding. 

I think that Harper is toast. Could be just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## Sherlock

I hope Harper wins, I think he's great.


----------



## humble_pie

it's too bad cmf forum is so disorganized & all-over-the-map.

everybody is united that the Senate sucks. There's enough talent here to set up a serious dump-the-senate squad.

axing the Senate would do more for canada, save more $$ for canada, than most of the harebrained political suggestions posted up here. Who cares about me-me-me-me-me-cut-my-taxes-screw-my-neighbour.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


.

ooh u are eVIL


----------



## jargey3000

"In Canada, better is ALWAYS possible!" (hand over heart). Oh man....
So, as usual, it comes down to: who is the least distasteful choice?


----------



## sags

Even if the policies were exactly the same, I think the "tone" of the government would change under Trudeau.

John Ivison has a very insightful column in the National Post today after he visited ridings across Canada. 

He says the feelings against Harper are strong and based a lot less on policy than on the tone of the government.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...s-distinctive-brand-of-governance-is-palpable

One Harper supporter said “_This is what happens when you’re mean to so many people for so long.”

_Raging grannies, military veterans, scientists,..........Harper's government just felt mean and angry all the time, like it was looking for somebody to beat up.

Harper is wrong...........it IS because of his leadership, appointments and the smirky attitude of a know it all bully.

Another interesting observation Ivison made is that Canadians often get what they want collectively in elections.

They wanted to punish the Martin Liberals but didn't want to give Harper full power, so they elected a minority.

Harper did pretty well under a minority government, so they gave him a majority.

Canadians don't like what he did in a majority, so they are going to give Trudeau a whirl, but only in a minority government.

If he is a good lad, maybe Canadians will give him a majority next time.

Well done Canada..............


----------



## gibor365

"A non-Conservative federal government would likely be viewed in a negative light given the NDP and Liberal parties’ policies on environmental legislation, regulatory oversight and export pipelines,” Canaccord analysts write.


----------



## sags

gibor said:


> "A non-Conservative federal government would likely be viewed in a negative light given the NDP and Liberal parties’ policies on environmental legislation, regulatory oversight and export pipelines,” Canaccord analysts write.


The foxes won't be happy they aren't guarding the henhouse anymore ?....


----------



## sags

jargey3000 said:


> "In Canada, better is ALWAYS possible!" (hand over heart). Oh man....
> So, as usual, it comes down to: who is the least distasteful choice?


I would think that for 70% of Canadians it will be more like getting rid of the only distasteful choice.


----------



## RBull

fraser said:


> Same as kcowan. Same issue in our riding. In fact, it was probably the worst riding because each time they elected Rob Anders. Spouse is doing the same...ABC
> 
> Voted ABC this time. Don't think it will impact the outcome for this riding.
> 
> I think that Harper is toast. Could be just wishful thinking on my part.


That's an interesting addition to the poll choices.
Candidates named plus a category ABC?


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Even if the policies were exactly the same, I think the "tone" of the government would change under Trudeau.
> 
> John Ivison has a very insightful column in the National Post today after he visited ridings across Canada.
> 
> He says the feelings against Harper are strong and based a lot less on policy than on the tone of the government.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...s-distinctive-brand-of-governance-is-palpable
> 
> One Harper supporter said “_This is what happens when you’re mean to so many people for so long.”
> 
> _Raging grannies, military veterans, scientists,..........Harper's government just felt mean and angry all the time, like it was looking for somebody to beat up.
> 
> Harper is wrong...........it IS because of his leadership, appointments and the smirky attitude of a know it all bully.
> 
> Another interesting observation Ivison made is that Canadians often get what they want collectively in elections.
> 
> They wanted to punish the Martin Liberals but didn't want to give Harper full power, so they elected a minority.
> 
> Harper did pretty well under a minority government, so they gave him a majority.
> 
> Canadians don't like what he did in a majority, so they are going to give Trudeau a whirl, but only in a minority government.
> 
> If he is a good lad, maybe Canadians will give him a majority next time.
> 
> Well done Canada..............


It might be a good idea to wait until the election happens before declaring the election results and postulating about the next one. 

It would be more accurate to say "some" Canadians do not like what he has done with a majority and "some" Canadians may be willing to let give Trudeau a whirl. You sometimes speak in absolutes where reality is much more grey. 

It is interesting that Harper has basically done a good job with the country in difficult times, yet plenty of people despise him and some even think he is evil. Evil? Style over substance may well win, but in Trudeau's case it's mostly about being in the right place at the right time. Hopefully for all Canadians if he wins he will be nothing like his father. 

What happened to Mulcair?


----------



## fraser

Rob Anders was our former MP. He was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. He was the guy who fell asleep in the Veterans Committee. He was finally voted out at the constituency nomination (he was in for 3 terms). Then he went into another riding and tried to get the Tory nomination there. His reputation proceeded him and he did not even remain for the final constituency vote count. Such was the calibre of our former MP.

I voted Liberal.


----------



## sags

Somebody posted on Garth Turner's blog........125 reasons why people aren't voting for Stephen Harper, and I think he/she missed a few.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/10/16/bad-choices/#comments

Comment #37


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> Sorry folks...............Sags is going to the Senate.


No sags, this lady will be fast tracked ahead of you. She is more qualified. 

*[NSFW]*
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRAPDf2WEAAUgGS.jpg


----------



## GoldStone

Angus Reid data as of today:









18-34 group will get what they are bargaining for.

Liberal government, possibly propped by the NDP
Deficits
Growing debt
Higher taxes down the road

55+ year olds haven't forgotten Papa Trudeau. We are still paying his bills.


----------



## andrewf

Being in that naive bucket of young people, it's a risk I am willing to take to get:

-electoral reform
-marijuana legalization (not that I partake, it just offends me that it is illegal while alcohol and tobacco are not, not to mention it is a gigantic waste of resources to police)
-elimination of mandatory minimums / various insane criminal justice policies
-reintroduction of a proper census, like other big boy countries
-grant PBO true independence and adequate resources
-more transparent government / public access to data paid for by public money
-reasonable Senate reform -- abolition and electing requiring constitutional amendments, neutralizing it as refuge for party hacks is at least a good step 
-more investment in infrastructure
-some movement to coordinate the disparate GHG emission reduction programs in each of the provinces

For the most part, I am not supporting the LPC because of their spending plans. 

I am concerned about what concessions the NDP may be able to extract.

Growing debt is what we got under Harper, who increased our debt by 35% in nominal terms, mainly to fund tax cuts of questionable economic utility (GST). He managed to run a deficit for most of the years he was in office... On the flip side, debt:GDP has been stable under Harper, and is planned to continue to fall under the LPC platform.


----------



## GoldStone

GST cut is a bad tax cut. Most economists will vouch to that. Except one thing. GST cut is a straight-jacket on government spending down the road, no matter which party forms the government. GST cut is hard to reverse because it is so unpopular.

GST cut restricts future government growth more than any other Harper policy. In that sense, it's one of the best things he has done in the office.


----------



## Eder

Legalizing pot only is an issue with potheads....but they are passionate about it...no one else really cares.


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> GST cut is a bad tax cut. Most economists will vouch to that. Except one thing. GST cut is a straight-jacket on government spending down the road, no matter which party forms the government. GST cut is hard to reverse because it is so unpopular.
> 
> GST cut restricts future government growth more than any other Harper policy. In that sense, it's one of the best things he has done in the office.


There are few problems though. Yes, it restricts spending, but that means when health care costs start to increase due to demographics, our choice is to download the costs somewhere else as user fees or reduce coverage. 

The other problem is that the Harper government increased spending at the time they cut taxes. That's hardly a fiscally responsible course of action and then became surprised when they went into deficit.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Legalizing pot only is an issue with potheads....but they are passionate about it...no one else really cares.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are showing your age. You don't know the minds of millenials. Pot legalization is overwhelmingly supported by this cohort, whether they use it or not.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> There are few problems though. Yes, it restricts spending, but that means when health care costs start to increase due to demographics, our choice is to download the costs somewhere else as user fees or reduce coverage.
> 
> The other problem is that the Harper government increased spending at the time they cut taxes. That's hardly a fiscally responsible course of action and then became surprised when they went into deficit.


This is starve the beast. Cut taxes and raise spending to drive up debt. Only once debt is so high that further deficit spending is unsustainable (mid 1990s, for instance) does size of government get constrained.

I think conservatives (small c) are being a bit pathological in their desire to shrink government ever more. Federal government is already smallest it has been in 50 years as % of GDP. Is it desirable to shrink it further? Is there any government spending that is desirable/worthwhile? I find this whole Grover Norquist approach to governance irrational and unhelpful.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> There are few problems though. Yes, it restricts spending, but that means when health care costs start to increase due to demographics, our choice is to download the costs somewhere else as user fees or reduce coverage.


Health care is a provincial responsibility. Harper encouraged the provinces to raise PSTs/HSTs after he cut GST. He did it quietly behind the scenes. Paul Wells wrote about this in one of his Maclean articles.

GST cut was an opportunity to shift 2% tax room to the provinces. I think it's a great idea, because provinces do all the heaving lifting in health care and education.

Quebec did exactly what Harper encouraged them to do. QST went up from 7.5% to 9.975%. Voila, Quebec budget is balanced as of this year.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> This is starve the beast. Cut taxes and raise spending to drive up debt. Only once debt is so high that further deficit spending is unsustainable (mid 1990s, for instance) does size of government get constrained.
> 
> I think conservatives (small c) are being a bit pathological in their desire to shrink government ever more. Federal government is already smallest it has been in 50 years as % of GDP. Is it desirous to shrink it further? Is there any government spending that is desirous/worthwhile? I find this whole Grover Norquist approach to governance irrational and unhelpful.


See my response to bgc_fan. GST cut was an opportunity to shift tax dollars where they are the most needed, i.e. provincial spending on health care and education.


----------



## andrewf

GoldStone said:


> Health care is a provincial responsibility. Harper encouraged the provinces to raise PSTs/HSTs after he cut GST. He did it quietly behind the scenes. Paul Wells wrote about this in one of his Maclean articles.
> 
> GST cut was an opportunity to shift 2% tax room to the provinces. I think it's a great idea, because provinces do all the heaving lifting in health care and education.
> 
> Quebec did exactly what Harper encouraged them to do. QST went up from 7.5% to 9.975%. Voila, Quebec budget is balanced as of this year.


If Harper intended for provinces to raise HST, why does he demonize suggestions to raise it?


----------



## fatcat

Eder said:


> Legalizing pot only is an issue with potheads....but they are passionate about it...no one else really cares.


i am far from a pothead and am also fed the #### up with the war on drugs

what does it take to make us consider that perhaps another method, another strategy might work better ?

too many people are addled by all kinds of addictions that are treated as crimes and should be treated as health problems

we can either decide to moralize or we can help people and in the process help ourselves ...

if mr. trudeau gets the votes, he better damn well come through on this one


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> If Harper intended for provinces to raise HST, why does he demonize suggestions to raise it?


You mean now, during the election campaign? You know the answer to that.


----------



## andrewf

Bizarrely, the Globe and Mail has endorsed the CPC, but not Harper.










So, you should vote for Harper so that Harper can resign, and his party, brimming with potential replacements, can become the socially liberal party that Globe hopes they always could be. I guess that's what happens when the guy who owns the paper tells you who to endorse and you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to rationalize it.


----------



## GoldStone

^ https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/655220348309213184


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> it's too bad cmf forum is so disorganized & all-over-the-map.
> 
> everybody is united that the Senate sucks. There's enough talent here to set up a serious dump-the-senate squad.
> 
> axing the Senate would do more for canada, save more $$ for canada, than most of the harebrained political suggestions posted up here. Who cares about me-me-me-me-me-cut-my-taxes-screw-my-neighbour.


Yes well I voted for a guy who said he was determined to reform/dump the senate. Another lie by a politician! Why am I not surprised?


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> See my response to bgc_fan. GST cut was an opportunity to shift tax dollars where they are the most needed, i.e. provincial spending on health care and education.


Sure it is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government provides some of the cash. Tell me, were you discounting the Liberals creating surpluses by doing the same downloading to the provinces?

Anyway health care was just an example. Maybe another example would be national defence where costs to acquire and maintain equipment will always rise. With the cuts now to balance the budget, we're looking at some impact on procurement. The extra $7-14 billion from the GST cut could have been useful. Oh and before you bring up the fact that money couldn't be spent, part of the problem is that there is a lack of people to process the paperwork. Let's put it this way, the staff has been decreased significantly, but it was enough to maintain the status quo. Then you dump a bunch of projects on top of the routine workload with no increase in personnel, and you can guess what happens.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> ooh u are eVIL


Thank you :biggrin: each:

But did you recognize the individual on the right of Trudeau in that first picture, right?
That is Ben Levin.
I should post another one with Gerald Butts and one with David Livingstone.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Do you really think a viable outcome is for, say, the NDP to prop up a CPC government with a caretaker leader after Harper resigns, waiting for a leadership contest to become PM? I personally think that outcome would be bonkers, and a lot more politically difficult for the subordinate party in that relationship.


Bonkers, yes, but that is exactly what we had between 2006 to 2011.
The PCs were propped up by a series of spineless, uninspiring Liberal leaders, while the NDP had a very charismatic leader all throughout.

The latest Liberal leader does not appear to have any superior qualifications or experience vis-a-vis Stephane Dion, Ignatieff, etc.
One would have to go back to 2003 to find a federal liberal leader with any degree of competence and qualifications (Paul Martin, I mean).

Regarding PC minority propped up by the Libes, IMHO, that would work wonderfully.
It will keep a check and balance in place, yet preserve most of the important policies and direction.

We will stay in the TPP, C-51 will go ahead with cosmetic tweaks, most of the tax cuts will stay, etc.
The Libs may be able to eke out more infrastructure spending, which is a key pillar of their election platform.
The Harper administration can claim that as part of their stimulus package - everyone is happy.

Keep in mind that the best CPC policies of the last 8 years came under a minority govt.
It was a minority CPC govt that gave us the TFSA, the RDSP, the 2009 infrastructure stimulus, the 2% GST cut (yes, I know you disagree), some very important tax changes that increased revenue (I have mentioned these before, such as the income trusts, etc.).
A minority CPC govt. would be the best outcome from economic/fiscal perspective, IMO.


----------



## agent99

On CBC today, they discussed what happens if no party gets a majority. 

If PCs win and they recall parliament, they could get defeated on a no-confidence vote on Throne speech. But Harper doesn't have to recall parliament - he can continue to govern in current caretaker mode for as long as we, the voters, will allow him. Apparently no rules as to when he has to recall parliament.

If Liberals or NDP win with a minority, same thing applies. Harper is still PM until he decides to go see GG and resign or until GG tells him to leave (unlikely). Or until he recalls parliament and loses a no-confidence vote (likely). If he resigns, GG can ask one of the other parties to try and form a government or we could have another election.

I could see them dragging their feet until after the holidays  Didn't we have something like that keep Harper in power once before?

(Above based on what I remembered - You can read/listen on this link: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/wh.../what-if-election-outcome-scenarios-1.3268273)


----------



## KaeJS

HaroldCrump said:


> And this change is mainly coming from the GTA and S/ON ridings - (the immigrant and public sector vote banks).
> Essentially, the 905 region will decide the fate of the elections.


Most of the 905 area is voting Liberal. Which, is understandable (from their point of view).



Eder said:


> Legalizing pot only is an issue with potheads....but they are passionate about it...no one else really cares.


I don't smoke, but I think it should be legal. If done properly, what a better way to actually get a return out of those stereotypical potheads that contribute nothing to society? Of course, there are lots of people that smoke regularly and are what I would call "normal, hardworking citizens" but stereotypes are what they are for a reason. Let's zap some taxes from the losers sitting at home smoking pot and draining our taxes.

This is the only thing I would be happy about if the Liberals win. The only problem? They would blow all those newly claimed tax dollars on who the hell knows what...


----------



## sags

I don't smoke and I do care.

Criminalization for marijuana is one of the stupidest laws we have.

Some kids get charged and a criminal record in one city, and the cops throw the pot away and tell kids to smarten up in another.

There are a lot more people smoking pot than admit to it.

Legalize and tax it..........and remove past criminal records for possession.

Interesting that when the Chretien government proposed legalizing pot, the US went all bat crazy..........and now THEY have legalized pot in many states.

But even so, past criminal convictions for pot possession is a barrier to entry into the US, as it is considered a crime of "moral turpitude".

It is a waste of time and money for the police, crown attorney, courts, and legal aid lawyers, to chase down pot smokers.

Even the police support decriminalizing it. They have better things to do.


----------



## sags

With a Liberal victory, we may also see legislation involving end of life issues, prostitution, and other social issues the Conservatives have delayed or refused to address.

The Conservatives fell out of step with the electorate on issue after issue, and cumulatively it led to their downfall.

The treatment of military veterans (lump sums instead of pensions for disabled veterans), setting back the OAS/GIS to age 67.......and on and on.

The Conservatives reached the end of their tenure. They are out of ideas and have become old and cranky.

They have spent the last couple of years passing legislation they know won't pass SCC scrutiny........so they appear to be doing something while doing nothing.

The front benches of the Conservatives has become too thin in talent to govern respectfully and efficiently.

Time for a change.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Bonkers, yes, but that is exactly what we had between 2006 to 2011.
> The PCs were propped up by a series of spineless, uninspiring Liberal leaders, while the NDP had a very charismatic leader all throughout.
> 
> [...]
> 
> A minority CPC govt. would be the best outcome from economic/fiscal perspective, IMO.


That is just a fantasy. I am talking about likely outcomes. My fantasy is that Harper wins a majority, decides to retire, and a smart, evidence driven social liberal takes over the CPC and undowa all the stupid red meat policies they enacted over the past decade. Also, free ice cream. Alas, I can't be as delusional as the Globe and Mail editorial board.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> On CBC today, they discussed what happens if no party gets a majority.
> 
> If PCs win and they recall parliament, they could get defeated on a no-confidence vote on Throne speech. But Harper doesn't have to recall parliament - he can continue to govern in current caretaker mode for as long as we, the voters, will allow him. Apparently no rules as to when he has to recall parliament.
> 
> If Liberals or NDP win with a minority, same thing applies. Harper is still PM until he decides to go see GG and resign or until GG tells him to leave (unlikely). Or until he recalls parliament and loses a no-confidence vote (likely). If he resigns, GG can ask one of the other parties to try and form a government or we could have another election.
> 
> I could see them dragging their feet until after the holidays  Didn't we have something like that keep Harper in power once before?
> 
> (Above based on what I remembered - You can read/listen on this link: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/wh.../what-if-election-outcome-scenarios-1.3268273)


Parliament has to sit at least once a year, so it would have to reconvenue by June 2016. Of course, if Harper tries that, there might be a mob with pitchforks in Ottawa.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> I don't smoke and I do care.
> 
> Legalize and tax it..........and remove past criminal records for possession.


I'll drink^h^h^h^h^h smoke to that!

I've always considered PM Harper as a somewhat intelligent person. I couldn't believe, though, what he answered when asked why marijuana was illegal..... "_Because you have to deal with the criminal element to obtain it_". :stupid:

I wouldn't vote based on this issue, but the current laws are probably doing more harm to society than legalizing it would.


----------



## sags

Marijuana legalization is just one law............what about end of life choices and other things ?

The Conservatives were given a year by the SCC to legislate a framework and they have done nothing.

I watched my dad die a horrible death, begging me to "help him go". He was ready and he could have had a pain free peaceful end to his life.

Sorry dad..........but you know the law is the law..........so you will just have to lie there and suffer and we will have to watch.

%#%$% idiots and their "we got religion" bullshit.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Marijuana legalization is just one law............what about end of life choices and other things ?


You have a point. I totally disagree with governance based on religious belief. That's not working out very well for minority religions in middle eastern countries.

OTOH, everyone has their own reasons why something should be legal or not. If someone's family member was killed by a drunk driver, they may be against legalizing yet another drug to be misused on the road. End of life and abortion are hot button topics; I think Mr Harper tries to steer clear of these issues because he doesn't want to be criticized for governing by his faith. 

I wish there were binding referendums on our ballots to say if we're for legalization of marijuana, end of life, prostitution, and even abortion. Then, the majority would decide. Voting for a party is not unlike ordering a pizza from the 'combination' selections. You have to select the one with the most toppings you like, even if you'll gag on some of the ones you don't want.


----------



## sags

Maybe on elections, Paul Simon summed it in The Boxer......

_I am just a poor boy.
Though my story's seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
_

I like the idea of referendums at elections to settle hot button topics without casting blame on the political parties.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> Sure it is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government provides some of the cash.


No, taxpayers provide the cash. The federal government is a middle man. As a taxpayer, I would rather cut out the middle man. If I had a choice, I would rather pay 2% more to the province and 2% less to the federal government. Provinces do all the heavy lifting in the social sphere. They need the money WAY more than the feds. 



bgc_fan said:


> Tell me, were you discounting the Liberals creating surpluses by doing the same downloading to the provinces?


I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but I am glad that you brought this up. 

Martin download the services to the provinces without providing the cash. He is partially responsible for the structural provincial deficits that we struggle with up to this day. The surplus at the federal level was a hollow achievement. He did it on the back of the provinces. Contrast this to Harper's GST cut. He vacated 2% sales tax room and encouraged the provinces to use it, no strings attached. Harper created an opportunity for the provinces to repair their structural deficits.



bgc_fan said:


> Anyway health care was just an example. Maybe another example would be national defence where costs to acquire and maintain equipment will always rise.


What is your point? That federal government can find a way to spend 2% GST revenue? Sure they can. Give them more tax revenue... they will find a way to spend it. If we are lucky, they will send the cash to the provinces to spend on health care and education. If we are not lucky, they will waste it on god knows what. That's why I like the GST cut. I'd much rather pay +2% directly to the province.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> With a Liberal victory, we may also see legislation involving end of life issues, prostitution, and other social issues the Conservatives have delayed or refused to address.
> 
> The Conservatives fell out of step with the electorate on issue after issue, and cumulatively it led to their downfall.
> 
> The treatment of military veterans (lump sums instead of pensions for disabled veterans), setting back the OAS/GIS to age 67.......and on and on.
> 
> The Conservatives reached the end of their tenure. They are out of ideas and have become old and cranky.
> 
> They have spent the last couple of years passing legislation they know won't pass SCC scrutiny........so they appear to be doing something while doing nothing.
> 
> The front benches of the Conservatives has become too thin in talent to govern respectfully and efficiently.
> 
> Time for a change.


good points, these are all issues which motivate me, an otherwise conservative voter, drugs, prostitution (only men being charged ? ... sorry, not right) end of life care (or non-care) ... they are out of step with about 65% of the country

not to mention that while i greatly admire harper's political skill ... i am just tired of him


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> I like the idea of referendums at elections to settle hot button topics without casting blame on the political parties.


i lived in a state with referendums and they have a light and dark side ... 

too often they get hijacked by big money but if we could find a way to do them in a purely populist way, i too would love to see referendums in canada ... 

they allow the people to speak directly, unmediated by their elected representatives and that brings a dynamic quality to elections and voting that would be a net positive for the body politic i think


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but I am glad that you brought this up.
> 
> Martin download the services to the provinces without providing the cash. He is partially responsible for the structural provincial deficits that we struggle with up to this day. The surplus at the federal level was a hollow achievement. He did it on the back of the provinces. Contrast this to Harper's GST cut. He vacated 2% sales tax room and encouraged the provinces to use it, no strings attached. Harper created an opportunity for the provinces to repair their structural deficits.
> 
> 
> What is your point? That federal government can find a way to spend 2% GST revenue? Sure they can. Give them more tax revenue... they will find a way to spend it. If we are lucky, they will send the cash to the provinces to spend on health care and education. If we are not lucky, they will waste it on god knows what. That's why I like the GST cut. I'd much rather pay +2% directly to the province.


Actually the Liberals did something similar. IIRC when they reduced transfers, they increased the taxation powers of the provinces, or something to that extent. I vaguely recall that some of the gas revenues were being redirected from the federal to provincial and municipal levels of government.

My point is that the tax cut was made without thinking of the future. Why not go to the logical conclusion and get rid of the GST and just have the provinces take care of all social services and not provide any provincial transfers? I know that is what you're getting at, but I could see the obvious issue of more divergence between provincial health care systems. Also, some provinces just don't have the taxation capacity so some place like Nunavet or PEI would be hurting. The federal system should be there to help smooth out differences, and they do have some other responsibilities that provinces don't have like national defence.

Just found the reference to tax point transfers which was part of the reduction in health care funding transfers: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp450-e.htm

So the net result is that the federal government pays less in transfers, but the decrease would be made up by increased tax revenue. Essentially what you were asking for.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> My point is that the tax cut was made without thinking of the future.


I disagree. In my opinion, Harper was thinking of the future very carefully. It's just that his vision of the future is different from yours.

I believe that Harper's master plan was to shift tax room from the federal government to the provinces. Decentralization is an old policy plank from the Reform Party program. Harper snuck it in as a populist GST cut. That's the only way he could sell it to the voters. The second half of the plan -- raising the PST -- was up to the provinces to implement.




bgc_fan said:


> Why not go to the logical conclusion and get rid of the GST and just have the provinces take care of all social services and not provide any provincial transfers?


It's not the logical conclusion. Federal government does have many responsibilities that require steady funding. We are debating the right split between GST and PST. Obviously, it's not 0% and 15%.




bgc_fan said:


> I know that is what you're getting at, but I could see the obvious issue of more divergence between provincial health care systems. Also, some provinces just don't have the taxation capacity so some place like Nunavet or PEI would be hurting. The federal system should be there to help smooth out differences, and they do have some other responsibilities that provinces don't have like national defence.


I agree on all points. No one is suggesting that we should get rid of the GST.




bgc_fan said:


> So the net result is that the federal government pays less in transfers, but the decrease would be made up by increased tax revenue. Essentially what you were asking for.


Yes.


----------



## noobs

I voted last sunday
I`m sick of all 3 talking about it on TV
Monday night I`ll be so happy it`s over


----------



## peterk

I watched the Trudeau-Mansbridge interview and he lost me in the first five minutes:


PM: IF YOU BECOME PRIME MINISTER AFTER OCTOBER 19TH, YOU ARRIVE AT A TIME WHERE THE DOLLAR IS IN THE MID-SEVENTIES, IN RELATION TO U.S. DOLLAR. OIL'S SOMEWHERE IN THE MID-FORTIES. WE ARE OFFICIALLY IN A RECESSION. WHAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU DO ON THE ECONOMY?

JT: One of the first things we do, that I've committed to – 

PM: NO, THE FIRST THING.

JT: Call together the premiers, talk about climate change, get to, get to Paris at the end of November with a plan towards reducing our emissions in responsible ways, at the same time as we talk with the Premiers about intra¬provincial trade barriers, about the infrastructure projects they need. We're going to roll out about five billion dollars more in infrastructure in that first budget that we're going to be announcing. We have to work with the provinces and the municipalities to figure out where that money can be spent.

Seriously? the "first thing you do" is "talk about climate change"? Get real man! Doesn't JT slam Harper constantly for "fear mongering"? yet when asked by Mansbridge what the the very first issue about the *economy* he would tackle he answers "climate change"??


I was interested in hearing what he has to say as a number of smart people on CMF seem to be moving away from Conservatives this election. It was quite clear that his confidence in the competence of big government is more than just optimistic, it's bordering on delusional. There is a big big difference in mindset between him and Harper the economist.

I do agree with all the complaints about Harper though in general, on his iron fist and his old-school puritanical stance on social issues.

I just don't think that's enough to override his good stance on the economy and taxes. I think the economy, debt and taxes should be commanding 75% of a voters attention and social/environmental/international issues should be a secondary consideration for one's decision. I am shocked by the fact that many people, even high income earners, are considering the balance to be the other way around, 25-75.

Despite misgivings, I will continue to vote conservative. My hope is that a conservative minority comes to power, which will cause Harper to step down, the government won't do much at all for a year, and after a confidence vote and another election the Conservatives will come back into majority power under a new and better leader.


----------



## andrewf

That is not a realistic outcome. Canadians are going to get a government, not listless leaderless party as head of government. Would we have a temporary PM while the CPC is electing their new leader? This is an absurd outcome.


----------



## sags

The world conference on climate change is a few weeks after the election, so it isn't surprising that Trudeau would want to prepare for that first.

The economy is sputtering along, and has been for a year or longer. Waiting a month or two, after consulting with the Provinces on infrastructure spending and inter-Provincial trade, is thoughtful and prudent. It will take all oars in the water to move the ship forward.

There is nothing Trudeau could do about the price of oil, or the currency rate. Infrastructure spending will be a boost to the economy.

A greater focus on youth unemployment training programs will offer that segment of the population an opportunity to get their feet moving in the right direction.

Trudeau has access to lots of experience and advice and I am sure he is taking full advantage of it.

Canadians have been in a bit of a malaise and Trudeau appears to be more interested in shaping the future of Canada, which can change the mood to more optimistic and upbeat.

For the past couple of years, the Harper government has governed by responding to individual crisis. A shooting here.........pass a law. A serial killer getting OAS there.........pass a law.

It is my hope that Trudeau, in cooperation with the Provincial leaders of Canada, will say to Canadians............here is the plan...........let's start working on it.

Perhaps the greatest triumph of the Chretien/Martin governments was convincing Canadians to take the medicine now, so they would get better later.

From government surpluses being a good thing..........almost a source of national pride, to massive changes to the CPP.............they got Canadians to agree.

I think many Canadians remember, and that is why Trudeau has done so well despite his shortcomings.


----------



## sags

Unless the Conservatives get a majority government, they are done.

The Liberals and NDP will form a coalition of more than 200 MPs, and the GG will have no choice but to appoint them as government.

The polls suggest the Liberals may be as close as 30 seats to forming a majority. 

In our riding, the incumbent Conservative MP started with a massive lead, but over time the NDP has leaked supporters to the Liberals and it is a virtual tie now.

NDP voters are thinking about it and many would rather support the Liberals than allow the Conservatives to win.

Some of the elected NDP MPs may simply cross the floor and join the Liberals to avoid another immediate election campaign.

None of the NDP MPs will want to be seen as obstructing the Liberal government, as they would face a backlash and defeat in another election.

If there was another immediate election, strategic voting would rise to a new level.

It will be a most interesting time for Canadian politics.


----------



## sags

I am thinking Stephen Harper could very well be one of the last right wing governments Canada ever elects.

The demographics are changing rapidly. The core right wing supporter are getting older and dying off. Immigrants and young people will have a greater influence.

Look around at election results across Canada, and how right wing politics in Ontario and Alberta were soundly defeated.

My goodness, if ever the Liberals in Ontario were due to be replaced..........the last election was the time for it.

But the PC party stuck to the right wing philosophy and got trounced.

The Conservative party in Canada will have to evolve..........or it will disappear.


----------



## gibor365

> JT: Call together the premiers, talk about climate change, get to, get to Paris at the end of November with a plan towards reducing our emissions in responsible ways,


It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

I don't think Conservatives are done forever. They may have to change their tune on some of the social conservatism, but fiscal conservatism will always resonate with a significant share of the population (including me).


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Gee Sags, I didn't want you to feel you were the only one listening to yourself, so thought I should post something 
I agree with some of your points and not others. For instance, politics is a pendulum that swings left, right and places in between over time. If the Libs form a government I have no doubt that people will remain who favour less government intervention and taxation. Eventually their inability to keep everyone happy will swing us again.
We are just fortunate to be Canadians, where we can undertake change without the bloodshed and corruption inherent in other parts of the world.
We'll be closely tuned to the results tomorrow night. Then we'll wake up Tuesday and life will go on, blessed as we are.


----------



## sags

True enough OMO..........we contemplate the best of first world problems while half the world contemplates their next meal.

We should never forget how fortunate we are.


----------



## s123

There are a lot of consideration.

--------

Where Canada's Election Polls Can't Afford To Be Wrong (ANALYSIS)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...ontario-liberals-conservatives_n_8294430.html

With less than a week to go, this election is turning into a race between the Conservatives and Liberals. But projections are only as good as the polls they are based on.

If the numbers on election night turn out to be different from the voting intentions indicated by the polls, our projections will obviously be off. There is really no way around it.

...As mentioned before, polls can be wrong in Alberta without causing major mistakes. Specifically, a one-point overestimation of the Tories (i.e: polls show them at 50 percent but they'd only receive 49 per cent on Monday) would cost the party only 0.5 seat in average.

These numbers show once again why Ontario is the battleground for Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau and where the winner will most likely be chosen. As we have previously shown, the Liberals really need to win Ontario by a good eight to 10 points if they want to have first crack at forming the next government. Polls do seem to indicate they are getting close to that, although the polls clearly don't all agree.


As a reminder, though, the polling companies were especially wrong in 2011 in Ontario.

Let's hope this doesn't happen again on Monday, or we could have surprises.


----------



## gibor365

> As a reminder, though, the polling companies were especially wrong in 2011 in Ontario.
> 
> Let's hope this doesn't happen again on Monday, or we could have surprises.


Let's hope this will happen again and Harper wins majority!!!!!!!


----------



## andrewf

Better brace yourself for a collision with reality tomorrow night, gibor.


----------



## s123

Here is more good news for gibor.

Election polls have become less reliable in an age of cellphones and telemarketing
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ble-in-an-age-of-cellphones-and-telemarketing

Election Polls Don't Tell the Whole Story
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ian-capstick/polling-problems_b_8285668.html


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Better brace yourself for a collision with reality tomorrow night, gibor.


No worries andrew  we survived Nazis, communists, arabs ... we'll survive JT


----------



## humble_pie

peterk said:


> I watched the Trudeau-Mansbridge interview and he lost me in the first five minutes:
> 
> 
> PM: IF YOU BECOME PRIME MINISTER AFTER OCTOBER 19TH, YOU ARRIVE AT A TIME WHERE THE DOLLAR IS IN THE MID-SEVENTIES, IN RELATION TO U.S. DOLLAR. OIL'S SOMEWHERE IN THE MID-FORTIES. WE ARE OFFICIALLY IN A RECESSION. WHAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU DO ON THE ECONOMY?
> 
> JT: One of the first things we do, that I've committed to –
> 
> PM: NO, THE FIRST THING.
> 
> JT: Call together the premiers, talk about climate change, get to, get to Paris at the end of November with a plan towards reducing our emissions in responsible ways, at the same time as we talk with the Premiers about intra¬provincial trade barriers, about the infrastructure projects they need. We're going to roll out about five billion dollars more in infrastructure in that first budget that we're going to be announcing. We have to work with the provinces and the municipalities to figure out where that money can be spent.




the above post is an irresponsible distortion of the facts. That brief exchange didn't occur in the first five minutes of the interview, following which our CPC supporter admits he was "lost." That brief exchange commenced only at minute 7:56.

peter mansbridge started the interview with another version of the exact same question:

_mansbridge:_ after october 19th, what immediate change will they [canadians] see from you?

_trudeau:_ from the very beginning i've talked about how we're going to strengthen the middle class in this country. We need to grow the economy in a way that works for most canadians.

_mansbridge:_ what's the immediate change they would see?

_trudeau:_ a government that's focused on canadians.

my own overall reaction to this interview? if i weren't already going to vote for marc garneau, i'd switch to Parti Liberal for sure, based just on this interview.

it's daring, to spend money over the next few years instead of jumping on budget balancing like a miser. But it sounds doable. The liberals will leave corporate taxes alone. They'll tax the rich higher, give tax breaks to the middle & working classes. TFSAs back down to around $5000, because only the rich are going to have $10k lying around to be contributed anyhow.

his age? trudeau looks like the healthy man in his early 40s that he, in fact, is. The world is full of political leaders in their early 40s. it's a perfect age imho. He has enough experience, he's surrounded himself with older advisors, labour advisors, military advisors, economists, business leaders, aboriginal advisors. But he's still young enough to be sincerely passionate, to believe that he can make a difference.

somewhere in this thread or in one of the election threads, a young Liberal cmffer has talked wisely about the need to pare the senate down to its constitutional minimum. I didn't hear mansbridge & trudeau going on about this issue, but it's an idea whose time has come.


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> No worries andrew  we survived Nazis, communists, arabs ... we'll survive JT


How old are you?


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> How old are you?


Why you are asking?! For sure I'm older than you


----------



## Userkare

humble_pie said:


> the above post is an irresponsible distortion of the facts. That brief exchange didn't occur in the first five minutes of the interview, following which our CPC supporter admits he was "lost." That brief exchange commenced only at minute 7:56.


That interview was as useful as a session with Dr Phil.... answering questions with platitudes instead of anything specific. I wonder if they edited out all the ah-ah-ah-ahs.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

it has to be the eye of the beholder, then. Among other things, i got out of that interview an accurate & specific roadmap of where a liberal government would go in the middle east. How much more specific could trudeau have been.

i got out of that interview that there would be child care support for families earning under 150k, less support for families earning 150-250k, no support for families earning above 250k. I got there will be no income splitting, i got TFSAs back to around $5000. How much more specific could trudeau have been.

i got that home businesses operated by wealthy taxpayers strictly to write off personal household & travel expenses will be looked at with a skeptical eye. How much more specific etc ...


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> Why you are asking?! For sure I'm older than you


You say you survived the Nazis... So at least 70 years old?


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> You say you survived the Nazis... So at least 70 years old?


I didn't say "I", I said "we survived..."


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> I am thinking Stephen Harper could very well be one of the last right wing governments Canada ever elects.


you are making a fundamental mistake in your thinking ... we are bringing in immigrants in relatively large numbers and many of them, and their children, are going to surprise you and others on the left by their conservatism, especially their social conservatism

hold a vote on major social issues only among immigrants to canada in the last say 20 years and you might well see abortion be illegal, gay rights and gay marriage disappear and a number of core social values disappear

this notion that the conservatives, as "old stock canadians" are somehow offending immigrants and driving them to the left is just false

i can absolutely see a right wing government in canada, even a hard right wing government


----------



## gibor365

> this notion that the conservatives, as "old stock canadians" are somehow offending immigrants and driving them to the left is just false


 as an immigrant , I can tell that I'm not offended at all


----------



## fatcat

gibor said:


> as an immigrant , I can tell that I'm not offended at all


exactly, i don't know how socially conservative you are but i think that there are many immigrants, especially from socially conservative countries (think muslim and indian especially, less so asians and africans) that will be very comfortable on canada's right in the next couple of decades


----------



## dogcom

Well I will give my rankings out of 10, with 10 being the best.

Conservatives I give them a 2.5. They would have got a 3 if they would have showed up for local debates. Also I have Alice Wong the Queen of shark fin soup as my conservative candidate to vote for.
Liberals I give them a 1.5
NDP I give them a 1
Greens I will give a 0.5

There you have it, a horrible bunch of sorry choices for the election.


----------



## fatcat

dogcom said:


> There you have it, a horrible bunch of sorry choices for the election.


compared to what dog ? ... 

you obviously don't follow american or british politics where we see an array of sad sacks, old hacks, pig head fornicators and actual commie pinkos

i think our canucks are certainly no worse or sorrier a lot


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> I didn't say "I", I said "we survived..."


Like we survived the fall of the Roman empire?


----------



## dogcom

Fatcat my rating and comparisons are to what choices we had before in Canada at least before the election.


----------



## Userkare

humble_pie said:


> it has to be the eye of the beholder, then.


I see unicorns and glitter.



> Among other things, i got out of that interview an accurate & specific roadmap of where a liberal government would go in the middle east. How much more specific could trudeau have been.


A roadmap? More of a generic "help refuges" and train Kurds "with a clear plan and the right equipmet". Holy smokes, a clear plan and equipment, why did nobody think of this?



> i got out of that interview that there would be child care support for families earning under 150k, less support for families earning 150-250k, no support for families earning above 250k. I got there will be no income splitting, i got TFSAs back to around $5000. How much more specific could trudeau have been.


True, he said that. So he defines "rich" as making over $250K, then says that only the rich have $10K "lying around" to put into a TFSA. Where did he get that from? I was the only income earner in a family of 3, then 2 once our son went out on his own. I wished there was income splitting when my wife was at home. I never made over $125K ( half of what he calls rich ), and paid a lot of tax, yet I was able to max out my RRSP as well as TFSA every year. How? By going camping on vacations instead of Disneyworld every year. By making a car last 10 years rather than buy a new one every 3 years. By using my share of the sale of my deceased parents' house ( that's all they had left when they died ) to pay down my mortgage - so that I could save the money I had budgeted for mortgage. Yeah, at the end of the year there was this magical money that appeared because I was rich.

He wants to invest in Canadians and grow the economy, how? By bloating the public sector? How does a government create jobs? Infrastructure? Building affordable housing? For how long is that sustainable? Can we be certain that Liberal supporters won't get the bulk of the contracts? What does he think people do with the money in TFSAs? They invest it, and it grows the economy. Individuals seem to be much better at this than government boondoggles.




> i got that home businesses operated by wealthy taxpayers strictly to write off personal household & travel expenses will be looked at with a skeptical eye. How much more specific etc ...


I can't find where he says this, but how would CRA determine which home business is tax evasion, and which is legit? Was Microsoft or Apple legit when they first started? What about doctors? they're self employed - lets go after them! For a time I was self employed from my home and offered computer consulting to the satellite communications industry. The Chretien era CRA test of whether one was an employee subject to deductions was whether or not you provided your own equipment, and your work was directed. So, by their test, in order to consider me self employed, I would have had to launch my own satellite, then do whatever I thought was a good idea, not what my customer wanted to pay for. Bureaucrats don't have a clue about how private sector businesses work! 

Lastly, and this is the clincher.. When Mansbridge asked him with the dollar in mid .70 US, and oil at $40/bbl, what is the first thing he would do on the economy. He rambled on about consulting with the premiers about climate change, then go to Paris with a plan to reduce our emissions, then spend billions on infrastructure. This would help the dollar how, exactly? And is he saying Canada will abandon the oil industry altogether and promote green projects only?


----------



## andrewf

Low dollar is great for exporters. It helps both Ontario manufacturers and Western resource extractors. Low dollar is the country taking a national pay cut. I'm not looking for the government to drive up the dollar, but rather strengthen the economy. Stimulating the housing market would not be helpful, investing in infrastructure to support long term growth is.


----------



## andrewf

Last minute polling is coming out. Nanos is showing an 8.5% spread between Liberals and Conservatives with NDP support dropping.

39.1 L / 30.5 CPC / 19.7 NDP 

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151018 Ballot TrackingE.pdf

Interesting because Ekos is showing L and CPC much closer around 32-34%. If Nanos is right, we may even be getting close to an LPC majority. If Ekos is right, we might end up with a conservative plurality. It will be interesting to see the Only Poll That Matters come in tomorrow. I suspect that CPC vote is understated and the true spread will be around 4 pts with LPC slightly ahead in seats.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Like we survived the fall of the Roman empire?


More like "The Science of Jewish Survival" 
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/376572/jewish/The-Science-of-Jewish-Survival.htm


----------



## gibor365

> True, he said that. So he defines "rich" as making over $250K, then says that only the rich have $10K "lying around" to put into a TFSA. Where did he get that from? I was the only income earner in a family of 3, then 2 once our son went out on his own. I wished there was income splitting when my wife was at home. I never made over $125K ( half of what he calls rich ), and paid a lot of tax, yet I was able to max out my RRSP as well as TFSA every year.


Every time he defines "ricH' differently, depends on his agenda.... sometime he refer to 1% rich (whom he increses taxes), sometimes 15% (who enjoying tax split and TFSA) :stupid:
My son is 3rd year student who has coop job every 3rd semester and he has TFSA fully maxed


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> I disagree. In my opinion, Harper was thinking of the future very carefully. It's just that his vision of the future is different from yours.
> 
> I believe that Harper's master plan was to shift tax room from the federal government to the provinces. Decentralization is an old policy plank from the Reform Party program. Harper snuck it in as a populist GST cut. That's the only way he could sell it to the voters. The second half of the plan -- raising the PST -- was up to the provinces to implement.


I must have missed that announcement when he told the provinces to hike up their PST by 2%. Quebec did that because it never misses an opportunity to raise taxes. If that was truly the case, the HST in the maritime provinces and Ontario should have stayed at 15% instead of decreasing to 13% with the provinces picking up the extra 2%. After all, the HST is administered by the CRA, a federal department isn't it? http://www.gst.gc.ca/ Seeing as that wasn't the case, I say that the motivation that you attribute to the Conservatives to be far reaching to say the least.

And yes, I have a more interesting vision of Canada's future. Instead of doing their best to quickly erase the surplus, I would have set up a more concerted effort to reduce the federal debt, i.e. build into the budget a debt payment aside from the contingency fund. After all, that was one of the Conservative criticisms of the Liberal government in that they didn't have a coherent plan to reduce the debt. Funny how that went out the window the minute the Conservatives get elected.

But finances aside, I also believe that Canada has more to offer the world than oil and gas. Encouraging basic science research in universities and building up the framework to link industry with that research would be something that I would find as a better use of funds then the GST tax cut. Oh, don't use the party line that the government has supported R&D, because the feds only use tax breaks as their source of monetary support. Kind of useless for start-up companies who have no profit or funds. The best they would probably do is find some company with deep pockets and "trade" their tax breaks for money.

Also, subsidizing oil companies under the guise of green technologies is something I would do away with. There's no reason why taxpayers should subsidize a company to clean up the oil sands after extraction, because those costs should have been part of the project cost and not something that the company should expect help with. If you think I'm making this up, just watch the commercials about oil companies bragging about their green research in re-mediating the oil sands, and then the fact that the government has been giving them "green technology" R&D money. That's on par with the US government BP money to help them clean up their oil spills.


----------



## Causalien

I actually read the liberal's platform tonight. WOW I love it. It's like an economic platform targeted at propelling people like me to the sky.

I am single, so eliminating income splitting in a no brainer. Tax cut for people making 50k to 75k. That's great. Raise tax for 250k plus. LOL ok.I am fine with that. The thing is, most rich people have their own business. It is very easy to adjust income. Of course, that is too complex for the general public to understand, so that's all they can promise. "Raise tax on income over 250k"

Reduce TFSA back to 5000. Fine. I am one of the few lucky ones who are able to take advantage of this temporary cheat and will forever be ahead of everyone else in my TFSA contribution.

Print print print. Go ahead, devalue CDN dollar. I've been getting ready for this since 2008.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> I must have missed that announcement when he told the provinces to hike up their PST by 2%. Quebec did that because it never misses an opportunity to raise taxes. If that was truly the case, the HST in the maritime provinces and Ontario should have stayed at 15% instead of decreasing to 13% with the provinces picking up the extra 2%. After all, the HST is administered by the CRA, a federal department isn't it? http://www.gst.gc.ca/ Seeing as that wasn't the case, I say that the motivation that you attribute to the Conservatives to be far reaching to say the least.


The version I gave you is not a fruit of my imagination. I read about it somewhere. I think it was a Maclean's column by Paul Wells (I will try to find a link). According to what I read, Harper encouraged the provinces to raise provincial sales taxes after he cut GST. He did it quietly behind the scenes.


----------



## sags

CBC live coverage begins at 6:30 p.m. and is "commercial free" for the duration.


----------



## fraser

I am confident that we will have a new Prime Minister.

But, it will be interesting to watch what happens to the Conservative Party. There are deep divisions inside the party, even deeper than those of the past. The leadership race will accentuate those divisions and it place the party in turmoil for some time to come. The red Tories are already getting ready to blame Harper and his team for everything from electoral defeat to world hunger. The only thing that can stop this is an election win tomorrow but this does not look like it is in the cards.


----------



## GoldStone

Liberals are close to majority. Just look at the last two polls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015


----------



## andrewf

I doubt the CPC will be able to find another strongman like Harper to hold the party together through sheer for of will. So it will be interesting to see whether the party caves to the base and picks an extreme conservative or tries to hew to the centre. I'm drawing blanks on possible replacements. Kenney? Mackay? Prentice? Not sure any of them would be successful.


----------



## sags

Christine Elliot maybe ?


----------



## dogcom

andrewf said:


> Low dollar is great for exporters. It helps both Ontario manufacturers and Western resource extractors. Low dollar is the country taking a national pay cut. I'm not looking for the government to drive up the dollar, but rather strengthen the economy. Stimulating the housing market would not be helpful, investing in infrastructure to support long term growth is.


If you strengthen the economy and do good things this will strengthen the dollar. A strong dollar isn't a bad thing as it encourages companies to cut costs innovate and do better. If things are not strong the dollar will fall helping exports naturally so we are not looking for the government to drive up or down the dollar as that would be unnatural.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> I doubt the CPC will be able to find another strongman like Harper to hold the party together through sheer for of will. So it will be interesting to see whether the party caves to the base and picks an extreme conservative or tries to hew to the centre. I'm drawing blanks on possible replacements. Kenney? Mackay? Prentice? Not sure any of them would be successful.


James Moore sounds like a good choice. Not sure if he is interested. He left politics (for now?) because his kid is sick.

After Harper, Who?


----------



## andrewf

Moore would probably be the most palatable to me. I didn't think he would be interested in getting back into politics.


----------



## none

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Canadian Election (HBO)

DON'T VOTE FOR STEPHEN HARPER


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> The version I gave you is not a fruit of my imagination. I read about it somewhere. I think it was a Maclean's column by Paul Wells (I will try to find a link). According to what I read, Harper encouraged the provinces to raise provincial sales taxes after he cut GST. He did it quietly behind the scenes.


You see, here is the problem: if this is true, he did this AFTER he cut the GST. Most governments would balk at the idea of raising their PST after a cut. Basically it would make the federal government the good guy and the provincial government the bad guy. Who really wants the optics of that?

If he had done this before making it an election platform, and used it to push in the negotiations towards a HST with all the provinces, it would be a little more palatable. With a HST, we could reduce some of the overhead of managing sale taxes at two different levels of government. If he was really ambitious, he could set a common rate throughout all of Canada so that we don't have the different rates. A province like Alberta could always readjust their income tax rates to "refund" the increased tax revenue. Other provinces with higher existing sale tax rates would have to either do the opposite, or adjust equalization payments at a federal level. IIRC for some of the maritime provinces, the provincial portion of the HST was lower than their original tax rates and they were given extra payments from the federal government to compensate.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan said:


> If he had done this before making it an election platform, and used it to push in the negotiations towards a HST with all the provinces, it would be a little more palatable. With a HST, we could reduce some of the overhead of managing sale taxes at two different levels of government. If he was really ambitious, he could set a common rate throughout all of Canada so that we don't have the different rates. A province like Alberta could always readjust their income tax rates to "refund" the increased tax revenue. Other provinces with higher existing sale tax rates would have to either do the opposite, or adjust equalization payments at a federal level. IIRC for some of the maritime provinces, the provincial portion of the HST was lower than their original tax rates and they were given extra payments from the federal government to compensate.


In other words, you are telling me that Harper should have done the impossible. Reaching a major tax deal with all the provinces is akin to herding cats.


----------



## bgc_fan

GoldStone said:


> In other words, you are telling me that Harper should have done the impossible. Reaching a major tax deal with all the provinces is akin to herding cats.


The impossible is having a common HST rate across the country. The possible is doing what has been done and implement HST in the provinces that don't have it and use the extra percentage as a sweetener. Alberta doesn't have to do a thing in that case.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fatcat said:


> exactly, i don't know how socially conservative you are but i think that there are many immigrants, especially from socially conservative countries (think muslim and indian especially, less so asians and africans) that will be very comfortable on canada's right in the next couple of decades


A lot of these vote banks are schizophrenic.
For instance, the same groups that are protesting & rallying at Queen's Park against the Liberal Sex-Ed curriculum changes had no problem voting for the same party just 2 months earlier - even when most of the contents of the new curriculum have been well-known since 2010.
The same group would have no problem voting for the Federal Liberals today, either.

The question with these vote banks are _what is their flavor of the month_ - whether their so-called social conservatism will override their vested economic interests, or vice versa.
So far, economic interests are overriding social conservatism.


----------



## HaroldCrump

GoldStone said:


> Liberals are close to majority. Just look at the last two polls.


I agree...ever since the Liberals starting surging in GTA & S/ON, I had a feeling they will either get a majority or come tantalizingly close to it.
This is the same pattern as June 2014 elections.

What the polls aren't accounting for is last-minute swing by NDP voters.
They will employ strategic voting, and might end up voting Red en masse.

NDP may, after all, receive the same treatment this time as what they dished out to the Bloc in 2011 i.e. get wiped out

CPC will form the official opposition and will hold on to their traditional ridings...basically the vote will be decided by the GTA and parts of BC.


----------



## bgc_fan

HaroldCrump said:


> A lot of these vote banks are schizophrenic.
> For instance, the same groups that are protesting & rallying at Queen's Park against the Liberal Sex-Ed curriculum changes had no problem voting for the same party just 2 months earlier - even when most of the contents of the new curriculum have been well-known since 2010.
> The same group would have no problem voting for the Federal Liberals today, either.
> 
> The question with these vote banks are _what is their flavor of the month_ - whether their so-called social conservatism will override their vested economic interests, or vice versa.
> So far, economic interests are overriding social conservatism.


I think you may be misinterpreting the fact that people don't really vote together in large blocks. It's something that has been noticed this election in that you can't assume that a large group of people will vote the same way just because of "cultural" traditions. After all, if your definition of immigrant is 1st generation only, someone who immigrated 10 years ago, may not have the same views as someone who immigrated the last year. If you expand to 2nd generation, that would be the first generation who grew up in Canada and may not necessarily share the same viewpoints.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I agree...ever since the Liberals starting surging in GTA & S/ON, I had a feeling they will either get a majority or come tantalizingly close to it.
> This is the same pattern as June 2014 elections.
> 
> What the polls aren't accounting for is last-minute swing by NDP voters.
> They will employ strategic voting, and might end up voting Red en masse.
> 
> NDP may, after all, receive the same treatment this time as what they dished out to the Bloc in 2011 i.e. get wiped out
> 
> CPC will form the official opposition and will hold on to their traditional ridings...basically the vote will be decided by the GTA and parts of BC.


They will certainly get a majority of the Ontario seats. I don't think that will necessarily translate to a majority nationally.

As for the NDP, I think they are probably already down to more or less their core vote. Looks like the soft NDP support has already shifted to LPC. Same is true for the CPC--their core vote is in the high 20s. Just a matter of how motivated they are to turn out at the polls.


----------



## gibor365

> I think you may be misinterpreting the fact that people don't really vote together in large blocks. It's something that has been noticed this election in that you can't assume that a large group of people will vote the same way just because of "cultural" traditions.


It depends ... immigrants from some countries, yes, will "vote together in large blocks", from other - won't...
From my personal observation , majority immigrants from Arab countries vote Libs, majority Jewish vote Cons (regardless if they arrived to Canada 5 or 25 years ago)


----------



## s123

andrewf said:


> They will certainly get a majority of the Ontario seats. I don't think that will necessarily translate to a majority nationally.
> 
> As for the NDP, I think they are probably already down to more or less their core vote. Looks like the soft NDP support has already shifted to LPC. Same is true for the CPC--their core vote is in the high 20s. Just a matter of how motivated they are to turn out at the polls.



I saw the site Vote Together that's showed local polling.
It may some Liberal will swing the vote to NDP also.


----------



## sags

None.................great video, thanks for the link.


----------



## sags

Harold, I wish unions had as much political power as you imagine.

Some laws and the priorities of the government would be a lot different if unions had that kind of influence.


----------



## sags

Interesting story that the Opposition has the best office in Parliament. Harper has access to 3 different offices.

It seems some past PM couldn't be bothered to move from the Opposition office to the PM office.............so they all stay where they are currently located.

If he wins.........Trudeau can pick whatever office he wants.


----------



## none

sags said:


> Harold, I wish unions had as much political power as you imagine.
> 
> Some laws and the priorities of the government would be a lot different if unions had that kind of influence.


I know right? Basically i give my union something like 1000 a year and i don't really see that much benefit. Much to people's surprise I actually do thing contrary to union rules (like don't claim for overtime). Problem is if I ever did claim for over time I'd never be allowed to leave the office. Oh well, whatever, job is great.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> A lot of these vote banks are schizophrenic.
> For instance, the same groups that are protesting & rallying at Queen's Park against the Liberal Sex-Ed curriculum changes had no problem voting for the same party just 2 months earlier - even when most of the contents of the new curriculum have been well-known since 2010.
> The same group would have no problem voting for the Federal Liberals today, either.
> 
> The question with these vote banks are _what is their flavor of the month_ - whether their so-called social conservatism will override their vested economic interests, or vice versa.
> So far, economic interests are overriding social conservatism.


well yes, we live in complex times and now every party has policies that conflict both internally and externally ... 

which is why i move from party to party depending on what i want to get at any one election ... 

whether or not immigrants will be like social conservatives and be motivated entirely by social issues remains to be seen but i do think they will hold an strong foundation of social conservatism in some cases ... no different from "old stockers"

sags notion that we will become a permanently leftist country is mistaken i think


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> It depends ... immigrants from some countries, yes, will "vote together in large blocks", from other - won't...
> From my personal observation , majority immigrants from Arab countries vote Libs, majority Jewish vote Cons (regardless if they arrived to Canada 5 or 25 years ago)


You might want to read this Globe and Mail article from Benjamin Shinewald who was the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Basically, while some may vote Conservative, the campaigning and Conservative talking points are starting to wear thin. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...wish-voters-are-pushing-back/article26722650/ 

Of course, it's not up to your usual standard of propaganda, but it's an interesting read.


----------



## gibor365

Take a look what writing "new antisemite" Yves Engler 



> In the 2011 federal election an Ipsos exit poll found that 52 per cent of Canadian Jews voted Conservative versus 39 per cent of the overall population. On October 19 the Tories’ share of the Jewish vote is expected to increase while the Conservatives’ overall total drops.


http://yvesengler.com/2015/08/18/jewish-voters-turning-to-harper/

Or

http://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs...tions-when-it-comes-to-harpers-jewish-support



> generation ago, the Liberal Party could comfortably rely on the vast majority of Jewish-Canadian votes at election time.
> 
> After nearly a decade of Stephen Harper’s government, the Conservatives get more than half of the Jewish vote and the Liberals less than a quarter.


P.S. and I mentioned in my original post that this is from my observation ... i know many Jewish Canadians and vast majority vote Conservatives


----------



## Sampson

none said:


> Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Canadian Election (HBO)
> 
> DON'T VOTE FOR STEPHEN HARPER


Thanks for posting this, it was pretty damn hilarious.

If John Oliver thinks the Elections Act is a little off.... you have to look up the laws surrounding the Queen, portraits of the Queen etc. Treason for locals, declaration of war if done by foreigners...


----------



## andrewf

Not sure if he thought it odd that we prohibit foreigners from trying to influence elections (which seems quite reasonable to me) or that the penalty is so minor (in which case I agree).


----------



## sags

I had to laugh at this tongue in cheek passage in a column by Kelly Parland in the National Post..

_Wait … I think the sun rose a little earlier today…. And it’s brighter! And the birds, the birds are singing again. They’re not afraid any more! The squirrels aren’t collecting nuts, instead they’re distributing them among less fortunate squirrels, and sharing with chipmunks too. Everyone has agreed that it’s unfair to treat the skunks differently, just because they smell, and that from here on skunks will be welcomed into the community — embraced enthusiastically — and can go around smelling wherever they want. Anyone even mentions the smell anymore is downright unCanadian.

Thank you Justin, we have Canada back._

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...light-and-other-reasons-to-cheer-for-humanity


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Not sure if he thought it odd that we prohibit foreigners from trying to influence elections (which seems quite reasonable to me) or that the penalty is so minor (in which case I agree).


I didn't really liked Austin Powers remarks :stupid:


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> I had to laugh at this tongue in cheek passage in a column by Kelly Parland in the National Post..
> 
> _Wait … I think the sun rose a little earlier today…. And it’s brighter! And the birds, the birds are singing again. They’re not afraid any more! The squirrels aren’t collecting nuts, instead they’re distributing them among less fortunate squirrels, and sharing with chipmunks too. Everyone has agreed that it’s unfair to treat the skunks differently, just because they smell, and that from here on skunks will be welcomed into the community — embraced enthusiastically — and can go around smelling wherever they want. Anyone even mentions the smell anymore is downright unCanadian.
> 
> Thank you Justin, we have Canada back._
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...light-and-other-reasons-to-cheer-for-humanity


Conservative snark out in full force...


----------



## sags

Wynne, Notley and now Trudeau..............Sun media will have a nervous breakdown.


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> I didn't really liked Austin Powers remarks


I didn't find any of it funny...but I can see why those suffering from HDS would find it funny.
Oliver should direct his excruciating wit closer to home...such as his own Prime Minister's "pig-gate".


----------



## bgc_fan

HaroldCrump said:


> I didn't find any of it funny...but I can see why those suffering from HDS would find it funny.
> Oliver should direct his excruciating wit closer to home...such as his own Prime Minister's "pig-gate".


I don't know if you were being funny, but he already did that last week or the week before, although it wasn't the full 15+ minutes, it was only for a couple of minutes. You can look it up on Youtube.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Not interested...if he did that, great...he should continue focusing on that...in fact, he should do a full 1 hr. segment on it.

He can throw as many fake CAD $100 bills as he wants, but the good news is we don't have to do what he says.


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> Not interested...if he did that, great...he should continue focusing on that...in fact, he should do a full 1 hr. segment on it.
> 
> He can throw as many fake CAD $100 bills as he wants, but the good news is we don't have to do what he says.


Someone has a case of the Monday's!


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> I didn't find any of it funny...but I can see why those suffering from HDS would find it funny.
> Oliver should direct his excruciating wit closer to home...such as his own Prime Minister's "pig-gate".


I don't care about Oliver who is Brit-American , but Canadian Myers should have some respect toward Canada


----------



## andrewf

none said:


> Someone has a case of the Monday's!


No kidding. 

gibor, a comedian's job is not to respect everything and everyone. Their job is to test limits.


----------



## Sampson

C'mon HC, the bit about an alien trying to fit in undercover on Earth was funny.

Regardless of the overall message, the sweater-vest wearing, lack of empathy, robot stereotype of our Prime Minister is pretty good. Harper`s own whole 'ka-ching' Liberal dollars wasted thing was pretty funny also, but which leader on Earth would suggest we start investing our money into equity markets when everybody is hurting psychologically. I`m surprised he didn`t come out and commend Suncor for trying to buy up COS while it is cheap.


----------



## none

You should have seen the stephen harper outtakes from that video that didn't make the cut:

QUOTE:
"I share your biological make up, and also your morals... for instance the idea of eating another human is not appealing to me!"

"These excellent rooms do not have doors which automatically lock behind you, and the temperature in them does not increase whatsoever."

"I was free to leave the changing room still uncooked and totally alive!"


----------



## gibor365

According to Washington Post, a majority of Americans - 54 percent - favor raising taxes on the wealthy to expand programs for the poor. The problem with this, from a policy standpoint, is that nearly everybody thinks "rich people" are people who make more money than they do -- no matter how much money they actually make. Which of these statements are a good definition of ‘rich’ for you?
imho, there is similar situation in Canada


----------



## none

True to an extent: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/

The biggest problem that i have is that I compare my salary against a family's. 

I'm solid middle class from a household perspective but upper class from a single person's perspective.


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> According to Washington Post, a majority of Americans - 54 percent - favor raising taxes on the wealthy to expand programs for the poor. The problem with this, from a policy standpoint, is that nearly everybody thinks "rich people" are people who make more money than they do -- no matter how much money they actually make. Which of these statements are a good definition of ‘rich’ for you?
> imho, there is similar situation in Canada


And for most people, they are right!

none, agreed. I am in the top quintile for single people (by a decent margin), but not for families.


----------



## gibor365

none said:


> True to an extent: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/
> 
> The biggest problem that i have is that I compare my salary against a family's.
> 
> I'm solid middle class from a household perspective but upper class from a single person's perspective.



Income of richest 20% in Toronto is $298,838 and it's about right! (thus we're only upper-middle 20%) 
So maybe Federal income tax should differ from city to city?!

btw, average numbers in US are similar 


> The Pew Research Center says: a single person would need an annual salary of $66,000 to be considered "upper-income." For a married couple the upper-income threshold turns out to be $93,000, while a family of four needs to make $132,000 to be considered upper-crust


Obviously you cannot compare $132K in NYC and in Mississippi


----------



## HaroldCrump

Sampson said:


> C'mon HC, the bit about an alien trying to fit in undercover on Earth was funny.


Yeah, I agree that part was funny.
So was the remark about Harper's physical appearance & public perception.

I wholeheartedly agree that over the years, Harper's attempts at being more "approachable" and relate to the "man-on-the-street" have fallen flat.
He just isn't that type of personality.

It's too bad that in this day & age of social media and celebs, we expect political leaders to be celebs as well.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> a comedian's job is not to respect everything and everyone. Their job is to test limits.


That piece can hardly be called comedy...it was simply a political advertisement couched as "comedy".

British comedy is the stuff done by Michael Palin, John Cleese, etc...the Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, etc.


----------



## sags

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story though.

My wife and I as singles would have only slightly less retirement income than we do as a couple, but we "double up" on significant tax benefits as a couple.

Double personal and age exemptions, means we earn about $34,000 before taxes are applied. As a single person taxes would commence at $17,000.

For some couples where income between single and couple status are higher, the shared cost of shelter, car, insurance, gas, utilities, food and other normal living expenses is also significant savings.

If we really wanted to make the tax system more fair, we could focus a little more on single people.

Poverty among seniors is most predominant among single senior women.


----------



## sags

One disappointment on this long, long election campaign was so much time spent on non issues.......such as the niqab, which was settled by the court in any event.

There was precious little talk of the Liberal proposal of instituting a cost of living index specific to government pensions, that would reflect their spending more accurately.

There was precious little detail on the NDP proposal of day care, and how that would be funded. A tax credit, monthly cheque.........limits ?

The Conservatives didn't really offer much during the campaign, having announced much of their policy in prior months........UCCB, income splitting etc.

The conversation seemed to continue trending toward non- issue issues.


----------



## none

sags said:


> Raw numbers don't tell the whole story though.
> 
> My wife and I as singles would have only slightly less retirement income than we do as a couple, but we "double up" on significant tax benefits as a couple.
> 
> Double personal and age exemptions, means we earn about $34,000 before taxes are applied. As a single person taxes would commence at $17,000.
> 
> For some couples where income between single and couple status are higher, the shared cost of shelter, car, insurance, gas, utilities, food and other normal living expenses is also significant savings.
> 
> If we really wanted to make the tax system more fair, we could focus a little more on single people.
> 
> Poverty among seniors is most predominant among single senior women.


Exactly. Single people get royally screwed. The whole pandering after the middle class family gets pretty tedious. DINKS will rule the world.

I don't think there should be any 'couple' benefits. As you say, just the shared residence puts many of these people at a massive advantage - I don't see why the government should make it even more extreme.


----------



## gibor365

> just the shared residence puts many of these people at a massive advantage


 than share your residence and enjoy


----------



## none

gibor said:


> than share your residence and enjoy


I could but something I think a lot of people miss, particularly conservatives, is that it's not about scraping for everything you personally can, it's about trying to make society relatively fair.


----------



## gibor365

> to make society relatively fair


 we need flat tax


----------



## none

gibor said:


> we need flat tax


Or extreme socialism where everyone makes the same amount of money? People put far too much faith into the power of percentages.


----------



## gibor365

> Or extreme socialism where everyone makes the same amount of money?


 there is no such thing (I mean same amount of money)... during CCCP the difference between rich and poor was bigger than now in Canada


----------



## Userkare

Hey, I just thought of something ( maybe I'm slow if this has been discussed )...

If this strategic voting is successful, and it removes the Conservatives from power, it might also be so successful that the NDP doesn't get the 12 seats that it needs for official party status. It's a consolation prize, but I'd be happy to see it happen. Falls under "be careful what you wish for" category.


----------



## andrewf

No chance. NDP will get 12 seats in Quebec alone.


----------



## andrewf

Liberal vote share in Atlantic is bananas.


----------



## andrewf

Liberals currently leading/elected in 32/32 Atlantic seats. This just goes to show what is wrong with our electoral system.


----------



## gibor365

> Liberals currently leading/elected in 32/32 Atlantic seats


 Just checked TV.... 32 out of 32 are RED ... I started laughing as it reminded me Communist Party elections during CCCP 



> his just goes to show what is wrong with our electoral system.


 I've said it million times ... it should be proportional (popular) vote.... or we can have ONE-PARTY system ...way to go :biggrin:


----------



## humble_pie

stunning sweep in atlantic canada. What's wrong with our electoral system? imho nothing wrong with the electoral system.

another hour before quebec reporting starts (polls close 9:30 pm ES.] Nail biting.

peter mansbridge asks what will parliament look like if 100% of the maritimes votes red liberal? such a thing has never happened in the history of the nation since confederation.

the cbc journo covering halifax desk can hardly reply for laughing. There's always the Conservative senator from the maritimes, she gasps out. Mike Duffy.


----------



## andrewf

A third of the voters in Atlantic Canada not being represented is not healthy.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> A third of the voters in Atlantic Canada not being represented is not healthy.



A third of the voters opinion goes directly to the recycle bin  This is called democracy :biggrin:


----------



## none

andrewf said:


> A third of the voters in Atlantic Canada not being represented is not healthy.


I agree - people need to focus less on winning and more on what's fair and what's not.


----------



## humble_pie

give us a break. Half the people of canada haven't been represented for 10 years. Miraculously they all survived. Healthy, too. Let's not pretend a liberal party slate in ottawa will bring any real harm to the people of the maritimes.

meanwhile the first quebec riding reports. Liberal candidate Diane Lebouthillier is sweeping her riding in gaspésie-les-iles-de-la-madeleine.

most easterly of quebec ridings, les-iles belongs to the atlantic time zone.


----------



## none

This election tracker is great
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-election-2015/ridings/


----------



## sags

The Liberal platform includes electoral reform, but the truth is that the winning party..........therefore the ones in power, suddenly don't have a problem with the current system.

The cry for reform always comes from the losers, who don't have the power to change anything.


----------



## My Own Advisor

Watching results online with CBC. Good coverage. Libs are walking all over everyone....


----------



## GoldStone

The last EKOS poll is very accurate so far. They nailed popular vote in Atlantic Canada. See page 4.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/final_report_october_18_2015.pdf

EKOS vs actual results:

Libs: 59% / 59.7%
Cons: 18% / 18.4%


----------



## HaroldCrump

If this trend persists, it will be complete whitewash (or redwash, in this case).
I am not entirely surprised...


----------



## humble_pie

a huge, sprawling, diverse country like canada is ideally suited to the british parliamentary system based on riding vote imho.

a popular vote system would quickly turn into a political party dictatorship run out of ottawa. Remote small districts would mean nothing.

i can see how the idea would appeal in a familiar way to persons who grew up under fascism/communism, though.

postscript: two (2) more minutes & quebec polls start counting!


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> The Liberal platform includes electoral reform, but the truth is that the winning party..........therefore the ones in power, suddenly don't have a problem with the current system.
> 
> The cry for reform always comes from the losers, who don't have the power to change anything.


We should have referendum !


----------



## GoldStone

HaroldCrump said:


> If this trend persists, it will be complete whitewash (or redwash, in this case).


Not if EKOS numbers hold across the country. So far, final EKOS poll is almost perfect in Atlantic Canada.


----------



## humble_pie

i thought haroldC had a good one when he said (alas it's smothered under the verbiage) that liberals going forward will be more or less like harper going forward except with higher taxes


----------



## HaroldCrump

Here is the case as I had laid it out.
*Post number 958*


----------



## HaroldCrump

-- sorry duplicate post --


----------



## HaroldCrump

The CBC just called a Liberal govt....with Justin Trudeau as 23rd P/M.
Not calling a majority just yet.


----------



## andrewf

CBC just called it for the Liberals just 10 minutes after the polls closed in most of Canada.


----------



## humble_pie

more stunning. Early results in Outremont - mulcair's own riding - show liberals leading 2 to 1. NDP far behind, conservatives trailing.

i for one will be sorry if thomas mulcair is not elected. He is an intelligent, experienced politician, Ottawa needs him. Were mulcair to lose, surely the NDP would parachute him in via a sure riding?


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> The CBC just called a Liberal govt....with Justin Trudeau as 23rd P/M.
> Not calling a majority just yet.




omg this is so thrilling.


----------



## HaroldCrump

CBC is now flashing a "possible majority" sign...
I may be able to go to bed by 10:30 pm, after all...


----------



## andrewf

Even with the Atlantic result, I would honestly be quite surprised with an LPC majority.


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> A third of the voters in Atlantic Canada not being represented is not healthy.


it is more honest to describe them as what they are ... losers ... maybe next time they will win

i voted for proportional representation here in bc, i would like to give it a shot but i find it hard to swallow the notion that people aren't being represented when we are seeing a complete change of government

you want to get represented ? ... then win, go to the people with the best campaign

i agree that now that the liberals are in power electoral reform will be referred to committee's for study, ... lots of committee's ... who will recommend ... further study

politics is about power not fairness and it's actually a lot more honest (and fair, even in it's dirtiness) when we face that fact


----------



## fatcat

dudes, whoa, will somebody light a doobie man ?


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> more stunning. Early results in Outremont - mulcair's own riding - show liberals leading 2 to 1. NDP far behind


This is strategic voting at play...hardcore NDP voters switching their vote last minute to "stop Harper".


----------



## sags

A Trudeau government will be a lot different than a future Harper government would be.

The list of differences in policy is long.......but this election is as much about the tone of government than anything else.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Even with the Atlantic result, I would honestly be quite surprised with an LPC majority.


They are already at 135 leading/elected...and the pot lobby votes out west haven't even started counted.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> This is strategic voting at play...hardcore NDP voters switching their vote last minute to "stop Harper".


they hate harper so much they are abandoning their own leader ? doesn't say much about the ndp


----------



## HaroldCrump

fatcat said:


> they hate harper so much they are abandoning their own leader ? doesn't say much about the ndp


That and the fact that Trudeau promised more free stuff...


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> This is strategic voting at play...hardcore NDP voters switching their vote last minute to "stop Harper".



HC with all due respect - you are much more knowledgeable politically than i am - but i do disagree. Any other riding but outremont, oui ça se peut. 

but outremont is mulcair's home riding, it's the last bastion. I don't see his loyal voters turning against him just to push harper out.

it's still early hours, i hope the final outremont vote count will return mulcair. Although would he be ready for what that means? he won't likely even be the leader of the opposition


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> That and the fact that Trudeau promised more free stuff...


ouch ...


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> the pot lobby votes out west haven't even started counted.



lol


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> HC with all due respect - you are much more knowledgeable politically than i am - but i do disagree. Any other riding but outremont, oui ça se peut.
> but outremont is mulcair's home riding, it's the last bastion. I don't see his loyal voters turning against him just to push harper out.
> it's still early hours, i hope the final outremont vote count will return mulcair.


Possibly...but remember, we have recent precedents...Ignatieff didn't win from his riding in 2011, and didn't Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe lose his own riding in 2011 as well?



> he won't likely even be the leader of the opposition


I think it's a pretty safe bet at this point that the NDP will be a distant 3rd party in Parliament.


----------



## HaroldCrump

...and the Liberals are now forecast as elected/leading at the threshold of majority...171 seats


----------



## humble_pie

mulcair now leading in outremont by reasonable 56 votes


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> nd didn't Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe lose his own riding in 2011 as well?



duceppe is running again in this election, he's now leading in laurier-sainte-marie by a slim 10 votes against NDP incumbent hélène laverdière (might be laversière, the excitement has gotten to me)


----------



## nathan79

HaroldCrump said:


> ...and the Liberals are now forecast as elected/leading at the threshold of majority...171 seats


181 now... strong possibility of a majority.

Still about 30 ridings to report.

Edit: CTV just called it a majority.


----------



## TomB19

HaroldCrump said:


> ...and the Liberals are now forecast as elected/leading at the threshold of majority...171 seats


A Liberal win will cause my grandmother to contract AIDS and then die of cancer. :upset:


----------



## GoldStone

Why is NDP still a thing? They should merge with the Liberals. Two party system would lead to more clarity in the public policy debates.


----------



## fatcat

TomB19 said:


> A Liberal win will cause my grandmother to contract AIDS and then die of cancer. :upset:


get in there and steal all her media ... total news blackout ... or she is a goner


----------



## fatcat

GoldStone said:


> Why is NDP still a thing? They should merge with the Liberals. Two party system would lead to more clarity in the public policy debates.


i have always wondered that but i am told that in atlantic canada the liberals are more conservative so it would not be a big enough tent


----------



## HaroldCrump

GoldStone said:


> Why is NDP still a thing? They should merge with the Liberals. Two party system would lead to more clarity in the public policy debates.


Their platform in this election is certainly more Liberal than NDP.
In fact, the platforms have been switched this time between the NDP and Liberals.


----------



## humble_pie

TomB19 said:


> A Liberal win will cause my grandmother to contract AIDS and then die of cancer. :upset:



how so? you *are* the grandmother, after all

never was an election in canada as much about the young vs the very old, old, old, _old_ as is this election


----------



## HaroldCrump

CBC just called a majority Liberal govt....*andrewf*, surprised enough now?


----------



## andrewf

CBC calls it as a majority.


----------



## TomB19

Sorry about that last post, my power went out before I could edit it. The grow lights in my hydroponics lab took out most of the circuits in the house.

:biggrin:

I'm a bit taken back by myopic views from a few folks in these forums.

As investors, isn't objectivity one of the most important tools in our toolbox? Shouldn't we be less involved in who wins the game and more focussed on considering who might gain some political advantage so we can enjoy the most financial advantage?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> CBC calls it as a majority.


You owe me a bottle of wine...we have been discussing this for last 2 weeks


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> CBC just called a majority Liberal govt....*andrewf*, surprised enough now?


I will have to see how the popular support shakes out. I guess Conservatives stayed home and a lot of NDP voters made a last minute switch to LPC.


----------



## TomB19

HaroldCrump said:


> In fact, the platforms have been switched this time between the NDP and Liberals.


As far as I'm concerned, the last conservative government we had was Paul Martin. He cleaned up the books and set us on a financially responsible path but folks around my area hated him in a pretty extreme sense.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> I will have to see how the popular support shakes out. I guess Conservatives stayed home and a lot of NDP voters made a last minute switch to LPC.


Conservatives are at 30.5% as I type this, close to where most polls placed them.

NDP, BQ and Green are all below projections. Their potential supporters defected to LPC.


----------



## humble_pie

the NDP will never merge, for starters the liberals won't have them.

the NDP's fated role in canadian history is to propose good, workable, useful social reform systems. Like medicare.

then in spirited dealing with the liberals, the NDP traditionally manage to graft some of their best ideas into a liberal platform.

that's how it works. If the NDP were to merge with the liberals they'd lose their creative passion for social justice. They'd get all fat & stupid.


----------



## TomB19

The parting on the right Is now the parting on the left and the beards have all grown longer overnight. Well... to be fair... in Justin Trudeau's case, it's just some peach fuzz coming in but the point stands.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> the NDP will never merge, for starters the liberals won't have them.
> 
> the NDP's fated role in canadian history is to propose good, workable, useful social reform systems. Like medicare.
> 
> then in spirited dealing with the liberals, the NDP traditionally manage to graft some of their best ideas into a liberal platform.
> 
> that's how it works. If the NDP were to merge with the liberals they'd lose their creative passion for social justice. They'd get all fat & stupid.


+1 from me ... they get woozy with love for their fellow man but actually have no idea how to run a country


----------



## sags

Careful with the references to Justin Trudeau's hair.

It wasn't that long ago that some considered him just another pretty face with nice hair, and some political lineage 

I believe the Conservatives did a lot of things wrong and deserved to get soundly thrashed.

They were too mean to too many people for too long and Canadians grew weary of it all. 

Their style of aggressive government is witnessed by the losses suffered by the vanguard Cabinet Minister MPs of that style of governance......defeated, defeated, defeated.

A Liberal majority government is the best solution. It removes all the political uncertainty of what was going to happen.

Also of note for those interested in fat public pensions..........a bunch of MPs saw their pot of gold disappear tonight.


----------



## mrPPincer

TomB19 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, *the last conservative government we had was Paul Martin. He cleaned up the books and set us on a financially responsible path* but folks around my area hated him in a pretty extreme sense.


yep, you nailed it right there


----------



## sags

Justin Trudeau pledged the first thing he would do in office is a cut in taxes to the middle class.

He has until Friday..................


----------



## mrPPincer

humble_pie said:


> the NDP will never merge, for starters the liberals won't have them.
> 
> the NDP's fated role in canadian history is to propose good, workable, useful social reform systems. Like medicare.
> 
> then in spirited dealing with the liberals, the NDP traditionally manage to graft some of their best ideas into a liberal platform.
> 
> that's how it works. If the NDP were to merge with the liberals they'd lose their creative passion for social justice. They'd get all fat & stupid.


well said HP, agree 100%, especially;
- the liberals won't have them
- in liberaldom(ness?) they'd end up all fat and stupid & lose their ability to make a difference


----------



## HaroldCrump

IMHO, the NDP made a massive strategic mistake by swinging their fiscal platform to the center.
The Liberals promptly took advantage and swung their platform to the left.
That is what I meant above that the platforms have been switched.


----------



## humble_pie

mrPPincer said:


> in liberaldom(ness?) they'd [the NDP] end up all fat and stupid & lose their ability to make a difference


probably the NDP has had the greatest positive effect on building this country of any party, don't you think. 

not, of course, since the time of the Fathers of Confederation. MacDonald, Laurier & Co. But since the time of the CCF under tommy douglas. Not even a century, yet.


----------



## Moneytoo

Congrats to Liberal supporters!(especially sags - you seemed to have liked JT before anybody else did... )


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> IMHO, the NDP made a massive strategic mistake by swinging their fiscal platform to the center.
> The Liberals promptly took advantage and swung their platform to the left.
> That is what I meant above that the platforms have been switched.



HC if i extend your message might you be saying that if the NDP had not made that strategic mistake, they might have been elected tonight?

me i disagree again. I think that tonight canadians simply did what they've always done. They'd already sent the message, with the big NDP swing last election, that they wanted to see social progress, they wanted to see emphasis on middle class, working people, families, they wanted the corruption to stop.

the liberals under trudeau got the message, alright. Some of the NDP ideals were grafted into this election's liberal platform, exactly as other graftings have taken place in the past. Mission accomplished.

canadians being a practical people, all that remained to do tonight was put the liberals in power.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> HC if i extend your message might you be saying that if the NDP had not made that strategic mistake, they might have been elected tonight?


No, I meant that had they not shifted their platform to the right i.e. stuck to their traditional messaging, they could have done better.
They have all but been wiped out tonight...they are almost back to their pre 2011 level in terms of seat %.

I don't think they had any chance of winning outright tonight...their best outcome would have been the swing party in a minority Liberal govt.



> that they wanted to see social progress, they wanted to see emphasis on middle class, working people, families, they wanted the corruption to stop.


If so, why did NDP have such a poor showing?
After all, those are traditional NDP messages.
They are the least corrupt...mainly because they have never been in power.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Stephen Harper just resigned as party leader.
I hope the HDS crowd is happy...


----------



## GoldStone

Jason Kenney:

"I think we need a Conservatism that is sunnier and more optimistic than we have sometimes conveyed."

No kidding.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> No, I meant that had they not shifted their platform to the right i.e. stuck to their traditional messaging, they could have done better.
> They have all but been wiped out tonight...they are almost back to their pre 2011 level in terms of seat %.
> 
> I don't think they had any chance of winning outright tonight...their best outcome would have been the swing party in a minority Liberal govt.
> 
> 
> If so, why did NDP have such a poor showing?
> After all, those are traditional NDP messages.
> They are the least corrupt...mainly because they have never been in power.




i just heard a CBC political commentator making the very same point i made upthread, as he mused over the meaning of mulcair's defeat speech.

the commentator said that mulcair had been curiously upbeat, as if he had already stepped back into the traditional role of the NDP, which is _to ferment new social policy that works for canada, but never to be in power._


----------



## james4beach

Although I voted NDP, I'm still happy with this result. I believe Trudeau will be a good leader, and I'm very hopeful for the future!

Also, *Harper is stepping down* and will no longer lead the Conservative party
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-election-night-speech-1.3279007


----------



## james4beach

Repeating that last point ... Harper stepping down, we don't know who the leader of the opposition will be

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-election-night-speech-1.3279007
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...on-results-2015-live-news-photos-and-analysis


----------



## andrewf

They have four years to figure it out. For Canada's sake, I hope the CPC choose wisely. The last thing we need is a repeat of the keystone kops routine we've seen in Ontario.


----------



## fraser

Result!

So happy to see the back of the Harper Government. I hope that the Conservative party will make it through their divisiveness and return as a great Opposition Party.


----------



## james4beach

I wish they'd change the party's name so that people stop confusing it with the traditional Progressive Conservative Party.

In his concession speech, Harper said something about his party's history back to Confederation. This is misleading... the current party was founded only 11 years ago and is basically the Reform party / Canadian Alliance. It has little that connects it (or its values) back to the Progressive Conservatives.


----------



## sags

Kudos to the CBC for excellent election coverage tonight.

Peter Mansbridge was insightful and humourous, the panels of experts outstanding, and the set was first rate.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> Repeating that last point ... Harper stepping down, we don't know who the leader of the opposition will be


Preston Manning


----------



## sags

It will be an interim leader for quite some time, while the Conservatives organize and hold a leadership campaign and election.

The interim leader could be just about anyone. Bob Rae was the interim Liberal leader until Justin Trudeau was elected.

To think that some mused Bob Rae should run for the leadership..............I doubt he would have accomplished what JT did tonight.


----------



## gibor365

Indians wom practically in All Brampton and Mississauga ridings.... in ours also won turban guy Gagan ... Lady GAGAn should be happy 



> .I doubt he would have accomplished what JT did tonight.


 Sure, hence Bob doesn't have so famous "papa"


----------



## mrPPincer

excerpt from Trudeau's victory speach "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian"

My 79 year old mother bought a balaclava and wore it in support of those who choose to wear the niqab when she voted.. something I'd never have expected as you can imagine, but I am so proud of her. She voted liberal btw.

I backed the wrong horse again and voted NDP; conservatives won in my riding, but it was close, liberals came in a very strong second, & the combined left could have won together in an efficient strategic vote.

Last time I voted liberal but NDP came in a strong second, but the NDP & Liberals together were still less than 50%.

strategicvotingdotca recommended ndp for my riding based on last election but due to this area supposedly not being a swing riding they couldn't finance polls here for up-to-date numbers (not enough crowdsourcing to finance a poll in this riding).

My parents, though being ndp supporters read the writing on the wall and both voted liberal.


----------



## gibor365

> My 79 year old mother bought a balaclava and wore it in support of those who choose to wear the niqab when she voted..


 Funny that many others wore "balaclava - like " stuff in support of Conservative ban  ... Those election can be called "Halloween Election"


----------



## mrPPincer

yeah  right time of year too


----------



## gibor365

> A Kelowna man joined a growing group of Canadians exercising their right to vote while wearing a face covering.
> 
> Greg Teleglow says Canadians may not know that they are allowed to vote wearing face covering.
> 
> He chose a red Halloween mask.
> 
> He also said it was a quick process.
> 
> He needed to show two pieces of identification and swear an oath that he is, indeed, eligible to vote.
> 
> “If we can go around with our faces covered, I’m doing it,” Teleglow says.
> 
> He also went to the RCMP for their reaction.
> 
> He was told that the response to face coverings is up to the individual officer.
> 
> Teleglow also plans to go to the bank.
> 
> “People who wear face coverings also want to do banking business, so are we going to discriminate on this matter or can anyone in society; in a secular liberal society, can anyone wear a face covering?” Teleglow asks.


http://globalnews.ca/news/2286040/voting-in-face-mask-ok/


----------



## mrPPincer

Looks like liberals got a seat or two in calgary and possibly edmonton too, & ndp got a seat in edmonton, cool.


----------



## humble_pie

james4beach said:


> Harper stepping down, we don't know who the leader of the opposition will be



john diefenbaker

no seriously, bring. back. joe. clarke.

he is, as peter mansbridge pointed out last night, the only man alive who ever beat a Trudeau


----------



## humble_pie

gibor said:


> Funny that many others wore "balaclava - like " stuff in support of Conservative ban



no, citizens wearing headgear are supporting the liberals, the NDP & the court decision.


----------



## RBull

humble_pie said:


> john diefenbaker
> 
> no seriously, bring. back. joe. clarke.
> 
> he is, as peter mansbridge pointed out last night, the only man alive who ever beat a Trudeau


True, IIRC PET was wise enough to step down after too many years of weak economic policies and left Turner to receive the record breaking spanking from Mulroney and the Canadian electorate.

Maybe there was something to have been learned there for Harper. History seems to be extremely generous and kind towards PET.


----------



## bgc_fan

RBull said:


> True, IIRC PET was wise enough to step down after too many years of weak economic policies and left Turner to receive the record breaking spanking from Mulroney and the Canadian electorate.


Likewise Mulroney stepped down and left Kim Campbell to oversee the destruction of the PCs. I suspect that most Prime Ministers who don't step down end up disappearing from politics within their term after they lost.


----------



## RBull

^Yes. I was editing my post adding the last line while you were writing.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

i think the joe clark victory was well before the end, though. I doubt mansbridge would have made a mistake, if that might be what you're implying?

the reference to trudeau père in his last years of declining & eroded popularity is eerily apt, though. That's exactly what happened to stephen harper.

perhaps the eight-year model for the top hombre like they have in the US is a useful reference? it would prevent us from having leaders who maintain their iron grips as long as winston churchill or charles de gaule (how long was margaret thatcher anyway?)


----------



## Userkare

humble_pie said:


> john diefenbaker
> 
> no seriously, bring. back. joe. clarke.
> 
> he is, as peter mansbridge pointed out last night, the only man alive who ever beat a Trudeau


Draft Ben Mulroney!


----------



## andrewf

Well, the markets opened, and the TSX is furiously not crashing and the dollar is up slightly.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Well, the markets opened, and the TSX is furiously not crashing and the dollar is up slightly.


Everything to do with the price of oil, almost nothing to do with the elections.
In any case, markets like majority governments.
Esp. one that is continuing the status quo as is the case here.

An NDP majority would have been a different outcome for the markets, perhaps.


----------



## none

andrewf said:


> Well, the markets opened, and the TSX is furiously not crashing and the dollar is up slightly.


Right - if the conservatives won it would have been all about 'because of the fiscal prudence' of the conservatives or some such nonsense. If the TSX was down - it would be because the market was scared of a 'tax and spend liberal'. The TSX is up even though a liberal got in on a majority - just random market fluctuation - it's all so predictable.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> how long was margaret thatcher anyway?


Only 11 years...she won three terms, but was forced to quit mid-way through the third term due to internal party politics.
Had to bring in a stiff-upper-lip, cardboard character (John Major).
The 11 yrs. probably felt like a century to certain groups that hated her guts...


----------



## HaroldCrump

HaroldCrump said:


> Only 11 years...she won three terms, but was forced to quit mid-way through the third term due to internal party politics.
> Had to bring in a stiff-upper-lip, cardboard character (John Major).
> The 11 yrs. probably felt like a century to certain groups that hated her guts...


Also...about as long as Tony Blair
Add in the follow-on Gordon Brown years, and Labor has ruled for far longer than the Tories.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Well, the "best" part of yesterday's results is that hopefully his will put an end to the ORPP nonsense in Ontario.
Wynne has cleverly used ORPP was a wedge issue, and she will hopefully make good on her *promise* (hilarious, innit?) to scrap the ORPP if her pretty boy wins the federal elections.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Everything to do with the price of oil, almost nothing to do with the elections.
> In any case, markets like majority governments.
> Esp. one that is continuing the status quo as is the case here.
> 
> An NDP majority would have been a different outcome for the markets, perhaps.


My point mainly being that people give governments far too much credit for their ability to influence the economy, especially in the short to medium term. It takes a truly reckless government to do a lot of real harm quickly.


On the ORPP, I think the promise was tied to change in the CPP. I think even supporters of ORPP would rather CPP expansion.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> Wynne has cleverly used ORPP was a wedge issue, and she will hopefully make good on her *promise* (hilarious, innit?) to scrap the ORPP if her pretty boy wins the federal elections.



HC, stop that ... to hear you tell it, JT is older than you are

i'm sure you're just as good-looking, too


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> i'm sure you're just as good-looking, too


I am not on the list of sexiest politicians.
*He's already a strong contender for that title*.


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> I am not on the list of sexiest politicians



you probably could be, though

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/justin-trudeau-sexiest-politician-world-6666495


----------



## gibor365

humble_pie said:


> no, citizens wearing headgear are supporting the liberals, the NDP & the court decision.


no, it's not true, many were wearing masks to support niqab ban.... I published before link where QC woman had a bloq supporting ban... here is another one



> Throne wore the mask in protest of the recent Niqab debate, as she tried to prove how easy it would be to vote under someone else’s identity.


http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/149575/Woman-votes-with-mask

Funny that *Egypt to ban niqab-wearing women from voting *
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/21532-egypt-to-ban-niqab-wearing-women-from-voting
So Canada is more muslim country than Egypt?! Way to go "liberals"


----------



## sags

Election tidbit...........every riding the Ford brothers campaigned for Harper.........the Conservatives lost.

It looks like the Ford Nation days are over.


----------



## james4beach

Loved how Harper tried aligning with the drug addict, drunk driving mayor and how he thought that was a good idea


----------



## fatcat

i agree with gibor pie
i think the mask protests were mostly by conservative supporters though i am sure some were supporting the ndp position


----------



## humble_pie

so sorry, i do *not* see mister Pincer's 79-year-old mother wearing a balaclava to support stephen harper & the PCs


----------



## fatcat

i agree, some were lampooning harper
but i suspect most were supporting


----------



## peterk

Feeling weird about this election result. I'm a fiscal and social conservative for sure, yet, my income taxes will be lowered, some _minor_ social issues that actually _do_ affect me personally or in ancillary ways will be addressed in my favor. Meanwhile, other _major_ social issues that don't affect me will go the opposite way than what I'd like to see, yet since they don't really affect me personally I don't care as much except for in an abstract way...

I can only continue voting towards what I feel is the correct way things "ought" to be, though. That is the only reason democracy CAN work. People only voting towards their best interests is what prevents democracy from being so successful, and is what has caused 100 years of growing governments and increased resistance to capitalistic ways, something I can never support.

Yet I must acknowledge my own personal gain from this outcome, and my weird feelings because of it.


----------



## fatcat

peterk said:


> Feeling weird about this election result. I'm a fiscal and social conservative for sure, yet, my income taxes will be lowered, some _minor_ social issues that actually _do_ affect me personally or in ancillary ways will be addressed in my favor. Meanwhile, other _major_ social issues that don't affect me will go the opposite way than what I'd like to see, yet since they don't really affect me personally I don't care as much except for in an abstract way...
> 
> I can only continue voting towards what I feel is the correct way things "ought" to be, though. That is the only reason democracy CAN work. People only voting towards their best interests is what prevents democracy from being so successful, and is what has caused 100 years of growing governments and increased resistance to capitalistic ways, something I can never support.
> 
> Yet I must acknowledge my own personal gain from this outcome, and my weird feelings because of it.


huh ? ... people voting in their best interest is perfectly fine and actually tells us what is happening in the country ... it's up to politicians to respond with programs that benefits as many as possible in conformance with their election platforms

"increased resistance to capitalistic ways" ... are we living in the same country ? capitalism is doing just fine ... one of the reasons the ndp were so soundly rejected is that people recognize capitalism is the best of a bunch of imperfect systems ... both the us and canada lean right in this regard


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> i agree, some were lampooning harper
> but i suspect most were supporting



most of those wearing costumes & masks were in quebec & newfoundland, said the CBC. A few notable exceptions.

cat did you know that quebecers don costumes & masks for any old reason, all of the time? the 2 who drive my recycling truck arrive, work & depart in full costume, including pulldown toques, ski masks, gloves of course, hoodies, leggings. They fancy the warm colours, anything from yellow through orange & tangerine to scarlet, cardinal red, fuscia, pink & yummy plum.

it's not uncommon to go into city hall & find the personnel attired in fanciful costumes that express l'esprit du jour.

the other significant bunch of costumed canadian voters were newfoundlanders dressed as mummers. As you know, newfoundlanders have the best senses of humour. Not to speak of they're the best investors.

the moral of this is clear. You want to improve you investment portfolio? dress up as a clown now & then


----------



## peterk

fatcat said:


> huh ? ... 1)*people voting in their best interest is perfectly fine* and actually tells us what is happening in the country ... it's up to politicians to respond with programs that benefits as many as possible in conformance with their election platforms
> 
> "increased resistance to capitalistic ways" ... are we living in the same country ? capitalism is doing just fine ... 2) *one of the reasons the ndp were so soundly rejected is that people recognize capitalism is the best of a bunch of imperfect systems* ... both the us and canada lean right in this regard


1) No it's not. It leads to those with less taking from those with more by force, and has been happening since the beginnings of democracy and will continue. This needs to be kept in check (or at least slowed) by enough people voting intelligently for the good of the economy/society and not for their own specific personal interests.

2) There is no evidence of that conclusion. The NDP are a left party that inexplicably went right during the last few weeks of the campaign and were punished. The Liberals are a centre-ish party that went left during the campaign and were rewarded greatly. The election results would seem to support the complete opposite of your conclusion.


----------



## andrewf

Count me as a believer in voting for what 'ought' to be and not what benefits me personally, per se.


----------



## fatcat

peterk said:


> 1) No it's not. It leads to those with less taking from those with more by force, and has been happening since the beginnings of democracy and will continue. This needs to be kept in check (or at least slowed) by enough people voting intelligently for the good of the economy/society and not for their own specific personal interests.


and yet we see harold, probably correctly predicting that the libs won because they promised more free stuff, the seniors, the single moms, small business, etc etc and all the rest voted in their best interest ... by the way, people have never not voted in their best interest, that's the only way they can really vote ... it's up to the leaders and the party in power to make the distribution fair



> There is no evidence of that conclusion. The NDP are a left party that inexplicably went right during the last few weeks of the campaign and were punished. The Liberals are a centre-ish party that went left during the campaign and were rewarded greatly. The election results would seem to support the complete opposite of your conclusion.


but what in your wildest dreams makes you think the liberals are not a free market party ?

yes, we can and will argue the fine points of just how free-market they are, but they clearly support property rights, small business rights, large business rights and free trade to name a few of the pillars of capitalism ... in the end they will support tpp


----------



## fatcat

andrewf said:


> Count me as a believer in voting for what 'ought' to be and not what benefits me personally, per se.


sure, of course, you will vote for things you believe are right, i have said from the beginning that i liked the ndp child care program, i would love to see reform of student loans and these benefit me not a bit ... i voted for the greens (mainly to defeat the ndp)

we vote for a variety of reasons but people mainly vote in their own interests and there is nothing wrong with it ... human beings are self-centered, which is fine

again, it's up to the our leaders to lead us in these regards and for them to talk about what is right and make the distribution they see fit and fair


----------



## HaroldCrump

james4beach said:


> Loved how Harper tried aligning with the drug addict, drunk driving mayor and how he thought that was a good idea


He simply aligned with the _wrong _drug addict...he should have aligned himself with the _right _drug addict...this guy


----------



## humble_pie

HaroldCrump said:


> He simply aligned with the _wrong _drug addict...he should have aligned himself with the _right _drug addict...this guy



alas that does look photoshopped ... where was that streetcar ... surely not these days in canada?

EDIT: omg it crosses my mind, would that be toronto's newest Public Transporter?









[/QUOTE]


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> alas that does look photoshopped ... where was that streetcar ... surely not these days in canada?


Not photo-shopped at all...that is a TTC street car.
I think these might be one of the newer Bombardier ones...at least the ones they have managed to deliver so far.


----------



## humble_pie

yes indeedy it crossed my mind after i'd written, i put under Edit
initially i thought it was a 1950s streetcar
maybe BBD did the retro look on purpose


----------



## HaroldCrump

There is one of these running on the Spadina line.
The interior is quite modern.
There are automated ticket & card machines installed inside.
The floor is lower and the windows are larger than the older models.


----------



## peterk

fatcat said:


> but what in your wildest dreams makes you think the liberals are not a free market party ?


I said that there is "increased resistance to capitalistic ways", particularly among liberal/left governments, over a long-term trend of the past 100 years. I didn't says that the current Canadian Liberal party are "not a free market party".


----------



## sags

Please tell me this isn't accurate. It would be downright embarrassing. (from Garth Turner's blog)

View attachment 6553


----------



## humble_pie

sags london & paris look about accurate, maybe somebody else could speak for new york city.

but the toronto map looks spooky. is it an old out-of-date toronto map?

the problem i have is that, apart from the western extension, it looks like an old, out-of-date montreal metro map. A map of the montreal metro c. 1990.

the montreal metro today is about 3 times the size. Had to tunnel underneath 2 sizable rivers, too.


----------



## dogcom

People do vote in what is their best interests but at the same time they have to believe the message. Many don't vote NDP because they don't believe they can actually deliver what they say they can. Or if they do deliver then they will take it away from you in another way like higher taxes. Before Harper first became PM the message his opponents pushed was what is his hidden agenda. This message by his opponents did have some effect in what voters thought of him and the party.

In the last BC election the NDP saying they would shut it all down like the Nat Gas and so on didn't sit well with workers in the north. While it appeared that the NDP was the best party for workers, the workers didn't vote for them because they figured they needed a job or keep their job to see the benefits.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Please tell me this isn't accurate. It would be downright embarrassing. (from Garth Turner's blog)
> 
> View attachment 6553


I think this is misleading. It probably includes non-subway routes for the other cities, and only subway for Toronto.


----------



## peterk

I believe they are all subway routes. I remember this picture meme floating around several years ago.

I think the point of this is to try and prove the too-little public transit in Toronto and it's embarrassing? The only part I find embarrassing is how Torontonians think their city is in any way on equal footing and can be directly compared to much larger, older, and higher caliber cities like NY or London. Use a proper comparison of subway maps from more similar cities like Chicago, Sydney, etc., and the differences are not so vast.


----------



## gibor365

international media reaction on Canadian election results


> How has the international media reacted?
> 
> Canada’s election upset was a top story at news organizations around the world, including Britain and the United States. Kremlin-controlled media in Russia – whose President Vladimir Putin was a frequent foe of the Harper government over the conflict in Ukraine – was gleeful at Mr. Harper’s defeat.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...mplete-guide-to-the-dayafter/article26883248/




> More substantially, there was immediate worry on pro-Israeli and pro-Ukrainian websites that their causes had lost an outspoken champion in Mr. Harper, who spent much of his government’s international capital on those two causes dearest to his heart.
> 
> Correspondingly, the election result garnered cheers from varied other corners – such as the environmental movement, and Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin – that agree on very little besides their shared dislike of Mr. Harper’s policies and style of politics.
> Kremlin-controlled media could hardly contain their glee at the fall of Mr. Harper, who had fashioned himself into one of the most outspoken critics of Mr. Putin’s actions in Ukraine over the past 18 months, famously telling the Russian leader at last year’s G-20 summit that “I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.”
> 
> “Another lout [opposed to] Putin goes: the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper lost the election to the Liberals and must resign,” pro-Kremlin journalist Dmitry Smirnov posted on his Twitter account hours after the result was announced. A headline on the state-owned ************ service used exclamation marks to declare “Trudeau wins! Crack-smoking ex-mayor fails to save Canada’s Conservatives,” referencing Mr. Harper’s pre-election rally with disgraced former Toronto mayor Rob Ford


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...canadas-super-hot-new-leader/article26883867/


----------



## gibor365

The Liberals did very well in ridings with a high percentage of visible minorities: 
Ridings with large visible minority population (even though in our area Caucasians are visible minority )
CON 13%
NDP 7% (strange ....I'd expect more)
LIB 80%

Ridings with low visible minority population
CON 33%
NDP 15%
LIB 45%


----------



## none

sags said:


> Please tell me this isn't accurate. It would be downright embarrassing. (from Garth Turner's blog)
> 
> View attachment 6553


relevant:
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/


----------



## none

peterk said:


> I believe they are all subway routes. I remember this picture meme floating around several years ago.
> 
> I think the point of this is to try and prove the too-little public transit in Toronto and it's embarrassing? The only part I find embarrassing is how Torontonians think their city is in any way on equal footing and can be directly compared to much larger, older, and higher caliber cities like NY or London. Use a proper comparison of subway maps from more similar cities like Chicago, Sydney, etc., and the differences are not so vast.


All subways are different. Here's one from Vas Deferens just south of the equator.
http://i.imgur.com/RtplBP2.jpg


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

What's embarrassing about it? Are you really shocked that London and Paris are larger than Toronto? Does anyone still take Garth Turner seriously? You are kidding right?


----------



## andrewf

peterk said:


> I believe they are all subway routes. I remember this picture meme floating around several years ago.
> 
> I think the point of this is to try and prove the too-little public transit in Toronto and it's embarrassing? The only part I find embarrassing is how Torontonians think their city is in any way on equal footing and can be directly compared to much larger, older, and higher caliber cities like NY or London. Use a proper comparison of subway maps from more similar cities like Chicago, Sydney, etc., and the differences are not so vast.


If I'm not mistaken, Chicago doesn't have underground subway (for geological reasons).

But you're right. London and NYC are both significantly larger cities. Toronto has been suffering from infrastructure underinvestment for 50 years, especially compared to other international 'first cities'.


----------



## gibor365

> London and NYC are both significantly larger cities


 But cities like Budapest, Barcelona or Saint Petersburg are similar size and you hardly can compare subway systems(as public transportation in general) there vs Toronto... Toronto subway reminds me subway in my home town in Novosibirsk 
But I'm not complaining as i don't really care about subway in Toronto


----------



## andrewf

Didn't Budapest and Barcelona benefit from EU hosing cash on poor EU countries? Toronto, unfortunately, is loathed by everyone who doesn't live there, and doesn't have the revenue tools to pay for its own infrastructure.

Barcelona, St Petersburg has about the same population as Toronto (about 1 million less in metro area), so it's not like they are much smaller.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Please tell me this isn't accurate. It would be downright embarrassing. (from Garth Turner's blog)





humble_pie said:


> but the toronto map looks spooky. is it an old out-of-date toronto map?


sags & humble_pie, I am a seasoned commuter in the GTA & S/ON region and I can tell you easily that the Toronto transit map posted above is complete BS.
For instance, it does not show any of the GO Transit lines, let alone SRT, BT and MiWay, etc. (which are regional transit systems connecting with the TTC at various junction points, such as Kipling, Bramelea, etc.)

To ignore the GO Transit line, let alone the dozen other GTA lines, is simply nonsense.

Yes, transit accessibility in the GTA is not as great as London and New York (I happen to have lived in London, and also reasonably familiar with the NY/NJ transit system), but that picture dramatically understates it.

The fact that it is from Garth Turner's blog should have been clue enough that it is complete nonsense.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Low dollar is great for exporters. It helps both Ontario manufacturers and Western resource extractors.


Cheapening currency, without concomitant structural reforms, does not boost exports.
This is same ol' tired, strategy being followed by Poloz and it does not work.

*Sad part is that he does not understand why it does not work, or refuses to see it*.

Purpose the cheapening one's currency is not to boost exports, but simply to import inflation.
And in that, it works like magic, as we can see from the rising cost of meat, produce, and other imports.

Exports can be boosted by technological innovation, product differentiation, superior quality, etc.
People do not buy French wine because it is cheaper this month, people don't buy Mercedes cars because they are cheaper this month, etc.

There are structural issues that are responsible for our stalled exported (referenced in article linked above), not the value of loonie.
For instance, signing the TPP will do more for our exports than a 5c. devaluation of the loonie.


----------



## fraser

This aside, one of the heartwarming things for me was to see Paul Calandra go down to defeat. It goes a little way to boost one's confidence in our democratic system.


----------



## Eclectic12

peterk said:


> I believe they are all subway routes. I remember this picture meme floating around several years ago.
> I think the point of this is to try and prove the too-little public transit in Toronto and it's embarrassing?


What's embarrassing is that people seem to be assuming the only way the public can move is underground. Or perhaps more significantly - that more miles underground translates into more use.

LA seems seems to have 87 miles serviced by trains where Toronto seems to be around 42 miles (ignoring feeders such as Go, LA's MetroLink etc.). Yet the weekday boardings for LA is 348,158 compared to Toronto's 1,093,300. 

This lines up with the bar conversations I had in LA ... "You are riding the Metro subway? Does LA have one? I forgot they do ... how is it as I've never ridden it?".


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Cheapening currency, without concomitant structural reforms, does not boost exports.
> This is same ol' tired, strategy being followed by Poloz and it does not work.
> 
> *Sad part is that he does not understand why it does not work, or refuses to see it*.
> 
> Purpose the cheapening one's currency is not to boost exports, but simply to import inflation.
> And in that, it works like magic, as we can see from the rising cost of meat, produce, and other imports.
> 
> Exports can be boosted by technological innovation, product differentiation, superior quality, etc.
> People do not buy French wine because it is cheaper this month, people don't buy Mercedes cars because they are cheaper this month, etc.
> 
> There are structural issues that are responsible for our stalled exported (referenced in article linked above), not the value of loonie.
> For instance, signing the TPP will do more for our exports than a 5c. devaluation of the loonie.


Are you saying there is no correlation between net export growth and the exchange rate?

I understand what you are saying about branding, but I don't think anyone will ever care about the superior quality and brand equity of Canadian pulp paper. Price is what drives purchasing in that market, and many others.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> What's embarrassing is that people seem to be assuming the only way the public can move is underground. Or perhaps more significantly - that more miles underground translates into more use.
> 
> LA seems seems to have 87 miles serviced by trains where Toronto seems to be around 42 miles (ignoring feeders such as Go, LA's MetroLink etc.). Yet the weekday boardings for LA is 348,158 compared to Toronto's 1,093,300.
> 
> This lines up with the bar conversations I had in LA ... "You are riding the Metro subway? Does LA have one? I forgot they do ... how is it as I've never ridden it?".
> 
> 
> Cheers


And most of the proposed rail investment in Toronto is above ground. All-day service, electrification, and express service on GO lines. It's good that we are moving away from the uncritical "subways subways subways" mantra of Ford into a more pragmatic approach to investment. One of the problems Toronto has had with building transit infrastructure, and especially subway, is that for a variety of reasons, subway in Toronto is designed in such a way as to lead to a very high cost per km. Madrid built a city-wide network much larger in Toronto's in a couple of decades because they were able to build at a fraction of the cost/km that Toronto does on an on-going basis.


----------



## GoldStone

bgc_fan, watch this.

John Ibbitson on two ways Stephen Harper changed Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tephen-harper-changed-canada/article26879867/

The first part is about federal-provincial relations. Ibbitson argues -- and I agree -- that this is the most important Harper's legacy. He transferred a lot of taxation power to the provinces. This will make for a calmer, happier federal-provincial relations for years to come.


----------



## andrewf

Shifting the power balance toward the provinces is a good result. Some of the ugliest features of the Chretien/Martin years was the coercion and bickering over transfer payments and what quid pro quo the fed government could extract in exchange.


----------



## andrewf

On trade, we shall see. Harper did sign a lot of deals, and tagged along with TPP, but the real proof will be whether those deals actually amount to anything. With many of the countries we signed deals
we do vanishingly small amounts of trade anyway. And TPP, alas, seems like it may be DOA in other jurisdictions if not Canada.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> Shifting the power balance toward the provinces is a good result. Some of the ugliest features of the Chretien/Martin years was the coercion and bickering over transfer payments and what quid pro quo the fed government could extract in exchange.


+100


----------



## GoldStone

BTW, Kathleen Wynn seems to be the only premier who is not happy about the new balance of power. She is eager to bicker with the federal government because she desperately needs the money. She helped Trudeau to win... now she will try to squeeze him for a payout.


----------



## andrewf

I think her main dispute with the feds has been over CPP. At the end of the day, a lot of Ontario's fiscal issues are self-inflicted. Ontario has among the lowest per capita spending of any province in the country. There is scope to increase revenues in a responsible way to make the province's finances sustainable. HST increase would be one way, or perhaps a carbon tax akin to BC's rather than a dubious cap and trade scheme as is currently planned.

Another thing that should be done is to stop the bleeding on really low utility spending like the feed in tariffs for renewable energy (this is pushing on a string writ large) and HC's favourite hobby horse: public sector compensation.


----------



## GoldStone

Not sure if CPP was the main issue. She complained that Harper refused to meet with her. This seems like a petty complaint if you take it at face value. I think she was eager to engage Harper to bicker for more federal transfers. Harper would have none of that.

She was very happy the day after the elections. She said that Ontario has a new partner in Ottawa who shares Ontario values. I think that's a code-speak for: Justin, I will take a cheque or e-transfer. Please and thank you.


----------



## HaroldCrump

CPP may or may not be the _top _issue, but it is certainly an important issue.
Wynne has used ORPP as a wedge issue to herd the "expand CPP" vote bank.

All the public sector pension plans are in favor of expanded CPP.
An expanded CPP allows them to leverage the bridge benefit by transferring their liabilities on to the CPP fund.
That way, they can still allow their members to retire at 50/52 with full pension (incl. full CPP) using the bridge.

If by expansion of CPP, we mean increasing the income replacement %, then it is a good outcome for the public sector pension plans - same benefit to members, lower liabilities for the fund.


----------



## gibor365

> Didn't Budapest and Barcelona benefit from EU hosing cash on poor EU countries?


 I didn't get your statement.... Both, Hungary and Spain can hardly be considered as "rich" EU countries


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Are you saying there is no correlation between net export growth and the exchange rate?


There is a connection, of course, but it is temporary and easily lost.

Devaluing a currency is a "beggar-thy-neighbor" with your trading partners.
Competitors will sooner or later take similar measures to neutralize the advantage.

Secondly, once the immediate boost to exports from a cheaper currency is gone, exports settle back at or below previous levels.

Thirdly, devaluation is a double-edged sword - it makes imports expensive.
Which increases the cost of machinery, patented technology, royalties, etc.
In turn, it reduces productivity.



> I understand what you are saying about branding, but I don't think anyone will ever care about the superior quality and brand equity of Canadian pulp paper. Price is what drives purchasing in that market, and many others.


Maybe not in the case of non differentiated goods.
But again, once the lowering of costs via cheapening the currency is done, further productivity gains are constrained due to higher cost of imports.

Take the case of auto sector.
Since 2010, the auto sector has invested $110 Billion $ USD in plant, machinery, and expanding production.
Canada has received the grand sum of 0.2% of that amount.
Most of it has gone to Mexico, US, Brazil, and China.

This data is from a recent report by HSBC Canada on the export sector.
I don't have the link handy, but name of chief economist is David Watt, if you want to Google for it.

Anyway, the falling loonie is not helping matters at all.
Even at this point, with the loonie hovering around 76c., the cost of Canadian labor is hardly lower than US labor, let alone Mexican labor.
And this is including all loaded costs.

Unifor's own "economist" Jimbo Stanford (a hardcore unionist) says that average Canadian loaded cost is $47, while US costs are around $48.

*Competitive labour costs key to saving Canadian auto jobs, analyst says*

Anyhow, my point is that most of the issues with export growth are structural in nature, not currency related.
It is things like labor costs, free trade deals with other countries, labor force rigidity (unionization), regulations, etc.

In this case, TPP would do far more to increase exports than cheapening the CAD$ another 5c. - 10c.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Further to above, here is a *recent interview with CFO of Ford Canada*.

Towards the end he clearly states that low loonie is not a major factor in deciding where to locate production.
In response to a direct, pointed question by Hainsworth, Shanks clearly states that there is no point driving down the loonie to 50c. because that is not the main factor.


----------



## fraser

Absolutely agree. In the short term a lower dollar will help.

Long term...manufacturing is moving south to Mexico/SE Asia where fully loaded labour rates are apparently as low as 1/6th of ours or the U.S.

This is not the Mexico of 25 years ago. Skilled labour, high quality products. Their economy is/has changed. Ours has too....only our politicians of all stripes seem to be in denial and are no doing much about it

Australia HAD the same issue. They no longer have an automobile industry. It relocated to lower cost SE Asian countries just as soon as the country skill set was able to produce a quality product on a consistent basis. We are already half way down this path.

A fifty cent dollar will not solve this challenge, IMHO.


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ but it is not just a "race to the bottom" story, though.
Please listen to what the Ford Motors guy is saying...he says that cost of production in US is *"much, much"* lower than Canada.

It is not just a labor cost issue, but other aspects as well, such as regulation, energy costs, etc.
See what Ontario has been doing with its hydro costs...how can you expect any energy-intensive business to set up new production here?

They canceled two low-cost energy plants (gas plants), while forcing investment in high-cost energy due to ideological reasons.

The issue is career politicians like Wynne/Sousa, supported by entitled lobby groups, do not listen to what businesses and the markets are saying.

Anyhow, my point above is that devaluating your currency by jawboning and cutting interest rates does not boost exports meaningfully.
It imports inflation, which is bad for working classes and consumers.


----------



## gibor365

I liked comment below _All of you calling him a very smart man are delusional... His father was a very smart man, unfortunately Justin has his mother's brains & his father's disastrous policies._


----------



## sags

Was not the resistance about the gas plants primarily coming from residents in the area ?

NIMBY is a problem for politicians on a lot of things.

Nobody wants a nuclear reactor, oil refiner, gas plant, garbage dump, needle injection site, half way house, soup kitchen in their neighbourhoods.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> NIMBY is a problem for politicians on a lot of things.


Get with the times, it's called "BANANA" now.... *B*uild *A*bsolutely *N*othing *A*nywhere *N*ear *A*nybody.


----------



## s123

Automation makes cheaper products.
But it's make a jobless.
No income, no spending, increasing debt that's all are followed.

-47 percent of the world's currently existing jobs are likely to be automated over the next two decades. 
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/th...-about-to-make-half-the-worlds-jobs-disappear

-19 Signs That American Families Are Being Economically Destroyed
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...can-families-are-being-economically-destroyed


----------



## kcowan

gibor said:


> I liked comment below _All of you calling him a very smart man are delusional... His father was a very smart man, unfortunately Justin has his mother's brains & his father's disastrous policies._


Pierre was too smart to be a politician. Margaret had the compassion that we wished had infected Harper. 

(Some have wished that Harper's father had been impotent! :stupid


----------



## gibor365

Just heard on TV that in Liberal cabinet will be 50% females.... So cabinet to be appointed not by Professionalism, but by Gender?!

maybe JT needs also to allocate 25% to gays and lesbians?! 
What a joke :stupid:


----------



## fraser

Here is Evelyn Jacks take on the bottom line impact of the proposed Liberal tax changes. For those who are not familiar with her, Evelyn Jacks is a well known author of many books on Canadian personal income tax. The analysis is based on facts-numbers-not on opinions or political adverts.

http://www.moneysense.ca/taxes/the-real-winners-of-the-new-liberal-tax-policies/


----------



## humble_pie

fraser said:


> Here is Evelyn Jacks take on the bottom line impact of the proposed Liberal tax changes. For those who are not familiar with her, Evelyn Jacks is a well known author of many books on Canadian personal income tax. The analysis is based on facts-numbers-not on opinions or political adverts.
> 
> http://www.moneysense.ca/taxes/the-real-winners-of-the-new-liberal-tax-policies/



scenario No. 9 is the scariest case that Jacks could find?

a single person earning $250k will pay $1,330 more in taxes? that's just over $110 per month? 

gosh, that's less than he pays the cleaning lady. Or the dog walker.

everybody else in Jack's scenarios pays less taxes except the well-off seniors, who stay the same.


_Scenario 9: Single person earning $250,000.

Provision. Current Rules. New Rules. Difference	

Federal Tax	$59,254.79	$60,587.79	-$1,330_


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ we can't argue it both ways i.e. there is minimal tax increase for the vast majority of Canadians *as well as *we are going to spend billions in new social programs, infrastructure, etc.

$250K is squarely in the 1%'er range.
So the 1% wealthy are going to pay 0.52% additional taxes, and there are only a few thousand of such folks in the entire country.
And those sets of $1,300 is going to pay for all this new spending, in addition to compensating for the tax reduction for the other 99%?

Who are we kidding?

Even if we add in the $10B or so of deficit (per year) it is not going to be anywhere near enough for the promises that have been made.

So...we are left with two scenarios:

- _The deficit/debt will be a lot higher than what has been projected_
Or,
- _Very few of the new promises will be fulfilled_

Scenario #2 is the de facto Harper govt. i.e. we will basically get the Harper govt. with slightly higher taxes, and slightly different social & foreign policy rhetoric.
There will be some cosmetic tweaks to the privacy bill, we will scale back some foreign military missions, bring in more refugees, etc.
But economically, this administration will be mostly indistinguishable from the Harper govt.


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> Here is Evelyn Jacks take on the bottom line impact of the proposed Liberal tax changes. For those who are not familiar with her, Evelyn Jacks is a well known author of many books on Canadian personal income tax. The analysis is based on facts-numbers-not on opinions or political adverts.
> 
> http://www.moneysense.ca/taxes/the-real-winners-of-the-new-liberal-tax-policies/


The biggest hit gonna get Scenario that Evelyn Jacks is not even consider
Scenario 10: Couple with one earner, salary of $250,000. Two children, one over 6, one under.


----------



## andrewf

I think we're looking at the latter. And the non-fiscal differences are not meaningless. Legalizing pot and changing the electoral system are not things we were ever going to get from the old government.


----------



## gibor365

> Legalizing pot and changing the electoral system are not things we were ever going to get from the old government.


imho, Legalizing pot not gonna bring any profit for a long term... and I don't think Liberals will change the electoral system, even though I'd like it


----------



## gibor365

> So...we are left with two scenarios:
> 
> - The deficit/debt will be a lot higher than what has been projected
> Or,
> - Very few of the new promises will be fulfilled


My opinion that for the first year "The deficit/debt will be a lot higher than what has been projected". For the 2nd year and further, definition of "rich" will shift down as well as taxation brackets , so the highest income tax will be not 200K+ , but maybe 180K+ or lower...
Liberals got carte blanche and can do whatever they want... and imho, the 1st priority for them: climate change, refugees, foreign aid = to have good reputation worldwide...


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> imho, Legalizing pot not gonna bring any profit for a long term


I agree...govts. tend to overestimate new revenue sources and underestimate cost of new programs.
Any new revenue that does come in will disappear into the black hole of spending.
Govt. spending always expands to absorb all available revenue.
No debt or deficit will be paid off.



gibor said:


> My opinion that for the first year "The deficit/debt will be a lot higher than what has been projected". For the 2nd year and further, definition of "rich" will shift down as well as taxation brackets , so the highest income tax will be not 200K+ , but maybe 180K+ or lower...


You are probably right.
I suspect they will increase the debt instead of posting a very large deficit in the first year.
Trudeau gave clues to this strategy during the 2nd debate (the Globe debate I think).
He said, we have low debt/GDP ratio and low interest rates, so this is the perfect time to borrow.

I expect taxes (in various forms) to increase over the next few years.

He will emulate mama Wynne's strategy i.e. increase income taxes only at the margin (i.e. tax the evil rich), but increase revenue via other sources such as HST on energy, carbon tax, health premium, hydro rates, etc.).



> Liberals got carte blanche and can do whatever they want... and imho, the 1st priority for them: climate change, refugees, foreign aid = to have good reputation worldwide...


Well, Nottingham is in town today to consult with Mortianna on what the next course of action should be.
We'll find out soon.


----------



## gibor365

> Any new revenue that does come in will disappear into the black hole of spending.
> Govt. spending always expands to absorb all available revenue.


Not only this.... from my work in police I dealt with a lot of drug addicts and not many started to use heavy drugs right away, majority started from marijuana ... 
and if retired guys (sags even opened thread about it) are waiting for pot legalization , I just cannot imagine what impact on society will this "legalization" bring... our health care system is already one big disaster.... number of car accidents will go up and so on ... many expect big $ that police/courts will save with "legalization" ...it's a nonsense as police has already their own priorities and marijuana is very far from the top...


----------



## HaroldCrump

Once cannabis is legalized, cops will no longer need to chase casual users and part-time drug dealers.
Perhaps they will (finally) have the time to conclude their investigations into the gas plants scam and the Ornge scam :rolleyes2:


----------



## gibor365

> Once cannabis is legalized, cops will no longer need to chase casual users and part-time drug dealers.


HC, I don't believe that cop chasing "casual users" for a long time (when I worked in police in Israel, even 20 years ago , police didn't chase them), except "part-time drug dealers" who worked at school yards or really big suppliers from Egypt/Gaza ... imho, in Canada situation is pretty similar.

Also, note that cops are government workers, if they have less work, don't think they gonna look for another work 



> have the time to conclude their investigations into the gas plants scam and the Ornge scam


 is it sarcasm?!

Think how much $$$ cops will spend on training how to deal with drivers who drive "high on cannabis "


----------



## HaroldCrump

HaroldCrump said:


> Well, Nottingham is in town today to consult with Mortianna on what the next course of action should be.
> We'll find out soon.


Political rumor mill is saying discussion will be around CPP expansion, and that there will be some announcement soon on a significant phased in expansion of CPP.
Timed simultaneously with Ontario dissolving its proposed ORPP.


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> is it sarcasm?!


gibor, come on, that entire post was sarcasm.
Guess I should learn to use more emoticons :rolleyes2: :biggrin: each: :stupid:


----------



## gibor365

> there will be some announcement soon on a significant phased in expansion of CPP.


 I agree with CPP expansion , but only if it will be fair... not like "rich" pay more and get CPP less


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> gibor, come on, that entire post was sarcasm.
> Guess I should learn to use more emoticons :biggrin: each: :stupid:


That what I mentioned before to fatcat


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> Not only this.... from my work in police I dealt with a lot of drug addicts and not many started to use heavy drugs right away, majority started from marijuana ...
> and if retired guys (sags even opened thread about it) are waiting for pot legalization , I just cannot imagine what impact on society will this "legalization" bring... our health care system is already one big disaster.... number of car accidents will go up and so on ... many expect big $ that police/courts will save with "legalization" ...it's a nonsense as police has already their own priorities and marijuana is very far from the top...


Please don't bring up the gateway myth. You can do a quick google search and you'll see that it's false. If you want to be realistic, you can say that alcohol and tobacco are more likely gateway drugs, if you believe that theory.


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> I agree with CPP expansion , but only if it will be fair... not like "rich" pay more and get CPP less


One of the relatively simpler ways would be to raise the YMPE to $250K i.e. the threshold to be counted as "rich".
9.9% of YMPE will go as CPP contributions.
Income replacement rate will stay around the current ~ 23% or so.

If we as a society wants corporations to pay a "more fair share", then this is one of the best ways to do it, instead of raising corporate taxes.
Corporate taxes go into the black hole of unaccounted govt. spending - raising the employer contribution into CPP will at least go into a segregated account with clear accounting and purpose.


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> Please don't bring up the gateway myth. You can do a quick google search and you'll see that it's false. If you want to be realistic, you can say that alcohol and tobacco are more likely gateway drugs, if you believe that theory.


It's not a myth, but reality... 



> say that alcohol and tobacco are more likely gateway drugs


 tell me also that coffee and Pepsi are drugs


----------



## gibor365

> One of the relatively simpler ways


 Liberals are not looking for simple ways :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> You are probably right.
> I suspect they will increase the debt instead of posting a very large deficit in the first year.
> Trudeau gave clues to this strategy during the 2nd debate (the Globe debate I think).
> He said, we have low debt/GDP ratio and low interest rates, so this is the perfect time to borrow.


You can't increase debt without incurring a deficit. The debt is the stock and the surplus/deficit is the flow.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> One of the relatively simpler ways would be to raise the YMPE to $250K i.e. the threshold to be counted as "rich".
> 9.9% of YMPE will go as CPP contributions.
> Income replacement rate will stay around the current ~ 23% or so.


This doesn't really make any sense. CPP is not meant to help high earners secure a pension in retirement. CPP should be to guarantee some minimum basic income in retirement. So you want a relatively high replacement rate on a moderate income, so something like 50-60% of $50k YMPE. Those that earn more can take care of saving for 'wants' in retirement since they are likely to be able to fund their 'needs'.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Even though I said "simpler", I have serious concerns about CPP expansion.
There is the fair distribution issue that you raised (i.e. it should not become yet another income redistribution scheme by making higher income workers contribute more and lower income workers receiving relatively more).
Then there is the affect on household disposable income and consumer spending.
Thirdly, is the issue of a back-handed bailout for public sector pension plans that integrate with the CPP via a bridge benefit.

Only the first issue is addressed by simply raising the YMPE to $250K and not making any other changes.

Second issue should be addressed as an across the board income tax cut at each income tier - such as a 2% cut at every tier (including the new, yet to be created tiers).

Third issue is the most complex and tenuous to fix.
This whole CPP integration for P/S DBPs was a bad idea, but there is no way to fix it retroactively.
It is hard to fix it moving forward as well because DBPs are pools i.e. there is no designated amount for each individual inside the plan, unlike a DCP.

It is precisely due to the third reason that all major public sector unions are such enthusiastic advocated for CPP expansion, such as the CUPE, CLC, etc.
This would be an awesome lottery bonanza for them, without even having to buy a ticket.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> This doesn't really make any sense. CPP is not meant to help high earners secure a pension in retirement. CPP should be to guarantee some minimum basic income in retirement. So you want a relatively high replacement rate on a moderate income, so something like 50-60% of $50k YMPE. Those that earn more can take care of saving for 'wants' in retirement since they are likely to be able to fund their 'needs'.


Okay, fine, so why is Auntie Wynne creating ORPP?
ORPP YMPE was supposed to be $95K or so.

So what you are saying is that CPP expansion should essentially be yet another income re-distribution scheme in disguise?


----------



## Woz

andrewf said:


> You can't increase debt without incurring a deficit. The debt is the stock and the surplus/deficit is the flow.


I don’t disagree with the point you’re trying to make, but we can have increased debt without incurring a deficit. Just look at last year. Canada had a $1.9B surplus, but our net debt increased by $4.7B and our gross debt increased by $21.9B. Accountants can work magic .


----------



## HaroldCrump

Woz said:


> we can have increased debt without incurring a deficit. Just look at last year. Canada had a $1.9B surplus, but our net debt increased by $4.7B and our gross debt increased by $21.9B


That is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## sags

Woz said:


> I don’t disagree with the point you’re trying to make, but we can have increased debt without incurring a deficit. Just look at last year. Canada had a $1.9B surplus, but our net debt increased by $4.7B and our gross debt increased by $21.9B. Accountants can work magic .


So basically the Harper government was lying about the surplus ?


----------



## Sampson

humble_pie said:


> everybody else in Jack's scenarios pays less taxes except the well-off seniors


not true, scenario 5...and I guess it is not due to increased taxes, but due to UCCB. Since we have 2 young children, actually double whammy. Anyway I never thought we deserved that money anyway.

Unfortunately, I always used it as justification to buy beer... i.e. the government gives me money to buy beer so I can tolerate my children.... what will happen now?


----------



## Sampson

gibor said:


> imho, Legalizing pot not gonna bring any profit for a long term... and I don't think Liberals will change the electoral system, even though I'd like it


for a long time? or long term?

Over a middle term it seems to be bringing in lots of money for Colorado state.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ects-pot-sales-tax-revenue-surge-to-1-billion

regarding gateway drug and accidents... well these are certainly debatable points. In both Colorado and Washington, I understand that more people are being stopped under the influence, and accidents are higher, how much higher? (at least a stoned high I would suppose).

and I guess it is overly dramatic to state that this will have major effects on our society. Quick poll, how many currently use, have used, or know someone who has used pot? In Canada, I would hazard a guess that this is 1 at most 2 degrees of separation...


----------



## gibor365

Sampson said:


> for a long time? or long term?
> 
> ..


For both 



> Vancouver-based Cannabix Technologies Inc., founded by a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, expects to be first out of the gate with a “pot breathalyzer” – a handheld device similar to those used to detect alcohol.


 Time to buy “pot breathalyzer” stocks?!


> Lifeloc sells alcohol breathalyzers for $300-$400 but expects to charge $2,500-$3,500 for its cannabis version.


 who gonna pay this money?!



> he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in a paper this year, said cannabis impairs psychomotor skills, attention, lane tracking and cognitive function, but not enough is known about how much is needed to affect driving performance.
> 
> This is primarily because of the vastly different ways in which alcohol and cannabis affect the human body.
> 
> Whether marijuana is smoked or ingested also dramatically changes how the body processes it. It’s also difficult to isolate the affects of cannabis in crashes if drivers have also consumed alcohol and/or other drugs.





> Washington and Montana have set a limit of 5 nanograms/milliliter (ng/mL), while Pennsylvania has a 1 ng/mL limit.
> 
> Other states prohibit drivers from having any measurable amount of cannabis in their system.


 what gonna be in Canada?!
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/14/374914.htm



> Over a middle term it seems to be bringing in lots of money for Colorado state.


 one of the reason is also "cannabis-tourism" , if it will be legal in all states, profits will go down


----------



## gibor365

If government wants more revenue from "sin-industries", I'd prefer legalization of prostitution and increasing number of casinos, than pot-legalization


----------



## nathan79

If we needed pot breathalyzers, wouldn't we be using them already? Or is this based on the premise that usage will increase? (Except there's no evidence that usage will increase due to legalization.)


----------



## andrewf

CPP in general should not be designed to be redistributive. But, it is somewhat difficult to avoid the following redistributive effects:

-regressiveness, since wealthier people tend to live longer than poorer people, they receive a higher actuarial return on investment than poorer people. This is offset by other progressive features of the tax system
-gender equity. Women tend to live longer than men, so earn a higher actuarial return.

I'm not especially fussed about either. But aside from these factors, we should not try to design CPP contributions/benefits to transfer money either from rich to poor or intergenerationally.

I don't see how expanded CPP that is phased in in an actuarially fair manner would help pension funds. Any increased benefits in future would be tied to increased contributions today.

I don't think a tax cut is necessary, since we are displacing private savings.


----------



## gibor365

nathan79 said:


> (Except there's no evidence that usage will increase due to legalization.)


 I don't have any doubts that 
usage will increase due to legalization


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Okay, fine, so why is Auntie Wynne creating ORPP?
> ORPP YMPE was supposed to be $95K or so.
> 
> So what you are saying is that CPP expansion should essentially be yet another income re-distribution scheme in disguise?


The ORPP is something, but it is not necessarily what I was looking for as a policy. I'm more interested in forcing people to fund their retirement to some minimal level if they have high enough lifetime incomes.


----------



## andrewf

Woz said:


> I don’t disagree with the point you’re trying to make, but we can have increased debt without incurring a deficit. Just look at last year. Canada had a $1.9B surplus, but our net debt increased by $4.7B and our gross debt increased by $21.9B. Accountants can work magic .





HaroldCrump said:


> That is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.


Then why even listen to governments when they promise/announce a surplus if the surplus is a lie?


----------



## HaroldCrump

The reason to expand CPP should be to provide pension income (i.e. guaranteed annuity), regardless of income level.
Same income replacement % should be targeted (currently around 25%).
Within certain limits, of course.
Current YMPE is too low.

It is the upper-middle & higher income earners that have issue replacing income during retirement to maintain lifestyle.
CPP can help with that.



andrewf said:


> I don't see how expanded CPP that is phased in in an actuarially fair manner would help pension funds.


Because of the chasm between early retirement age in public sector vs. CPP, which is covered by bridge.
In order for it to be actuarially fair, retirement age should be equal and early retirement penalties should be the same between CPP & PS DBP.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I'm more interested in forcing people to fund their retirement to some minimal level if they have high enough lifetime incomes.


Okay, so the easiest solution for that is to increase the YMPE and keep contribution rates at current 9.9% of income.

I suggested $250K because that is the new threshold for the highest MTR bracket.
But it could be lower, at say $220K, which is Ontario's threshold, or even $200K.
Anything higher than the current $55K, which is way too low.


----------



## andrewf

Raising YMPE doesn't solve the problem for middle-income people. Also, 9.9% is higher than needed for any expansion of CPP above the current YPME. I think it's been estimated that doubling CPP benefits would require an additional 6% payroll contribution. So logically, any expansion of YMPE at current replacement rates could also be phased in at ~6%.


----------



## HaroldCrump

You said : "_forcing people to fund their retirement to some minimal level if they have* high enough lifetime incomes*_"
Raising YMPE solves that problem.

If you want to force high income people to save more (i.e. avoid depending on OAS) - increase YMPE
If you want to increase income replacement % - increase contribution rate to more than the current 9.9%

What we cannot (should not) do is increase contribution rate above certain income threshold (say $100K), but increase pension amount for only those with lower income (say $50K).
That is simple income re-distribution.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> The reason to expand CPP should be to provide pension income (i.e. guaranteed annuity), regardless of income level.
> Same income replacement % should be targeted (currently around 25%).
> Within certain limits, of course.
> Current YMPE is too low.
> 
> It is the upper-middle & higher income earners that have issue replacing income during retirement to maintain lifestyle.
> CPP can help with that.
> 
> 
> Because of the chasm between early retirement age in public sector vs. CPP, which is covered by bridge.
> In order for it to be actuarially fair, retirement age should be equal and early retirement penalties should be the same between CPP & PS DBP.


I don't see how that would impact CPP. Any increase in benefits would be solely funded by increased contributions, so this is not a case of transfers from one group to another. Your problem is with the workplace pension, and the problem is the same regardless of what happens to CPP.


----------



## HaroldCrump

It impacts CPP because the CPP fund is forced to cover a full pension for a P/S retiree from the age of 52 until 65.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> You said : "_forcing people to fund their retirement to some minimal level if they have* high enough lifetime incomes*_"
> Raising YMPE solves that problem.
> 
> If you want to force high income people to save more (i.e. avoid depending on OAS) - increase YMPE
> If you want to increase income replacement % - increase contribution rate to more than the current 9.9%
> 
> What we cannot (should not) do is increase contribution rate above certain income threshold (say $100K), but increase pension amount for only those with lower income (say $50K).
> That is simple income re-distribution.


Yeah, that is what I have been suggesting. Increasing the contribution rate by ~6% on the current YMPE. I don't think there is a need to provide replacement income for incomes above that. And it should be actuarially fair-no transfers built in (other than the two I described--women and higher income/healthier individuals which are complicated to avoid).


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> It impacts CPP because the CPP fund is forced to cover a full pension for a P/S retiree from the age of 52 until 65.


Do you have a source for that? My understanding was the PSPP covered the bridge benefit, not the CPP.

I found this document:

http://www.opb.ca/portal/ShowBinary...blications/Shared/Booklets/en/CPP Integration

On page 3, it states this:



> *If you retire early, your PSPP provides an early retirement bridge benefit over and
> above your lifetime pension amount until you reach age 65. *
> It’s important to understand that your PSPP early retirement bridge benefit and your CPP
> pension are not the same amount. Your early retirement bridge benefit from the PSPP
> is calculated based on the pension credit you have in the PSPP (up to a maximum of 35
> years), whereas your CPP benefit will reflect the benefit you’ve earned in the CPP during
> your entire working career


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> It's not a myth, but reality...
> 
> tell me also that coffee and Pepsi are drugs


Caffeine is a drug, you do suffer withdrawal symptons if you are a heavy drinker.

The gateway drug theory is a myth because you're asking hard drug users if they used marijuana and assume that because they used marijuana they turn to hard drugs. I bet you have a higher percentage of hard drug users drinking alcohol more than marijuana as their "gateway" drug.

The assumption is that you use marijuana, you become a hard drug user. In actuality, it is probably a small percentage who take both.


----------



## gibor365

> This study--the most comprehensive national assessment ever undertaken-
> CASA's analysis reveals:
> Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users.
> Children who drink are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than non-drinkers.
> Children who smoke are 19 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers.
> The CASA study also links the use of gateway drugs by children with subsequent regular use of illicit substances as adults:
> 
> Adults who used marijuana as children are 17 times more likely to be regular cocaine users.
> Adults who drank as children are six times more likely to be regular cocaine users.


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss10/record2010.24.html

.S. This study was done when marijuana was illegal ...


----------



## andrewf

Even if the correlation is not spurious, there is no proof of causation. It's likely that drug use is caused by some third factor. Additionally, when marijuana is legalized, I expect that the correlation in use would fall in line to that with alcohol and tobacco.


----------



## gibor365

> I expect that the correlation in use would fall in line to that with alcohol and tobacco.


 I expect completely opposite


----------



## andrewf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html



> The new DPRC research thus demonstrates that the phenomena supporting claims that marijuana is a gateway drug also support the alternative explanation: that it is not marijuana use but individuals' opportunities and unique propensities to use drugs that determine their risk of initiating hard drugs. The research does not disprove the gateway theory; it merely shows that another explanation is plausible.
> 
> *Some might argue that as long as the gateway theory remains a possible explanation, policymakers should play it safe and retain current strictures against marijuana use and possession. That attitude might be a sound one if current marijuana policies were free of costs and harms. But prohibition policies are not cost-free, and their harms are significant: The more than 700,000 marijuana arrests per year in the United States burden individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society as a whole.*


You're indulging in confirmation bias. One upside of legalizing marijuana is that its health effects can more readily be studied. In the mean time, a lot of the harm of prohibition will go away. We can stop stuffing jails with minor drug peddlers.


The arguments in favour of alcohol prohibition were likely just as strong (alcohol use is in many ways more harmful and more prevalent than marijuana use), but prohibition was untenable and caused a lot of negative side effects by giving organized crime a large industry to operate it, created a large and unwieldy police and criminal justice industry codependent on that prohibition, and expose typical otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal elements.


----------



## MyCatMittens

andrewf said:


> Even if the correlation is not spurious, there is no proof of causation. It's likely that drug use is caused by some third factor. Additionally, when marijuana is legalized, I expect that the correlation in use would fall in line to that with alcohol and tobacco.


I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another; however, has our government really run out of important issues to talk about? This shouldn't even come close to making the agenda IMHO. I guess it is easier than tackling the important issues which require contentious decisions. I really have a hard time believing we have teams of police and jails full of people over minor marijuana offenses. But then again, given I really don't have any concrete data, perhaps I am wrong, and we are dedicating massive resources to busting "teenagers" smoking pot. And if we do it, let's make sure we tax the heck out of it


----------



## bgc_fan

MyCatMittens said:


> I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another; however, has our government really run out of important issues to talk about? This shouldn't even come close to making the agenda IMHO. I guess it is easier than tackling the important issues which require contentious decisions. I really have a hard time believing we have teams of police and jails full of people over minor marijuana offenses. But then again, given I really don't have any concrete data, perhaps I am wrong, and we are dedicating massive resources to busting "teenagers" smoking pot. And if we do it, let's make sure we tax the heck out of it


The funny thing is aside from Trudeau talking about legalizing it a year ago, the Liberals weren't the ones that keep bringing it up. It was the Conservatives who kept the issue going with their ads.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Do you have a source for that? My understanding was the PSPP covered the bridge benefit, not the CPP.


My previous post was incorrectly worded.
I wanted to say that increasing CPP pension payment would indirectly cause the taxpayer to funnel more money into public sector pension plans to support the higher bridge benefit.
I ended up writing it backwards, sorry.

The bridge benefit is indeed paid by the pension plan, however, that pension plan is funded by taxpayers through general tax revenue.
Increasing the CPP amount, while leaving early retirement formulas intact, would effectively increase a DBP pension plan's liability.

This is because given no change in retirement age and no change in average life expectancy, pension plan now needs to pay out a higher bridge pension.

How will the funding gap be "bridged" - usually by increasing contributions.
Which means, higher taxpayer contribution into the plan for the employer portion.

Net effect is - same level of public service (both quantity and quality), but higher cost for taxpayers.

There isn't much discussion or scrutiny on this in the public domain.
*Several years ago, Catherine Swift wrote a blog post on this*.

CPP contribution rates and benefits have not changed since the mid 1990s, so this issue is likely to be completely ignored in any debate over CPP expansion.
If that goes ahead, taxpayers will silently funnel billions more into public sector pension plans.


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss10/record2010.24.html
> 
> .S. This study was done when marijuana was illegal ...


Taking a look at the CASA Wikipedia entry would show that they use questionable research that is not peer reviewed. So I would take a 20 year old 'study' with a grain of salt. Particularly since they don't talk about their methodology, just that there was a study.
Some more current articles would dispelled the myth.
http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-not-gateway-drug-325358


----------



## GoldStone




----------



## andrewf

Ah, let's wait before showing off the chips on our shoulders, no?

I mean, let's criticize what they do or fail to do, rather than criticize what you speculate they may do.


----------



## GoldStone

Admit it, that was a funny cartoon. each:


----------



## TomB19

I enjoyed it.


----------



## james4beach

I was playing with the CBC map of election results.

What blows my mind is that everywhere I have lived throughout Canada has become solidly red. Just amazing! Winnipeg ... sea of red. Toronto ... sea of red. My other Ontario cities too. Just amazing, all Liberal!


----------



## crr243

james4beach said:


> I was playing with the CBC map of election results.
> 
> What blows my mind is that everywhere I have lived throughout Canada has become solidly red. Just amazing! Winnipeg ... sea of red. Toronto ... sea of red. My other Ontario cities too. Just amazing, all Liberal!


I have to chime in and address this.

For full disclosure, I voted Liberal in the 2015 Federal election, but I did not do so in the 2015 Alberta provincial election. My voting decisions are based on the benefits I see for my family and my country, and not based on any sort of partisan ideals. I am non partisan.

Now, that being said so that you can assured that I am not speaking with an anti-Liberal bias, just because a given candidate won a riding does not mean the majority of people, even the majority of those who cast a ballot, supported that candidate. If you dig a bit deeper than first past the post seat count, the Liberals only won a majority of the popular vote in Yukon and Atlantic Canada. Their Canada-wide popular vote was less than 40%. I implore you to look at the statistics of some the Liberal ridings. I'd be willing to bet that they didn't even achieve a majority vote count in most of the ridings they won.

I agree, however, that Canada is a left leaning country. The majority of voters cast a ballot for a left of center party (NDP, Liberals, or Green). 

By the nature of Canada's electoral system, winning a majority does not equate to proper representation of the majority's opinion.


----------



## andrewf

^ Thankfully, (and hopefully,) this will be the last election under FPTP, so that concern (while valid) should not be an issue in future elections.


----------



## gibor365

> What blows my mind is that everywhere I have lived throughout Canada has become solidly red. Just amazing!


 it's really amazing if Canada will be 100% red .... I lived in such country before and it's really "amazing" :stupid:



> hopefully this will be the last election under FPTP, so that concern (while valid) should not be an issue in future elections.


----------

